Conversation — 29 May 2011

Thusness: Anatta is often not correctly understood. It is common that one progresses from the experience of non-dual 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.

Conversation — 2009–2013

Thusness: No-mind is an experience, it is not an insight. People that have experienced no-mind know there is such experience and aim towards achieving it again. But insight is different... it is a direct experiential realization.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: That all along it is so. 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. We do not 'see' that it is the wrong view that 'blinds'—a mistaken view shaping our entire experience.

AEN: I see. Dharma Dan calls it the knot of perception, right?

Thusness: Yes.

AEN: So no-mind is a stage?

Thusness: No-mind is the peak of non-dual, the natural state of non-dual where the background is completely gone.¹ Very often a practitioner in an advanced phase of non-dual 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 non-dual where the background is deemed irrelevant, it requires insight of anatta.

Thusness: Awareness is just a label... Some of the texts you quoted are also misleading. When one spoke to others in the Longchen forum, some is to lead one into non-dual from "I AM" because they can't accept anatta insight but are able to penetrate non-dual.

When anatta insight arises, one realizes there is no background. When insight of emptiness arises, then all is just sharing the same taste, luminous yet empty.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: That is, I do not see Awareness, just a luminous manifestation. There is no sense of Self/self or Awareness. There is always only sound, forms, smell... sweetness... hardness... thoughts... effortlessly manifesting. Non-dually experienced. In terms of actual experience, what is written in the forum is not enough. The intensity of luminosity isn't there. First you go through the "I AM" for a period first; later you will understand what I mean.

Thusness: Not by way of non-identification. By realization—the arising insight where the mirror does not exist. If at the back of one's mind, there is this belief of a self, then will the experience of no-mind be intermittent or permanent?

AEN: Intermittent.

Thusness: So how is one without the realization to have a permanent experience of no-mind? There is no clarity, no doubtlessness of no-self; is it possible that there is a permanent and effortless experience of all sensate experiences without self?

Thusness: To be more exact, the so-called 'background' consciousness is that pristine happening. There is not a 'background' and a 'pristine happening'. During the initial phase of non-dual, there is still habitual attempt to 'fix' this imaginary split that does not exist. It matures when we realized that anatta is a seal, not a stage; in hearing, always only sounds; in seeing always only colors, shapes and forms; in thinking, always only thoughts. Always and already so.

Conversation — 15 April 2013

John Tan: One Mind means consciousness is of true existing like a container. Consciousness is not in the body but the body is in consciousness. Sound arises in consciousness. Therefore consciousness doesn't change.

The other (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. That sound is the sound-consciousness. There is no such thing as sound, or sound-consciousness, when we say "I hear sound."

John Tan: How do you differentiate One Mind from No Mind to Anatta?

Soh Wei Yu: In no-mind there is no subsuming involved, there is only manifestation. But as an experience. In anatta there is insight into no agent in seeing, just seen pure manifestation. One Mind is subsuming but yet non-dual is experienced.

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: Yes, it is not.

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

John Tan: Everything is consumed into the source (for One Mind). I AM is just the pure background behind but external objects are not subsumed into it... like separate. I am I... dualistic. In this case (One Mind) all is being consumed/subsumed into the source. Sound is consciousness is not One Mind but No Mind.

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.

John Tan: 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 actual consciousness 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 pointing 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.

Soh Wei Yu: I see.

John Tan: In hearing, there is only sound. Hearing implies the presence of sound.

Conversation — 2009

Thusness: There is a difference between having non-dual realization yet being unable to go beyond the subject-object view of seeing things. This means there is non-dual experience, there is non-dual realization, but still the practitioner is unable to understand this experience from a view free from subject-object dichotomy.

Unless our experience and mind is so thorough in seeing through the center, the agent, the source, we will still subtly grasp a 'source' and that prevents us from thoroughly experiencing no-self. The truth of anatta is being distorted and understood as non-dual experience.

Thusness: The Advaita experience will sort of see awareness as permeating and transcending. That is because the view rests upon subject-object dualism.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: If it rests upon Dependent Origination, there is no such problem.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: 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.

Conversation — 22 November 2013

John Tan: But this is also good so that the point that a practitioner may have clear experience of no-mind but a view of One Mind... Thus view, experience and realization.

Conversation — 14 May 2013

John Tan: One Mind is different. One Mind as I told you is the witness is gone but subsumed into an overarching Awareness.

Soh Wei Yu: Is there a distinct phase of One Mind in your seven stages?

John Tan: Phase 4.

Soh Wei Yu: But you said phase 4 you already realized anatta and experience no-mind? So does that mean the insight already arise by tendency to sink back to One Mind is still there?³

John Tan: All such gray area is put onto phase 4 insight when view isn't completely clear. There is no way to describe the gray scale. Even in anatta there are so many different degrees of refinements.⁴

Soh Wei Yu: I see.⁵

John Tan: But it is not practical to talk about all.⁶

Soh Wei Yu: I see... You mean not describa⁷ble.

John Tan: No... not that it is not describable but not practical to describe. Like AF [Actual Freedom] is part of the deviation looking into purely physical flesh and blood of pure experience... Some went into details, some do not.

Soh Wei Yu: What do you mean by went into details?

John Tan: It is like I AM, there are all those experiences you undergone but I do not say they are different phases.

Conversation — 14 April 2013

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 relies 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?⁸

Soh Wei Yu: The basis is just the experience right?⁹

John Tan: Yes which is plain and simple. When ¹⁰we say the weather is windy, feel the wind, the blowing... But when we look at language and mistake 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.

Conversation — 2020

John Tan: So what is One Mind, what is No Mind and what is Original Mind in this context? One Mind is post-non-dual but subsuming leaving trace. No Mind is just One Mind except that there is evenness till the last trace is gone. Like what explains in the text. Uji... all is time therefore no time. When you go from dual to non-dual 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.

Conversation — 24 June 2024

Soh Wei Yu: I told Nafis, “I personally think in stage 4, should ask people to contemplate the anatta stanzas already instead of waiting for stage 5.” What do you think? I think its safer for them to just contemplate anatta straight rather than aim for One Mind? To me One Mind is the result of the lack of thoroughness of insight into no-self, so no need to particularly aim for. Although I think many will go through it inadvertently.

John Tan: Practitioner will almost without fail skewed towards One Mind because both subject and object are non-arisen is not understood. Therefore latching back to a mind and making it more ultimate despite non-dual experiences becomes the default.

Soh Wei Yu: In my case there was a short One Mind phase when I was contemplating no-self, Bahiya Sutta, the borderlessness between awareness and manifestation, etc., not very clear cut.

John Tan: Yes.

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah the non-dual is there even before mind is thoroughly deconstructed and seen through. I think one can start contemplating on the two stanzas though soon after I AM.

John Tan: Yes.

Conversation — 9 August 2020

John Tan: 1-3 Cessation and dual. Phase 4 insight onwards is non-dual. Cessation is important when you want to rid the Self but no way to do it... lol.

Soh Wei Yu: I see... so One Mind is phase 4 onwards? Before phase 4 you also had glimpses of One Mind right?

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

Soh Wei Yu: I see... so stage 2 [also can be stage 1] is also like One Mind except dualistic. Stage 4 is like non-dual but still have subsuming tendency so might not yet overcome One Mind.

John Tan: Yes.

Soh Wei Yu: I see... yeah I remember during I AM I also had subsuming tendency. But different from post-non-dual but only really overcome subsuming after anatta.

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

Facebook Discussion

User: Hey folks... Right now 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'.

Soh Wei Yu: Welcome to AtR group. Not exactly mistaken because no-mind is important, but should complement 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.

John Tan (Archive 2012): Anatta is about right view... Means you must have the experience of no-mind and realized no-self with right view. Or you have no-mind experience and with the help of right view, realization dawns.

Geovani Geo: Calls my attention the fact that you call the realization of I AM the same as One Mind. I was a kid... when suddenly I realized that "I AM the only one looking out from eyes, all others are seen from outside". But this insight was not accompanied by any notions of One Mind. I still felt as an entity looking out from the body. Nonetheless, this I AM (looking) had something genuine... for it was totally absent of concepts, thoughts.

Soh Wei Yu: I AM and One Mind is different... Rupert Spira in recent years had an even more mature insight... into seeing how usually we think objects are seen and awareness is unseen but it's the complete opposite -- objects are never seen, only Awareness is ever seen, heard, touched, etc. This is mature All-Is-Mind insight venturing into No Mind. However I don't think anatta insight has arisen.

Geovani Geo: John Tan: "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." The reflection and the mirror is not the same?¹¹

Soh Wei Yu: Means in no-mind, there is the direct experience that that mirror (consciousness) is the substance of reflection (sights/sounds/th¹²oughts/etc), the experience is one of complete non-duality as manifestation, yet the 'view' is still not anatta, still subtly dualistic -- reflection is still seen as not the same as the unchanging mirror. So when analysing and expressing that experience he will use that dualistic framework to express it... Therefore the peak experience is not congruent with the view (the 'conceptual' framework) one holds, there is a desync between view and experience.

Geovani Geo: Ah... is he saying that the view is a smaller realization than No Mind? I see.

Soh Wei Yu: What I mean is that in between One Mind and No Mind the experience and realization gets refined but not yet the realization of anatta... when anatta is realized, then the experience of no-mind (as just manifestation) becomes in line or in sync with the anatta view. Then one can further expand that emptiness insight to mind/body, and nature of phenomena.

View is the paradigm or framework in how consciousness is viewed in relation to phenomena... One can have a completely non-dual experience and yet the 'view' one holds is dualistic, therefore view and experience becomes incongruent/desynchronized, and the peak experience will not be stable and effortless. Also as Thusness pointed out, the view aspect does not just pertain to subject/object duality but more importantly 'inherent existence'.¹³

André A. Pais: View is not a stage, it's more like a structure, paradigm or even tec¹⁴hnique. It's the ideological or philosophical framework that supports the practice.

Soh Wei Yu: Yes, view is not the stage but the paradigm. The direct realization of the right view of anatta, dependent origination and emptiness is Thusness Stage 5 and 6, you can say the 'realization' is a new phase or stage. Ultimately the emptiness view is a viewless view... However one should contemplate dependent origination and emptiness and refine the insight into one's empty radiance. It is an important raft.

As Thusness wrote elsewhere: "...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 the mundane is precisely where one's natural radiance is fully expressed... 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 seen, heard, touch ...etc as one's empty clarity, not to bring us to an unreachable la la Land."

Each stage has its own view (Paradigm/structure). Dualistic and inherent - I AM. Non-dual but inherent - One Mind~No Mind. Non-dual and non-inherent - Anatta, dependent origination and emptiness (stage 5-6).

Geovani Geo: Thusness: "we do not 'see' that it is the wrong view that 'blinds' a mistaken view shaping our entire experience." This is something so relevant. We are limited by our view!

André A. Pais: That's why right view is the 1st factor in the noble 8fold path; and why it is said that the 5 paramitas are blind in the absence of the 6th (wisdom). We can't experience freedom with a constricted (philosophical and existential) view.

Geovani Geo: Right. I just got the full meaning of the line: "view, experience and realization". This "route" is repeated in each stage. But it is dynamic. The view evolves so, experience and realization also evolve according to the present view.

Conversation — 2010

Thusness: You are using stage 4 understanding to explain 6. I am not interested in views, only the insight that allows you to understand the right view. That is in phase 4, 'non-dual' is the insight. In phase 5, that observer is gone... there is no such observer at all. Anatta. That is the 'insight' that must arise. Just like what Dharma Dan said.

Thusness: You do not deny subjective or object reality. They are only provisional and conventional. But when the dualistic and inherent hears the term 'non-dual', they either visualize the 2 becoming one or 'you have become me'... Because this is how a mind that is trapped would think despite the experience. For what that is beyond the four extremes cannot be expressed adequately using language. So what that is important is the insights, and see how one expresses these insights.

Like Joan Tollifson... it is the direct experience, there is no view about it. This means a practitioner will only experience hardness, softness, intentions, scenery, sound. No self. Action. Directly.

But conventionally, you are still you, I am still me. There is no such thing as you are me, get it? Or there is an awareness that is sound, or all is just this awareness; there is no such concept. There is sound, sight, thoughts. And what you call awareness are just that.

AEN: I see... I talked about it in [The Tao Bums].

Thusness: Yeah but your mind is thinking some awareness, or all are just this awareness. This is a dualistic way of understanding, though experience is non-dual. That is phase 4. That is treating winter as spring and spring as autumn. That is treating fire as becoming ashes. Get it? Although you said that sound is awareness, you are still treating it as that. As if winter becomes spring or winter is spring. It is different. For example Dharma Dan said there is just sensations, thoughts... the aggregates. Whether super awareness or awareness. It is different from saying sensation is awareness, thoughts is awareness as if awareness has become thoughts.

Conversation — 24 April 2020

John Tan: Tell me how you understand in the past before engaging deeply into Buddhism. What you understand. When you say the tree exist, it is out there....how you feel and experience.

Soh Wei Yu: Feel like a separate observer interacting with an observer independent object out there.. everything about the tree including its shapes and colours just exist out there and are intrinsic attributes of the object. Also experience things from a distance as a self before anatta.

John Tan: Yes. Even the sound we hear. We don't actually examine and investigate deeply. What happened in I AM or I-I or just I and post that?

Soh Wei Yu: Theres a doubtless direct immediate taste of luminosity.. without concept or intermediary. Just a pure sense of presence. But for I AM just the thought realm and not as sound etc.

John Tan: I am not talking about that. I am talking about trees, separation, objects... as you said earlier... does it change anything.

Soh Wei Yu: At the I AM level up to One Mind, all phenomena are like passing clouds floating by from within a vast ground of being.. especially at I AM it still feels dualistic. At One Mind everything is indistinguishable but there is not the clarity of view and no-mind not fully stabilized. Anatta realization dissolves the background observer. At I AM and One Mind I feel like the source out of which everything emerges.

John Tan: At I AM, do you feel things are still external?

Soh Wei Yu: Yes and the focus is on the internal sense of background beingness.

John Tan: Just recall your experience even after I AM. Don't mixed up phases of insights and gross through. Do you or do you not feel things are still external?

Soh Wei Yu: There is a sense that they are contained or emerging from and subsiding within a formless container of pure being.. so things are in a sense within me but not me, still dualistic. I wrote about how I am not running past objects, the scenery is passing within me.

John Tan: So from before I AM and post I AM, what has changed? Before that, what is reality to you? And after that what do you mean by reality?

Soh Wei Yu: Before that the identity self as well as objective world is reality. After I AM, only the I AM is ultimately real. Everything else is just like projection of a movie on a movie screen.

John Tan: Before that reality is physical reality correct? After that I AM is the Reality. Now from before I AM to I AM, what has changed?

Soh Wei Yu: Before I AM ignorance and karmic propensity projects ego and world as real... After I AM the intense luminosity is so real and overwhelming yet its nature is not understood, the mind with its ignorant mechanism of understanding reality then swaps the sense of identity and imputation onto the I AM. Then it turns into ultimate reality and background.

John Tan: Don't tell me on hindsight, tell me just before and after I AM experience....don't tell me anything other thing... You are not focusing. From things being very physical to I AM spiritual, what has happened? You are turning your attention from external to internal right? So what are the difference from before I AM and After?

Soh Wei Yu: Yes focus on internal, just pure beingness. Before I AM focus is as a observer focusing outwards but dualistic. Until the four aspects of I AM and then non-dual insights.. the aspect of impersonality is not focused solely on internal but leads to a sense of universality, diffused and being lived. But its still dual here and attention is still mainly focused on internal and background. What really changed is after non-dual and especially anatta.

John Tan: No. What is the most important experience in I AM? What must happen in I AM? There is not even an AM, just I... complete stillness, just I correct?

Soh Wei Yu: Realization, certainty of being.. yes just stillness and doubtless sense of I/Existence.

John Tan: And what is the complete stillness just I?

Soh Wei Yu: Just I, just presence itself.

John Tan: This stillness absorbs excludes and includes everything into just I. What is that experience called?

Soh Wei Yu: I am everything?

John Tan: That experience is non-dual. And in that experience actually, there is no external nor internal, there is also no observer or observed. Just complete stillness as I.

Soh Wei Yu: I see.. yeah even I AM is non-dual.

John Tan: That is your 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.¹⁵

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah. I find it weird at that time when you said it is non-conceptual thought. Lol.¹⁶

John Tan: ¹⁷Yeah. Lol. Now I don't want to mix up. But you really do not know what that encounter is... seems mystical. We thought it is damn special right 🤣.

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah lol.

John Tan: Now what about non-dual? What leads to non-dual for you before anatta?

Soh Wei Yu: The first breakthrough was when I was dancing on the nightclub.. at that time I was a little drunk but because I was dancing and listening to the music, the attention was shifted from background to foreground.. then the Bahiya Sutta came up in my mind and that triggered a vivid non-dual experience and I understood that the taste of existence is not just background I AM-ness but in everything.. then that non-dual experience lasted two days before background witnessing returned. When I went to army in September I was contemplating the border and edge between manifestation and awareness a lot and I became increasingly certain that awareness is non-dual and the non-dual experience is stabilizing but it is not anatta yet. I realised anatta in October.

John Tan: Now from I AM, is the not just a non-dual experience, you have en-counter clarity directly and without intermediary. Therefore Ming Xin (apprehending Mind) or Yan Zheng Ben Xin (experientially verifying the original Mind). This is the most key insight but it requires a non-dual mode to Yan Zheng (experiential verification). So it is what I call Dun Wu (sudden awakening) also. Now Reality in esoteric practice is referring to this reality. When your focus turned internal, you find that without this I, nothing is real, this is more real than real. Correct?

Soh Wei Yu: I see.. yeah. Only I AM is more real than real.

John Tan: When you turned from I AM to non-dual, you are dissolving the line or layer that divides, when you dissolve that line, you have sort of non-dual experience. But that dissolving is not effortless, why?

Soh Wei Yu: Yes.. I saw in August that the taste of reality and existence is also found in everything.. although the dualistic view and inherent view still hasn't gone through refinement.

John Tan: What exactly is preventing you from have effortless non-dual, what exactly is causing the oscillation to and fro from background to foreground? Don't talk about "inherent view".

Soh Wei Yu: The very strong tendency to view that I AM as eternal witness and ultimate reality is still there.. so without a breakthrough in view I returned to witnessing after 2 days until insights into non-dual deepen.

John Tan: You don't have to know about "emptiness" or "inherent view", you can just contemplate on certain koans and stanzas. What must happen for effortlessness to happen?

Soh Wei Yu: Insight into anatta leads to effortlessness.¹⁸

John Tan: What is anatta? What exactly is seen through?

Soh Wei Yu: In seeing just the seen.. I saw through the sense of a seer besides seeing or seeing besides seen.. the subject-action-object and background/foreground paradigm is seen through and therefore I realise and actualized awareness as pure manifestation.

John Tan: Now there are two important points, seeing through self/Self and seeing through subject-action-object, any difference?

Soh Wei Yu: Subject/object if seen as undivided can still end up in One Mind, seeing through self/Self dissolves the construct via realisation into mere luminous manifestation and aggregates. It's a bit like chariot except I wasn't thinking of that analogy at that time. But anatta properly seen dissolves subject-action-object.

John Tan: This is much more deeper. This seeing through, what did you understand?

Soh Wei Yu: Hmm not sure.. after that no-mind and luminous taste becomes effortless mode rather than efforting.

John Tan: 1. You see through constructs. 2. You understand the relationship between constructs and experience. 3. What else??? What did I tell you? The power of constructs, how it creates an experience so real and so convincing, how it blinds. You cannot just look at just one side of the coin.

Soh Wei Yu: I see.. yeah I had a better understanding of the power of constructs a year after that.

John Tan: If you do not understand the power of constructs, you are only knowing half. It is the process of forming and dissolving these constructs in relation to consciousness creating all the One Mind, No Mind, Anatta, non-dual experiences. And you are always overcoming those, so know the power and know the way of overcoming and what do you call that?

Soh Wei Yu: Prajna? Wisdom? Karmic propensities? Bond? Ignorance?

John Tan: You can say all that... but what do you call these constructs in Buddhism?

Soh Wei Yu: Mental proliferation?

John Tan: Zao zuo. Means what? Mental proliferation means what?

Soh Wei Yu: It is the continuous activity of projecting those constructs into reality.

John Tan: It is the continuous activity of projecting those constructs into experience... Now there are two: one is releasing these constructs, the other is the post releasing... so what are the difference? The actual experience post releasing. And the question is emptiness and DO just seeing through these constructs? Or is there something more?

When you see through the background, you don't just experience vivid effortless non-dual experiences. But you always realize all along there isn't any self behind, just this activity of on going proliferation... And the freedom of it. When it is free... what is experience like?

Conversation — 15 June 2020

Soh Wei Yu: Btw which year did you realise anatta? just curious lol.. 1997?

John Tan: Lol yeah around there. Anatta is not just non-dual. Unlike you, I have been stuck in One Mind for quite some time. It is not easy to get rid of that trace.

Soh Wei Yu: You were in One Mind before 1997?

John Tan: Without guidance, can take many years. Even then one may just be a state of no-mind rather than anatta. Yeah 1997 and before no-mind also but clarity of view wasn't there. So it remains a form of experience rather than insight and realization. A state I mean.

Soh Wei Yu: Hmm... there is some insight into non-division but not the emptiness of awareness, not anatta. So you realised 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. I AM was younger than you... lol. I AM is at the age around 15. 🤣 So you can see how long can one get stuck.

Conversation — 26 July 2020

Soh Wei Yu: My impression is that Yogacara is idealist because they totally negate external world even conventionally and posit that all phenomena are purely projections of consciousness like it is literally a dream.

John Tan: For me I have my own way of sorting out my view, experience and insights from Buddhist contexts. Where it starts and stops. I am not a follower of faith.

Soh Wei Yu: Whereas certain forms of Madhyamika, Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa don't necessarily buy thus.

John Tan: Prasangika do not care about mind at all. Same for me post anatta...

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah in fact post anatta I resonate more with AF than Yogacara 🤣. Except I see in terms of dependent origination and emptiness now.

John Tan: It is not that mind is not important in practice.. 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 Shen 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 are¹⁹ completely indistinguishable in experience, then distinctions are nothing more than conventional designation of empty luminous display.

So you must know when we say no awareness, no self, no I, it doesnt mean nothing. It is seeing through the background construct and open the gate to directly taste, experience and effortless authenticate clarity.

Soh Wei Yu: I see.. btw did Sheng Yen realise anatta?

John Tan: I believe so but he did not talk about his experience except the stanza before his death that is beautiful.

Soh Wei Yu: I see.. didnt see his stanza before. Yeah luminous aggregates. That are also empty.

John Tan: "Busy with nothing till old. In emptiness, there is weeping and laughing. Originally there never was any 'I'. Thus life and death can be cast aside." (Master Sheng Yen).

Soh Wei Yu: I see...

John Tan: Then you can't say phenomena is empty if you resonate with AF. AF is based on the concreteness of phenomena. If you say you resonate, then emptiness cannot be anywhere resonating at all. In fact just opposite as in the eight similes of illusion.

Soh Wei Yu: I resonate with AF in the sense that I do not see an ultimate Self or cosmic mind at all, or One Mind or all is mind.. I only see luminous aggregates that are totally exerting as infinitude of universe and time. But yet not the same as AF because I see the eight examples of illusion as applying to these luminous aggregates.

John Tan: There is nothing wrong resonating with AF. Just that you need to be clear, you can't be neither here nor there. Mixing up everything.

Soh Wei Yu: Basically like what Ted Biringer said about existence time except even that is empty. So I don't see timeless formless absolute.

John Tan: If you see anatta as de-construction of self, then deconstructing further into object is just a natural progression. Unless one is stuck in seeing through self with experience and have insight of no self but did not know the cause of it.

John Tan: Do you know the main difference between Sutrayana and Vajrayana?

Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm says view are the same but path different. Maybe Vajrayana deals with energy.

John Tan: That is the main difference.

Conversation — Facebook Discussion

Nick Wilson: Hey Soh, in terms of adopting a view, does what JT say point to "everything has the nature of awareness" over "everything appears in awareness"?

Soh Wei Yu: Arising "in awareness" is One Mind. John Tan said in 2008, "Do not underestimate the impact of the constant chattering in a dualistic manner. If we continuously repeat “phenomenon arises in awareness” and not “as Awareness”, even though there never was a separation, consciousness will see as if there is a separation. Although it may seem to be a casual expression for communication sake, the impact is subtle. In time to come, the slow and subtle impact will make separation appear amazingly real. This is true even for those that have experienced non-duality; they are not spared from it." Even when one says everything arises AS awareness, that may not be indicative of anatta realization. It can still be in the One Mind~No Mind territory.

Conversation — Mahamudra Text

Soh Wei Yu: There is a Mahamudra text which John Tan loved (also, he likes Mahamudra teachings in general) that I think is related to this topic: The Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra by The Third Gyalwa Karmapa.²⁰

(Excerpt):

"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...

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 self-liberated.

May the nature of mind, the clear light nature of what is, be realised."

Conversation — 29 December 2020

John Tan: Trekchö. Trekchö means to “cut through”.²¹ In Dzogchen we are cutting through the totality of karmic mind or sem.²² The karmic mind is composed of conceptual constructs and beliefs. These mental constructs concern the subjective side of a self and the objective side as “other than self”.

It is discovered that our self, mind, problems, birth, death, our body, people, creatures and things; meaning our entire world and universe, are composed only our thought constructs and beliefs. The method is to suspend paying attention to thoughts, actively thinking thoughts and investing belief in any thought. As the process cuts deeper, all conceptual reference points are cut through and abandoned.

The beliefs in a self, a soul, a being, a spirit, a god, a guru, a path, enlightenment, a Buddha, Brahman, other people, creatures, objects, planets, stars, galaxies and universes, all are seen to be your own conceptual constructs. When all such beliefs and all other remaining reference points have been cut though, what remains is a pristine and pure Awareness (Dharmakaya) that can’t possibly be understood conceptually or captured in thought.

Samsara is the self and its world created by the mind’s thought constructs and beliefs... all thought constructs must be “cut through” and abandoned.

Professor of Quantum Physics at John Hopkins, Richard Conn Henry wrote:

“We know for a fact that the universe is not 'made of' anything. Get it through your heads, physicists! It is sometimes said that the only thing that is real are the observations, but even that is not true: observations are not real either. They, and everything else, are purely mental."

He later states: ".... there are no real monkeys or cats or other humans––the entire universe exists only in YOUR mind."

“In the real ultimate truth that Prasangika philosophers maintain, there is no objectively existent thing or event, even at the level of conventional truth.” — Tenpa Tsering

Lama Zopa on Prasangika Emptiness Teachings:

“The entire world, even the Dharma path, hell, god realm, positive and negative karma, and enlightenment, were made up by your own mind. Your mind projected the hallucination of things existing from their own side. This hallucination of inherent existence is the foundation. Then, on top of that, you pay attention to certain attributes and label “wonderful,” “horrible,” or “nothing much.” When you think, “He’s awful” and get angry, you label the person an enemy. Not aware that you created the enemy, you believe there is a truly existent one out there and project all sorts of other notions on him. You justify your actions, thinking they are positive, when in fact you created the enemy. In fact, there’s no real enemy there. There’s not the slightest atom of an enemy existing; not even a tiny particle of true existence.”

Dzogchen teacher, Chokyi Nyima explains:

“The most subtle type of obscuration is to simply conceive of something – like simply thinking, “It is.” Any notion we may hold is still a way of conceptualizing the three spheres: subject, object and action. Whenever there is a thought which conceives the three spheres, karma is created. People ask, ‘What is karma? I don’t get it! Where is karma?” In fact, karma is our mind conceiving something. Karma is the doings of conceptual mind. This subtle forming of a notion of anything is like a web, a haze that obscures our innate Suchness just as mist obscures the sun from being vividly seen. The great master Nagarjuna said, “There is no samsara apart from your own thoughts.” Samsara is based on thought; samsara is made by thought.”23

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso:24

“The aim of the Prasangika is to silence completely the conceptualizing mind, allowing the mind to rest in absolute freedom 25from concepts. Absolute freedom from concepts is what Prasangikas call Emptiness.”

(From Jax)

Soh Wei Yu: I see... what do you think? I think can give the false impression that merely a non-conceptual state is liberation lol.

Conversation — 30–31 December 2020

John Tan: Vase empty of vase is like the semantics, meanings, definitions that are associated with a conventional term. The whole idea of and concept about vase, cause and effect, physicality, existence. For example the whole idea of self/Self is eliminated but will that lead one to the same initial insight and experience of anatta, I doubt so and Non-dual seems to come only much later after maturing of deconstruction. Initially it is the releasing of the mind from the attachments to the "definitions and meanings" of the concepts.²⁶

Inherentness is like hearer of sound (imo). However they are related. Yet the experiences differs initially but ultimately both insights will align. Empty of inherentness is mo²⁷re intuitive.

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

John Tan: So vase empty of vase is doing away completely with conceptualities. If practitioner were to start from such a way of practice, will take a long time to give rise to experiential taste similar to anatta. It must be directed to self/Self first before one look at phenomena. Like chariot is empty of chariot. If you start from there, it is hard to get to an experiential taste similar to anatta.

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

Soh Wei Yu: Vase empty of vase is like Atmananda way of deconstructing objects into consciousness right?²⁸ It is also taught in Tibetan Buddhism?

John Tan: Sort of. That is why I cut and paste this part to you. This is vase empty of vase:

==> "to suspend paying attention to thoughts, actively thinking thoughts and investing belief in any thought"

This will lead one into dry non-conceptualities without insights. Rather the purpose is to trigger the "insight" to see through and transcend all these man-made constructs and conventions and mistake them as "real" (reifications). So my first question to you is, will such an insight lead to non-dual, collapsing subject and object duality and inherentness? If no, why? If yes, when?

==>"As the process cuts deeper, all conceptual reference points are cut through and abandoned. The beliefs in a self, a soul, a being, a spirit, a god, a guru, a path, enlightenment, a Buddha, Brahman, other people, creatures, objects, planets, stars, galaxies and universes, all are seen to be your own conceptual constructs. When all such beliefs and all other remaining reference points have been cut though, what remains is a pristine and pure Awareness (Dharmakaya) that can’t possibly be understood conceptually or captured in thought. Samsara is the self and its world created by the mind’s ²⁹thought constructs and beliefs... all thought constructs must be “cut through” and abandoned."

"When all such beliefs and all other remaining reference points have been cut though, what remains is a pristine and pure Awareness (Dharmakaya) that can’t possibly be understood conceptually or captured in thought."³⁰

My second question, is this the purpose like what Jax said? Will this lead to "what remains is pristine, pure Awareness"? If yes how? If no why? My third question, what is the final result of vase empty of vase?³¹

John Tan: Quite good. (Referring to Soh's writing on Life/Death as designation).³²

Soh Wei Yu: No need for deconstruction to realise awareness. Just self enquiry is enough. But deconstruction le³³ads to deeper insights.. like for the Atmananda path there is deconstructing objects after the I AM. Initially the deconstruction of objects does not result in non-dual in that path. It's like from opaque to transparent witness. Everything is deconstructed to arisings in awareness.. but still dual. Then later that duality collapses. But that's for Atmananda path. For me I was more like into anatta first.³⁴

(Quoting Greg Goode): "I’ve found that the deconstruction of physical objects (including the body) to be the single most important step. People want to rush past this step to get to the sexy things like thoughts, feelings, free will, etc. But here’s the catch. Almost invariably, we think ³⁵of thoughts and feelings and free will with the help of physical metaphors... But if we work with the book in order, and begin by deconstructing physicality completely, we will no longer think or experience in physical terms... It is then that we begin to understand witnessing awareness much more clea³⁶rly, and amazingly enough, witnessing awareness begins to become less and less real and substantial at the same time."

But Greg Goode said before those who want to realise anatta should not do Atmananda direct path. Because it only gets to something like it at the very very end and only like talked about it briefly.

John Tan: Very interesting. Where you get this?

Soh Wei Yu: Greg Goode website.. the whole article is longer. He explains Advaita ajativada here. No creation.

John Tan: Seems like he stop writing after 2017.

John Tan: (Facebook comment to Geovani): There is the way of de-construction from analysis where one analyses and understands that "named things" are empty and "non-arisen" but still, one may not directly taste that empty clarity even after clearly understanding it conceptually. We must ask why is it so.

So, my question is:

1. How can the understanding that conceptual notions are empty "SUDDENLY" lead to direct authentication of one's empty "clarity/awareness"? Or it does or does not affect one's "clarity/awareness"?

2. If it does not, then what is the purpose of such contemplations?

3. If we want to authenticate "clarity" directly, don't you find the neti neti way to self enquiry of "who am I" a much more direct and intuitive approach?

4. How do 1 and 3 differ from ATR anatta enquiry of: In hearing, there is just sound, no hearer; In seeing, there is just colors and shapes, no seer; All the above are ways of deconstructing conceptual constructs, but they lead to different results. Clearly understanding which de-constructing technique lead to what "result" is crucial.

Soh Wei Yu: My take:

1. In Greg Goode direct path, the conceptual notions and constructs of physicality and objectivity is deconstructed even at the I AM phase prior to collapse of witness. In this path, objects and physicality become deconstructed into arisings within witnessing awareness, even before witness collapses. This leaves the subjective pole undeconstructed until much later.

2. will lead to dissociation and I AM. But neti neti is needed for self enquiry and I AM realization.

3. deconstructs subjective pole, leading to direct realization and taste of radiance as all manifestations. Aka anatta.

As for 2) I think 1) can be a kind of release on mental level even if anatta isn’t realised. Greg Goode said that by the time he reached transparent witness he was free of mental suffering.

John Tan: What is opaque witness? Free of mental suffering is true.

Soh Wei Yu: Sorry wrote wrong. Opaque witness first followed by transparent witness. He became free from mental suffering at transparent witness.

John Tan: How does insight of "I Am" got triggered via such method of seeing through "named things"?

Soh Wei Yu: To me I AM is triggered from self enquiry, not deconstruction. Seeing through named things is more on deconstruction.

John Tan: So you are saying 1 will not lead to realization of "clarity" but just mere release of mental suffering?

Soh Wei Yu: If the deconstruction of all conceptual notions goes along with meditation into a state of cessation of concepts, there is also a possibility of discovering pure awareness / I AM. Doesn’t have to be self enquiry. Like Sim Pern Chong got there by breathing meditation, some people through psychedelics, some people through yoga, kundalini etc.

John Tan: Yes but not necessarily until total cessation of concepts, however at a much later phase of de-construction. The insight by then will be much clearer and stable imo though it comes at a later phase of de-constructing. I am more interested in how and why.

Conversation — 1 January 2021

Soh Wei Yu: (To Anurag Jain) The Witness collapses after the gestalt of arisings are seen through in Direct Path.³⁷ Objects, as you have already mentioned, should have been thoroughly deconstructed before. With objects and arisings deconstructed there is nothing to be a Witness of and it collapses.

John Tan: Not true. Object and arising can also collapse through subsuming into an all-encompassing awareness.

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah but its like non-dual. Means after the collapse of the Witness and arising, it can be non-dual but still One Mind. Right? But then Atmananda also said at the end even the notion of consciousness dissolves. I think that's like One Mind into no-mind but I'm not sure whether it talks about anatta.³⁸

John Tan: Yes.³⁹

Soh Wei Yu: (Quoting Anurag): "Where is the notion of 'all encompassing awareness'. Sounds like awarenes⁴⁰s is being reified as a container." Also when you say Consciousness dissolves, you have to first answer how did it ever exist in the first place? 🙂

John Tan: In subsuming there is no container-contained relationship, there is only Awareness. Anyway this is not for unnecessary debates, if he truly understands then just let it be.

John Tan: What about mind freeing itself from notions of anything for example existence, physicality, cause and effect? How is this different from the insight of agency-action? I am more interested in the insight, clarity and experiences that come from seeing through notions vs agency. If there is clear insights and experiential tastes that come from seeing through them, then the difference is clearly seen.

They are very different sort of de-construction like phases of insights from I AM to spontaneous perfection. This is also very important for you. I do not want to keep asking you also, tired 🤣.

Facebook Discussion

Soh Wei Yu: This single undifferentiated field (One Mind) is simply the luminosity of consciousness that can modulate as this and that like the single ocean of light manifesting as varying waves but never changing its substance. Like H2O appearing as vapor, ice and liquid but never changing its substance.

Anurag Jain: Is this luminosity seen or conceptualized?!

Soh Wei Yu: Realising anatta is realising there is no unchanging substance, and luminosity is none other than appearance in its diversities. There is no ultimate unchanging awareness modulating as this and that.

Anurag Jain: Please answer what is this luminosity you are talking about. What object? Gross or subtle?! I too say that luminosity is the appearance in the diversities.

Soh Wei Yu: After anatta, luminosity is only ever everything, be it subtle or gross or whatever. In One Mind, luminosity is the unchanging ultimate substance that can manifest in various modes like subtle and gross, yet has an unchanging inherent essence that remains unchanging throughout its various modulations (like the H2O analogy).

Anurag Jain: Well I don't disagree to you. I never talked about luminosity as a substance. A substance by its very definition is perceptible. So I am not talking of Awareness as any substance..... gross or subtle.

Soh Wei Yu: Knower and known are one can be either One Mind, No Mind or anatta. There are different insights. If one realises as Thich Nhat Hanh says — there is no knowing besides those dynamic phenomena, that is anatta. No lightning besides flash.

Anurag Jain: Why the name "One Mind". One with respect to what? You can call a substance one. In One Mind, phenomena occur IN awareness. I am talking about phenomena being Awareness. Lightning is a conceptual label (also Awareness) flash is not independent of seeing itself and therefore Awareness itself. In the movie analogy, the light reflected from screen which shows different appearances on the screen is awareness. Now can you tell me if that light is different from the appearance? Is it one way dependence or two way dependence? Appearances are light and light is appearances.

Soh Wei Yu: Phenomena being Awareness is also in post non-dual One Mind, to No Mind. Anatta is also seeing there is no seeing independent of appearance. There is nothing ultimate about “Awareness”. It is just a convention for luminous empty appearance. Like lightning is just a convention for flash.

Soh Wei Yu: Not sure I get your analogy right. Are you saying light is none other than the reflection/appearance? Also “causes different appearance” seems to imply a source, some cause effect which you refuted, so I dont think thats your point. There is no one light being refracted into many, otherwise that is one mind.

Soh Wei Yu: (Quoting Shinshu Roberts): “Since our activity is not a progression from delusion to enlightenment made solely by the independent self, Dogen defines the first thought of practice as 'immediate present ultimate Dharma' or genjokoan: the presence and perfection of all dharmas as they are in the here-and-now.”⁴¹

Anurag Jain: Yes. I am saying light is appearance itself.⁴²

Soh Wei Yu: Then I have no issues with that.⁴³

(⁴⁴Quoting John Tan Archive 2013): "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 rely upon... 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."

Anurag Jain: Agency is not there in me at all. The concrete experience I have at this time is that of "non abidance" There is no landing point. Only seeing, hearing, tasting. My experience of luminosity and spaciousness/transparency keeps getting refined. It deepens, stabilizes and then becomes normal till the next wave comes.

Soh Wei Yu: (Quoting John Tan): "That is good. Insights are to abolish any artificial divisions and constructs (man made) into natural spontaneity. So don't over focus or chase after any states, not even transparency otherwise will result in energy imbalances."

Geovani Geo: The eventual problem I see is that I can not find a place for Awareness anywhere.

Anurag Jain: I don't disagree with you. I don't find a place for it anywhere either.

Geovani Geo: Yes, that is pointing to the viewless. Now... let's check it: Is there some Awareness when all appearances are absent?

Anurag Jain: Let's check before that if appearances are ever absent?

Geovani Geo: Yes. That is the point!! There never is/was an absence of appearances!

Alessandro Socio Migliori: In cessation.

Geovani Geo: But Advaitins claim that when all appearances end there is still Awareness there. Some, like Darryl, claim they have been there. He says he has been pure Awareness without appearances.

Anurag Jain: He is probably talking of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. The mind is still there in the most subtle form. If it is not there he would not even know that he had that experience. And no amount of Nirvikalpa Samadhi can do it. Only inquiry can penetrate it.

Geovani Geo: It all clears when the conceptualizing regarding the nature of what is, stops. Any subtle views are still the continuation of conceptualizing mind. "My experience of luminosity and spaciousness/transparency keeps getting refined. It deepens, stabilizes and then becomes normal till the next wave comes." "Luminosity" is some kind of an appearance?

Anurag Jain: No, it is an experience.