See: 

 
 
"Now if one discards the wondrous, then even the very essence of the Buddha Way has no place to abide; since no though is left, no discriminative thinking takes place. Both the deluded mind and wisdom have forever expired, and perceptions and reflections are at an end - calm and without ado. This is called tai; it means the ultimate of the principle. And shang means 'without peer.' Hence it is called taishang, the ultimate. This is simply another designation for Buddha, the Tathagata."
This explanation is similar to Dzogchen and Mahamudra. At the end of the path, dharmins, dharmata, all phenomena, mind, and even rigpa/vidya (knowledge/wisdom) is exhausted. The exhaustion of all phenomena is said to be equivalent to Buddhahood and rainbow body, the ultimate.

Dzogchen teacher Arcaya Malcolm taught that many people have the wrong idea that Vidya/Rigpa is some eternal thing that just goes on forever, but it too is exhausted later along with all other phenomena.

It is so clear in the original texts -- be it Zen, Mahamudra or Dzogchen. (Theravada too has clear teachings of anatta)

Yet so many teachings and even authoritative teachers nowadays in each of these traditions, including Theravada, just don't get it. They reify wisdom, awareness, etc, as if they are real and eternal, falling into extremes no different from the Vedantins, etc.
 
 
................
 
Also, previously: 

Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
Author
after self/Self is exhausted, phenomena also needs to be exhausted
1

     · Reply
     · 3w

Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
Author
Image may contain: text

“Dakpo Tashi Namgyal:

 

You have seen the essence of Nonmeditation if your realization of nonmeditation is free from an object of remembering or familiarization so that the savoring has dissolved. You have not seen the essence if you retain a sense of something that needs to be remembered or grown accustomed to.

 

You have perfected the strength of Nonmeditation if the subtlest dualistic perception has dissolved and you have brought all phenomena to the state of exhaustion, so you are always indivisible from original wakefulness. You have not perfected its strength if you experience even the slightest dualistic perception and you have not exhausted the phenomena of knowable objects.

 

Your thoughts have become meditation if every instance of all-ground consciousness, without being rejected, has dissolved into being dharmadhatu wisdom. They have not become meditation if you retain a subtle type of propensity for conceptual clinging and the subtle tarnish of savoring an experience.

 

The qualities have arisen if your body appears as the wisdom rupakaya of the rainbow body and your mind as the luminous dharmakaya. Thus the world is experienced as all-encompassing purity. The qualities have not arisen if you retain even the slightest impure perception regarding body and mind, the world and beings.

 

Comments by Soh: ‘Clarifying the Natural State by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal is a good book, highly recommended. You can get it for $2 at https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2020/05/mahamudra-books-for-cheap.html


[4:27 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Interesting
[4:27 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: I reread this part in mahamudra book

[4:27 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Dakpo tashi also related stage of nonmeditation with exhaustion of all phenomena and rainbow body
[4:27 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: So their explanation seems similar
[4:28 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: ?  Y is this interesting?
[4:28 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Dunno why i didnt notice that before.. maybe i forgot
[4:29 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: Appearances r not phenomena
[4:31 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: Exhaustion of phenomena means like the sense of observer being dissolved, the sense of object also dissapeared.
[4:38 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah..
[4:38 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm also said exhaustion of phenomena doesnt mean no more appearance
[4:39 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: Yes
[4:39 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: U should not have that sense by now also
[4:45 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: A few years post anatta, I do not have sense of objects and physicality....objects r deconstructed by contemplating DO and total exertion.  Therefore there is no seer, no seeing and nothing seen.

I m now compiling the different nuance of total exertion in taoism, zen and yoga...🤣
[5:05 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. yeah i dont have sense of solid phenomena
[5:06 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Wow nice.. looking forward to reading 😂”
     · Reply
     · 3w

Mr. AA
badge icon
I've read that Buddhas have no perception from their own side, that rupakayas appear only from the perspective of beings to be "tamed". That would imply a total lack of appearances, all the while not falling into non-existence or a deep sleep type of state.
I like the idea that "no phenomena" does not mean "no appearance". Yet, that's not what the texts seem to be pointing to.

     · Reply
     · 3w · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
Author
Mr. AA
Malcolm said that appearances do not cease even at the final stage/exhaustion of phenomena in the retreat. It is very clear from his teaching that ultimate Buddhahood is about apperceiving appearances as wisdom.
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=21700&start=20
Someone asked: Does "appearance" here mean the same thing it normally does? I am a little perplexed if so. How can a Buddha be said to perceive appearances? Don't appearances end when non-dual wisdom is completely realized? I thought that appearance implies a duality from wisdom itself and that Buddhas have eliminated that.
Malcolm replied:
A Buddhas appearances are wisdom.
Tom:
Sure. But I thought appearances have ended for Buddhas, no?
Malcolm:
No. What has ended for a Buddha are impure appearances.
Tom:
I thought that "appearance" implies a duality between the wisdom itself and the appearance of that wisdom.
Malcolm:
That is true only below the 13th bhumi. The difference between a buddha on the thirteenth bhumi and the eleventh and twelfth bhumi is that buddhas on the thirteenth bhumi experience appearances as their own wisdom, whereas the lower two stages of buddhahood experience wisdom and the appearances as distinct.
https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html
Malcolm:
Malcolm wrote:
[Quoting gad rgyangs: in the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.]
'The way that great transference body arises:
when all appearances have gradually been exhausted,
when one focuses one’s awareness on the appearances strewn about
on the luminous maṇḍala of the five fingers of one’s hand,
the environment and inhabitants of the universe
returning from that appearance are perceived as like moon in the water.
One’s body is just a reflection,
self-apparent as the illusory body of wisdom;
one obtains a vajra-like body.
One sees one’s body as transparent inside and out.
The impure eyes of others cannot see one’s body as transparent,
but only the body as it was before...'
Shabkar, Key to One Hundred Doors of Samadhi
Outer appearances do not disappear even when great transference body is attained. What disappears are the inner visions, that is what is exhausted, not the outer universe with its planets, stars, galaxies, mountains, oceans, cliffs, houses, people and sentient beings.
M
Also:
gad rgyangs wrote:
When all appearances cease, what are you left with?
Malcolm wrote:
They never cease....
Samayasattva/Jnanasattva - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel
DHARMAWHEEL.NET
Samayasattva/Jnanasattva - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel
Samayasattva/Jnanasattva - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel
1

     · Reply
     · Remove Preview
     · 3w

Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
Author
Also John Tan just wrote:
I dunno abt buddhahood. To me appearances r ceaseless and the energetic display continues endlessly becoz it's just one's natural radiance.
I was chatting with Tyler just the other day that although my breakthrough in experiential insights is mainly to due buddhism, my understanding is still very much taoist/ I Ching oriented. The universe is an ongoing interplay.

     · Reply
     · 3w

Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
Author
I resonate and concur with both their explanations
 · Reply
 · 3w

.....





  • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    "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.
    “ - John Tan
     
     
    ..........
     
     

     

        Kyle Dixon
        Admin
        Phenomena often glosses “dharma” which is an entity that bears characteristics.
        The appearance is the colors/shapes, tactile sensation, sound, etc., that the dharma is extrapolated from.
        Relative and ultimate truth are two ways of seeing a single appearance. In relative truth we mistakenly conceive of conditioned dharmas, phenomena, objects and such which possess characteristics
        4
         ·
        Reply
         ·
         · 12h

     

     
    ..........

    Anurag Jain

    badge icon

    Kyle

    , good that you are asking me this.This is what Wikipedia says, "Therefore, in Madhyamaka, phenomena appear to arise and cease, but in an ultimate sense they do not arise or remain as inherently existent phenomena"

    I am assuming the phenomena as the five skandhas

     

         · Reply

         · 1d

     

    Kyle Dixon

    badge icon

    Phenomena is generally a gloss for “dharma” which indicates an entity which bears characteristics.

    Dharmas would indeed be classified as belonging to either the mental or material aggregates.

     

         · Reply

         · 1d

     

    Kyle Dixon

    badge icon

    But phenomena is intended to indicate an entity.

     

         · Reply

         · 1d

     

    Anurag Jain

    badge icon

    Kyle

    , I am sure I am referring to skandhas otherwise we would land in quantum physics. Lol !

     

         · Reply

         · 1d

     

    Kyle Dixon

    badge icon

    The skandhas are just an overarching model used to classify mental and material phenomena.

    My point is that when you read “phenomena” you can just treat that as “entities,” or even certain processes.

    So for instance in your wiki excerpt:

    “Entities appear to arise and cease, but in the ultimate sense they do not.”

  •  
    ..........

    • André A. Pais
      Admin
      Phenomena probably implies dualistic perception of phenomenal objects with their own characteristics - something epistemology would care about. Appearances mean sheer experiential clarity, the bare fact of experience, yet devoid of further characterization and categorization - something non-dual meditative approaches would care about.
      Yet, the very idea that Buddhas 'see', or that there are entities, principles, processes or states called 'Buddhas' (different from other Buddhas or non-Buddhas) is itself very dualistic. We usually tend to 'picture' buddhahood using the colors of our dualistic palette, but that naturally cannot make sense. That's nothing but prapanca (conceptual fermentation) about buddhahood. 'Buddha' is precisely the absence of the structural configuration that frames the dualistic notion of subject-perception-object. Non-dual perception is no perception, but mere presence or clarity. 'Knowing' becomes 'being'. And in non-dual being there is no seeing, no seen, no seer. And finally, there is not even 'non-dual being'.
      Instead of "Buddhas see appearances," perhaps we could say that "'Buddha' is the term applied to appearances when they are seen as being devoid of the notion of 'sentient beings' (and non-sentient beings too)". Devoid of notions pertaining to both sentience and non-sentience.
      That's what I assume Dōgen means with "mind-body (and the minds and bodies of others) dropping," and in Mahamudra "body, mind and phenomena merging."
      Just a few unsolicited thoughts.
      2

    • Reply
      • 1h
      • Edited

      André A. Pais
      Admin
      (now included in the previous comment)
      Instead of "Buddhas see appearances," perhaps we could say that "Buddha is the term applied to appearances when they are seen as being devoid of the notion of 'sentient beings' (and non-sentient beings too)". Devoid of notions pertaining to both sentience and non-sentience.
      That's what I assume Dōgen means with "mind-body (and the minds and bodies of others) dropping," and in Mahamudra "body, mind and phenomena merging."
      1

    • Reply
      • 1h
      • Edited

    • André A. Pais
      Admin
      Or like I wrote in this group in the past:
      Buddhas are not sentient beings.
      They've gone beyond the notions
      of being, mind, sentience.
      Being 'reality beyond all dualistic notions'
      they lose all sense-doors to it.
      The notion that one perceives reality
      is the womb of a double-headed beast,
      simultaneously giving birth to
      the notions of duality and perception.
      1

    • Reply

      Soh Wei Yu
      Admin
      Was reminded of a quote shared by Kyle:
      Longchenpa:
      From the [ultimate] perspective the meditative equipoise of the realised (sa thob) and awakened beings (sangs rgyas), there exists neither object of knowledge (shes bya) nor knowing cognitive process (shes byed) and so forth, for there is neither object to apprehend nor the subject that does the apprehending. Even the exalted cognitive process (yeshes) as a subject ceases (zhi ba) to operate.
      1

          • Reply
          • 46m






    • Soh Wei Yu
      Admin
      Malcolm:
      I doubt very much that Karl is an annihilationist. You have really misunderstood his point, quite grievously. What he and the karmapas are implying is that there never were sentient beings to begin with. This is not controversial. Haribhadra, a Madhyamaka, points out than when one realizes buddhahood, one realizes too there was never a time when one was not a buddha. This insight does not depend on the Buddhanature doctrine at all, since it is straight out of the PP Sutras. Moreover, it is commonly stated that from the point of the view of the result, Buddhas only perceive other Buddhas, they do not perceive sentient beings, because to perceive obscurations would equal being obscured. Buddhas have no obscurations, hence they do not perceive them, ergo, they have no perception of sentient beings at all. Thus is another reason why Haribhadra points out that the path is entirely illusory from beginning to end, including the attainment of buddhahood.
      ….
      Soh: also reminds me of an insight where i saw there are no buddhas vs sentient beings, or stages at all.. only spontaneous perfection. in terms of ultimate
      John Tan: Actually in ultimate view, there is not any form of apprehension, spontaneous perfection has no perception.
      But if it is expressed this way it will be misunderstood as nihilistic.
      Have u ever wondered y instantaneous and sudden enlightenment is possible?
      Soh: the nature of mind is always so.. thats why realisation is sudden
      John Tan: Yes
      2

      • Reply
      • 1h
      • Edited

      André A. Pais
      Admin
      From that thread on Dharmawheel, quoting Brünnholzl:

  • Post by Matt J »

    I'm don't think he is saying that. From When the Clouds Part, p. 303:
    In more detail, the introduction refutes all external phenomenon and affirms the internal nature of the mind as being the dharmakaya--- the inseparability of the unconditioned expanse and self-arisen, self-aware wisdom, whose nature is lucid and unceasing. All adventitious stains are nothing but thoughts, and through realizing the luminous nature of the mind and letting thoughts be as lucid wisdom in an uncontrived manner, their essence is realized as lacking any root and thus they are self-liberated. In other words, sentient beings are nothing but the adventitious flaws of thoughts and therefore one familiarizes with them as being nonentities. Buddhahood is nothing but the luminosity of one's own mind having become free from these adventitious stains. Without thoughts and clinging, everything that appears and exists dawns as the essence of the three kayas.
    In his footnote, he quotes the same text where it says: "through realizing one's own mind, there is not the slightest to be removed because there is no sentient being to be relinquished apart from [mind's] playing as thoughts without a basis." He also quotes HHK 3/8. He wraps up the footnote by stating "Clinging to the personal self and the resultant notion of a sentient being is just like being stuck in a claustrophobic and gloomy outlook of fixating on the configuration of one of these clouds (which moreover keeps changing all the time) from within that cloud, while being aware of the cloudless and sunlit expanse of the sky without any reference points resembles the non conceptual wisdom of the dharmadhatu of the buddha."

    Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:37 am
    I think what he is saying is that Buddhanature + defilements = sentient beings,
    Brunnhölzl is saying this is incorrect—at least within the narrow context of HHK #3 and #8

    What the Karmapa #17 meant I can only speculate. And yes, the Green Tara was on the same day but I don’t see it on the video.
    "The world is made of stories, not atoms."
    --- Muriel Rukeyser
    •  
       
      ........
       
      Aditya Prasad
      Defc6uembcpieunol3r 12 3a7t 1h2:3af1 70Af9M  ·
      I'm sure I've seen "appearances" and "phenomena" distinguished here before, but can't find where. Anyone wanna take a stab? (The context is that a Buddha sees appearances but not phenomena.)
      19 Comments
      Jayson MPaul
      Phenomena having the quality of thingness. Inherent existence from their own side. Appearances are sensations of the 6 streams like a mirage or rainbow. Vividly undeniably appearing but without existence at all
      4
       · Reply
       ·

           · 1w · Edited

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      May be an image of text that says '1:30 4G John Tan Anurag Jain badge icon Kyle good that you are asking me this.This is what Wikipedia says, "Therefore, in Madhyamaka, phenomena appear to arise and cease, but an ultimate sense they not arise or remain as inherently existent phenomena" am assuming the phenomena as the five skandhas .Reply 1d Kyle Dixon badge icon Phenomena is generally a gloss for "dharma" which indicates an entity which bears characteristics. Dharmas would indeed be classified as belonging either the mental or material aggregates. .Reply 1d Kyle Dixon badge icon But phenomena is intended to indicat an entity. Reply'

           · Reply
           · 1w

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      May be an image of text that says '1:30 John Tan Kyle Dixon badge icon The skandhas are just an overarching model used to classify mental and material phenomena My point is that when you read "phenomena" you can just treat that as "entities," or even certain processes. So for instance your wiki excerpt: "Entities appear arise and cease, but in the ultimate sense they do not." .Reply 1d Edited Anurag Jain badge icon Kyle yes am aware of no arising. (conceptually). am looking at processes rather than entities. Reply 1d Kyle Dixon badge icon Well for instance Ãjătivada also asserts non-arising, but is eductive rendition. Reply'

           · Reply
           · 1w

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../dependent...

      "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.

      Dependent Designation
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Dependent Designation
      Dependent Designation
      1

           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 1w

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../exhaustion-of-all...
      Exhaustion of All Phenomena
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Exhaustion of All Phenomena
      Exhaustion of All Phenomena
      3

           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 1w

      Aditya PrasadAuthor
      Soh Wei Yu Thanks. How do we reconcile these two?
      "It is very clear from [Malcolm's] teaching that ultimate Buddhahood is about apperceiving appearances as wisdom."
      "At the end of the path ... rigpa/vidya (knowledge/wisdom) is exhausted."
      Is wisdom exhausted or not?
       · Reply
       ·

           · 4d

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      Aditya Prasad Discussed in https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=35965... "
      The basic point that Rongzom and Mipham make is that in Dzogchen, the absence of gnosis in the result is not an absence of gnosis per se. In Dzogchen, gnosis is the basis. Recognizing that gnosis is the path. The gnosis lacking the result is the two-fold gnosis. It is a complicated issue, totally beyond the scope of this forum or my energy to address. "
      Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo‘s understanding of Buddhahood and Gnosis - Page 3 - Dharma Wheel
      DHARMAWHEEL.NET
      Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo‘s understanding of Buddhahood and Gnosis - Page 3 - Dharma Wheel
      Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo‘s understanding of Buddhahood and Gnosis - Page 3 - Dharma Wheel
      1

           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 4d

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      For more definitive answers on Dzogchen, try asking Kyle Dixon or Malcolm. But from AtR perspective this might be relevant: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/01/no-awareness-does-not-mean-non.html
      No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
      No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
      http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/01/no-awareness-does-not-mean-non.html
           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 4d

      Aditya PrasadAuthor
      Soh Wei Yu I guess I will settle for "it is a complicated issue" 🙂. It sounds like wisdom both is and is not exhausted.
       · Reply
       ·

           · 21h

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      Aditya Prasad According to Acarya Malcolm Smith's explanation of how rigpa is exhausted last year, which I'm not supposed to share in details but I'll just give a brief outline.. for more of this you'll have to attend Malcolm's teachings (maybe you did? can't remember) although he is not accepting new students nowadays.
      There was a point in his retreat where Arcaya Malcolm Smith described how at the mature phase of Dzogchen practice, the 'vidya'/'rigpa' (the knowing/knowledge) is exhausted where the vidya and dhatu (something like knowing and field of experience) totally collapsed in a 1:1 synchrony (and he gestured two circles coming together), whereas before that point [the exhaustion of vidya] there is a sort of out of phase issue between vidya and dhatu. That's said to happen in the fourth vision (in terms of bhumi map, Malcolm mentioned years ago that's 8th to 16th bhumi based on some text). Kyle did inform me that it is the same as what I call anatta realization. But as Kyle pointed out, the realisation of anatman should happen even at 1st bhumi, so perhaps fourth vision is the full maturity of the anatman insight [inclusive of twofold emptiness] in all aspects. Or as John Tan elaborated last year, "Yes [the description] sounds like [anatta realisation]. But it can mean the entire insight is exhausted and one lives completely in that wisdom naturally... ...all descriptions seems to be anatta. How stable and how mature is the question." "Maybe after one matures thoroughly anatta... ...insight and live in that wisdom and cycle day and night 24/7."
      Somehow the description by Malcolm reminded me of one of Daniel's descriptions in MCTB on fourth path about the 1:1 synchrony because they almost used the same words and analogy -
      https://vimeo.com/250616410 . Also, Malcolm mentioned many people have the wrong idea that Vidya/Rigpa is some eternal thing that just goes on forever, but it too is exhausted later along with all other phenomena [although this is not annihilation as appearances/pure vision still manifest] (elaboration: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../acarya-malcolm... )
      Vipassana
      VIMEO.COM
      Vipassana
      Vipassana

           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 1h · Edited

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      And then even when after that is exhausted, it doesn't mean awareness or wisdom then becomes non-existent, it just means no longer reified and abstracted from the crystal clear yet empty appearances. Or the Dzogchen term is clearly apparent non-existents.
      Kyle Dixon wrote 8 months ago:
      "It means the appearance and the knowing of the appearance are the same. However “appearances are mind” is primarily a sarma school view. In Dzogchen mennagde it is not said that appearances are mind but rather that appearances are med par gsal snang, which means “non-existent clear appearances” or “clearly apparent non-existents.”" - https://www.reddit.com/.../what_does_mind_mean_in_the.../
      Daniel M. Ingram:
      http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../intelligence...
      "So you have these two extremes - both of which I find pretty annoying (laughs) - and uhm, not that they are not making interesting points that counterbalance each other. And then, from an experiential point of view, the whole field seems to be happening on its own in a luminous way, the intelligence or awareness seems to be intrinsic in the phenomena, the phenomena do appear to be totally transient, totally ephemeral. So I would reject from an experiential point of view, something in the harshness of the dogma of the rigid no-selfists that can't recognise the intrinsic nature of awareness that is the field. If that makes sense. Cos they tend to feel there's something about that's sort of (cut off?)..."
      Interviewer: "And not only awareness..."
      Daniel: "Intelligence. Right, and I also reject from an experiential point of view the people who would make this permanent, something separate from, something different from just the manifestation itself. I don't like the permanence aspect because from a Buddhist technical point of view I do not find anything that stands up as permanent in experience. I find that quality always there *while there is experience.* Because it's something in the nature of experience. But it's not quite the same thing as permanence, if that makes sense. So while there is experience, there is experience. So that means there is awareness, from a certain point of view, manifestation - awareness being intrinsically the same thing, intrinsic to each other. So while there is experience, I would claim that element (awareness) is there - it has to be for there to be experience. And I would claim that the system seems to function very lawfully and it's very easy to feel that there's a sort of intelligence, ok, cool... ...the feeling of profundity, the feeling of miraculousness, the wondrous component. So as the Tibetans would say, amazing! It all happens by itself! So, there is intrinsically amazing about this. It's very refreshingly amazing that the thing happens, and that things cognize themselves or are aware where they are, manifestation is truly amazing and tuning into that amazingness has something valuable about it from a pragmatic point of view."
      What Does "Mind" Mean in the Phrase, "All Appearances are Mind"?
      REDDIT.COM
      What Does "Mind" Mean in the Phrase, "All Appearances are Mind"?
      What Does "Mind" Mean in the Phrase, "All Appearances are Mind"?

           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 1h · Edited

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      Some other nice posts by Kyle in 2014,
      "'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness."
       · Reply
       · 1h 


      • Aditya Prasad
        Author
        Soh Wei Yu So it sounds like the point is that wisdom / knowledge is realized to be nondual from appearance itself. But if so, I don't know why Malcolm says it is a "complicated issue."
        What it means to be an "appearance" is that it appears. "Appear" is the objective pole and "know" is the subjective pole. When these are realized to be primordially nondual, I guess it doesn't matter if we call what's left "appearances" or "knowingnesses" (or anything else).

      • Reply

      • Soh Wei Yu
        Admin
        Aditya Prasad The key insight is that appearance is empty of being object, and knowing is empty of being a subject. As Kyle said, "Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]."
        Also, as Kyle just posted,
        "
        Krodha:
        When
        anātman is applied to the mind’s cognizance, the realization associated
        with that insight means we recognize, non-conceptually, that there is
        not a seer of sights, or a hearer of sounds, etc.
        For
        deluded sentient beings who dwell in dualistic consciousness, or
        vijñāna, it experientially feels like there is an internal observer that
        is experiencing external phenomena that reside at a distance from the
        observing cognizance.
        In realizing
        anātman, that internal observer collapses and the practitioner realizes
        that there has never actually been a subjective observer at any point
        in time. No seer of sights, no hearer of sounds, etc. That collapse of
        the internal substratum removes the basis for a self, and the mind
        awakens and realizes that the self is not real, and never has been. In
        that insight it can still seem like phenomena are “over there” or “out
        there” however the sights and sounds are just no longer mediated by an
        internal reference point.
        But just
        like the feeling of an internal observer can collapse, the feeling of
        things being “out there” can also collapse, and that is the second fold
        of anātman which applies to phenomenal appearances, which is synonymous
        with emptiness or śūnyatā.
        Rebirth
        only occurs because that internal observer remains in tact, because the
        fetters of I-making and mine-making persist. Buddhas have eliminated
        those obscurations and so rebirth does not occur for them.
        In
        short anātman in the context of awareness concerns the bifurcation of
        experience into subject and object. The self is just this observing
        reference point and the identity based on that reference point. But when
        that reference point disappears in awakened insight then the self is
        completely gone for as long as that equipoise lasts. For Buddhas that
        equipoise is unfragmented, for āryas it is fragmented and for deluded
        sentient beings that equipoise is absent.
        10"

        • Reply
        • 3m

      • Soh Wei Yu
        Admin
        If there is a knowingness that exists but is nondual with objects, that is substantialist nondualism. That is not anatta insight. Anatta insight is the insight that knowingness has never existed as anything besides appearance. It has no existence of its own. Much like there has never been a wind besides blowing, a lightning besides flash, or a river besides the flow.

        • Reply
        • 2m
        • Edited

      • Soh Wei Yu
        Admin
        "Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self. "
        AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
        www.awakeningtoreality.com
        www.awakeningtoreality.com

          • Reply
          • Remove Preview
          • 1m
    .....

    How could "this" awareness not be considered self?

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/rfo2m0/awareness_as_notself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

    Krodha = Kyle Dixon

    level 1
    krodha

     · 2 days ago

    "How
     could "this" awareness (which knows life, death, and the states in
    between, rather than ordinary vijnana) not be considered self? If it is
    the one irreducible constant that remains when bodies, minds, and
    objects pass, surely it would be considered one's true nature?"


    Krodha:
    When
     anātman is applied to the mind’s cognizance, the realization associated
     with that insight means we recognize, non-conceptually, that there is
    not a seer of sights, or a hearer of sounds, etc.
    For
     deluded sentient beings who dwell in dualistic consciousness, or
    vijñāna, it experientially feels like there is an internal observer that
     is experiencing external phenomena that reside at a distance from the
    observing cognizance.
    In realizing
     anātman, that internal observer collapses and the practitioner realizes
     that there has never actually been a subjective observer at any point
    in time. No seer of sights, no hearer of sounds, etc. That collapse of
    the internal substratum removes the basis for a self, and the mind
    awakens and realizes that the self is not real, and never has been. In
    that insight it can still seem like phenomena are “over there” or “out
    there” however the sights and sounds are just no longer mediated by an
    internal reference point.
    But just
     like the feeling of an internal observer can collapse, the feeling of
    things being “out there” can also collapse, and that is the second fold
    of anātman which applies to phenomenal appearances, which is synonymous
    with emptiness or śūnyatā.
    Rebirth
     only occurs because that internal observer remains in tact, because the
     fetters of I-making and mine-making persist. Buddhas have eliminated
    those obscurations and so rebirth does not occur for them.
    In
     short anātman in the context of awareness concerns the bifurcation of
    experience into subject and object. The self is just this observing
    reference point and the identity based on that reference point. But when
     that reference point disappears in awakened insight then the self is
    completely gone for as long as that equipoise lasts. For Buddhas that
    equipoise is unfragmented, for āryas it is fragmented and for deluded
    sentient beings that equipoise is absent.

    10








    level 2
    InfiniteQuestion5

    Op · 2 days ago

    Hi
     Krodha, thanks for a thorough take on the question. In reference to the
     nondual perception, however, what does one make of the apparent field
    of phenomena that continue to arise? Is it regarded as "it is what it
    is," AKA without name and "true reality," as a spontaneous activity?

    2








    level 3
    krodha

     · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

    For
     Buddhas the field of phenomena does not appear as external but as their
     own display. Essentially meaning that knowing and what is known are not
     different. What is known is itself the activity of knowing.
    Rongzom:
    Buddhas
     and bodhisattvas are the knowers, and unmistakable true reality is the
    object of knowledge. Therefore, it is stated that there is no difference
     between knowledge and the object of knowledge.
    Kūkai:
    Although
     mind is distinguished from form, they share the same nature. Form is
    mind, mind is forms. They interfuse with one another without difficulty.
     Therefore, knowing is the objects of knowledge, and the objects,
    knowing. Knowing is reality, reality knowing.

    7









    level 4
    xenobum

     · 2 days ago

    can I just say, thank you for making these concepts much simpler to understand. you've helped me tremendously over the years.

    4










    level 4
    InfiniteQuestion5

    Op · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

    Thanks!
     So, in essence... Buddhas are manifesting spontaneous wisdom and
    purity? How does this fit in with the overlapping mindstreams idea of
    Yogacara, in which various sentient beings collaborate to form realms?
    Edit:
     Had a reread of the quotes a few times to wrap my head around them...
    on reflection, it seems to be suggesting that all Buddhas are simply
    instances of pure knowing. So in that sense, whatever manifests would be
     the activity of knowing. Hard to fully grasp!

    1
    - https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/rfo2m0/awareness_as_notself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
    [9:51 pm, 15/12/2021] John Tan: 👍 Kyle answer is good and rightly point out that anatta Initially only dissolve internal reference of self, "externality" as well as "physicality" will still need to be de-contructed and exhausted.
    [9:53 pm, 15/12/2021] John Tan: Btw I rem writing something to u abt dependent designation that seer dependent on seen is no seer and seen dependent on seer is nothing seen. U know when is it?


    Soh:

    John TanSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:34am UTC+08 when we talk about illusion, there is a difference between water-moon and rabbit-horn. Appearances r like water-moon being dependently originated, without substance and base but not non-existent whereas inherent existence is rabbit horn, it is non-existence and does not exist even conventionally.


    John TanSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:30am UTC+08
    Therefore when seer is dependent on seeing/seen, there is no seer. When seen is dependent on seer/seeing, there is nothing seen.
    Soh Wei YuSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:30am UTC+08
    shld i post this?
    John TanSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:28am UTC+08When we see dependencies, we must also see the absence of phenomena. That is although phenomena appears, by its mere dependencies, it is absence. Absence when sought using Madhyamaka analysis.



    John Tan: Yes




    Soh:
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:33pm UTC+08
    U hv direct insight of anatta, y r u not able to understand seer dependent of seeing and seen as no seer? Because u r comparing direct insight of anatta (non conceptual experience) with conceptuality.
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:28pm UTC+08
    "Ultimate analysis" is just a way of analyzing the validness of true existence therefore dependent arising phenomena r not within the (ultimate analysis) scope. It is not used to negate conditioned existence that dependent originates.
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:28pm UTC+08
    Seen dependent on seeing and seer is nothing seen.. that makes sense.. can u expand what u mean seeing the way of the conventional is different from nonconceptual mode
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:24pm UTC+08
    What it meant is when madhyamikas employ "ultimate analysis" -- a systematic approach of analyzing the validity of ultimate/absolute mode of being, causality is impossible. Means if phenomena inherent exist, causality is impossible. Therefore it is not denying causality, contrary it is affirming causality by seeing emptiness of phenomena.
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:18pm UTC+08
    When fan and blowing are severed via seeing dependent designation, its casuality cannot be established? Like as in fan being inherent causal power of wind
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:17pm UTC+08
    For example "causality is impossible in ultimate analysis". What does that mean?
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:13pm UTC+08
    The 2 models of 2 truth of Mipham suits u better becoz it emphasizes meditative experiences. As for the gelug, u must be very careful of the way they use their jargons.
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:07pm UTC+08
    Of*
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:06pm UTC+08
    Oh.. so the fact that designations do not reference objective object makes it "mere"? Designation is not referring to an object but is designated dependent on parts and conditions and imputing consciousness.. like music is designated on the whole series on notes yet it does not reference anything in particular
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:06pm UTC+08
    What u expressed is quite good. Similarly u must understand "seen" dependent on "seeing" and "seer" is nothing seen...to taste emptiness of conceptuality u must see the way of the conventional is different from the non-conceptual mode just like not to look for shapes and colors in sound.
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 9:59pm UTC+08
    So to experience the "interconnectedness" of total exertion is to see the web of designations. There r 2 points u r missing: 1. "Mere" designation of Prasangika is special. It is not a designation that reference an objective object. 2. The other part u r missing is the dream in a dream to make these designations alive.
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 9:55pm UTC+08
    So to experience of the "interconnectedness" of total exertion is to see the web of designation. The part u r missing is the dream in a dream to make these designations alive.
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 8:44pm UTC+08
    To see things as conventions liberates.. since we no longer see it terms of intrinsic existence. So emptiness leads to seeing things as mere conventions
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 8:10pm UTC+08
    And to see the emptiness of the conventions is not to negate the conventions.. its to let you see conventions not from standpoint of intrinsic existence but from their being dependently designated.. the two truths are one..
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 7:04pm UTC+08
    Now i see why u told me that seer dependent on seeing and seen is the same thing as no seer.. what is dependently designated is to have no existence of its own


    Soh: i think you wrote something even earlier than that but dunno where



    John Tan: Yeah

    Labels: , , , 0 comments |
     
     
    5 Responses
    1. Thanks for posting! I have a question, for the sake of clarification: After a mature realization of Anatta (and Shunyata), how can there be such a thing as "one's natural radiance"? Presumably it isn't a radiance that belongs to a self, since at that point there's neither a sense of self nor of ownership, so what exactly does it refer to...?


    2. Soh Says:

      Only conventionally so. For example, Buddhism does not posit a 'universal consciousness'. Radiance is just a description of the vivid knowingness alive quality that all ongoing appearances exhibit without any duality between mind and phenomena. When hearing the sound, since there is no duality between hearer and sound, conventionally it is as if you are the sound. Ultimately, there is no hearer, no hearing and no sound, yet this is not a nothingness void -- there is the vivid display of sound-emptiness, vision-emptiness, and so on, but without inherently existing subject, action and object. However, the vision you see, the sound you hear, is conventionally the display of 'your mind' because obviously I do not see or hear the same thing as you, so, only in that conventional sense can you say it is 'one's natural radiance' (it is not the natural radiance of some uber overarching universal mind).

      Since this radiance only pertains each conventional person's mindstream, it is not some overarching universal consciousness 'shared' by all beings. We do not share the same mindstream. But even the word 'mindstream' is just another name imputed upon a rosary string of momentary experiences, it is not the case that 'mindstream' refers to some truly existing/inherently existing entity or self. Much like the word 'mala' or 'rosary' is merely imputed on many beads, the word 'army' is merely named after a collection of soldiers, etc. No real entity called 'army' can be found when examined. Likewise no real 'person' or 'mindstream' can be found when examined. Only conventionally do we say 'army', 'mind', 'you', 'me', 'Peter', 'John' and so on.

      It is important to understand that conventional selves and phenomena are not the target of refutation, it is the notion of truly existent self and phenomena, and the paradigm of inherent existence, which is the target of refutation.

      “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.” – Arcaya Malcolm Smith, 2020

      “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.”

      - Arcaya Malcolm Smith


    3. Soh Says:

      Some conversations with John back in 2012 are quite illuminating on this subject:

      John: To me is just is "Soh" an eternal being...that's all. No denial of Soh as a conventional self. All is just him is an inference too. There is no other is also an assumption.

      Soh: That's what I said, lol. He didn't see it.

      John: But other mindstreams is a more valid assumption. Don't you think so? And verifiable.

      Soh: Yeah.

      John: Whatever in conventional reality still remain, only that reification is seen through. Get it? The centre is seen through be it "subject" or "object", they are imputed mental constructs. Only the additional "ghostly something" is seen through. Not construing and reifying. Nothing that "subject" does not exist. This seeing through itself led to implicit non-dual experience.

      Soh: "Nothing that "subject" does not exist." - what you mean?

      John: Not "subject" or "object" does not exist. Or dissolving object into subject or subject into object… etc. That "extra" imputation is seen through. Conventional reality still remain as it is. By the way, focus more on practice in releasing any holdings.... do not keep engaging on all these.

      Soh: I see.. Conventional reality are just names imposed on non-inherent aggregates, right.

      John: Yes. That led to releasing of the mind from holding...no subsuming of anything. What you wrote is unclear. Do you get what I mean? Doesn't mean Soh does not exist… lol. Or I am you or you are me. Just not construing and reifying.

      Soh: I see. Nondual is collapsing objects to self, thus I am you. Anatta simply sees through reification, but conventionally I am I, you are you.

      John: Or collapsing subject into object. You are still unclear about this and mixed up. Seeing through the reification of "subject", "object", "self", "now", "here". Get it? Seeing through "self" led to implicit non-dual experience. Because experience turns direct without reification. In seeing, just scenery. Like you see through the word "weather". That weather-Ness. Be it subject/object/weather/...etc. That is mind free of seeing "things" existing inherently. Experience turns vivid direct and releasing. But I don't want you to keep participating idle talk and neglect practice… always over emphasizing unnecessarily. What happens to experience?

      Soh: you mean after anatta? Direct, luminous, but no ground of abiding (like some inherent awareness).

      John: And what do you mean by that?

      Soh: Means there are only transient six sense streams experience, in seen just seen, etc. Nothing extra.

      John: 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. Implicit Non-dual in experience in anatta to you means what?” - Soh, 2014


    4. Soh Says:


      More on the teaching of conventional self:

      “ https://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Shobogenzo/Shobogenzo%20complete.pdf

      Underlying the whole of Dōgen’s presentation is his own experience of no longer being attached to any sense of a personal self that exists independent of time and of other beings, an experience which is part and parcel of his ‘dropping off of body and mind’. From this perspective of his, anything having existence—which includes every thought and thing—is inextricably bound to time, indeed, can be said to ‘be time’, for there is no thought or thing that exists independent of time. Time and being are but two aspects of the same thing, which is the interrelationship of anicca, ‘the ever-changing flow of time’ and anatta, ‘the absence of any permanent self existing within or independent of this flow of time’. Dōgen has already voiced this perspective in Discourse 1: A Discourse on Doing One’s Utmost in Practicing the Way of the Buddhas (Bendōwa), and in Discourse 3: On the Spiritual Question as It Manifests Before Your Very Eyes (Genjō Kōan), where he discussed the Shrenikan view of an ‘eternal self ’ and the Buddhist perception of ‘no permanent self ’.

      In the present discourse, Dōgen uses as his central text a poem by Great Master Yakusan Igen, the Ninth Chinese Ancestor in the Sōtō Zen lineage. In the Chinese version, each line of this poem begins with the word uji, which functions to introduce a set of couplets describing temporary conditions that appear to be contrastive, but which, in reality, do not stand against each other. These conditions comprise what might be referred to as ‘an I at some moment of time’; this is a use of the word ‘I’ that does not refer to some ‘permanent self ’, abiding unchanged over time (as the Shrenikans maintained) but to a particular set of transient conditions at a particular time. In other words, there is no permanent, unchanging ‘Yakusan’, only a series of ever-changing conditions, one segment of which is perceived as ‘a sentient being’, which is, for convenience, conventionally referred to as ‘Yakusan’. Both Yakusan and Dōgen understand uji (in its sense of ‘that which exists at some time’) as a useful way of expressing the condition of anatta, and in this sense it is used to refer to a state of ‘being’ that is neither a ‘permanent self ’ nor something separate from ‘other’; it is the ‘I’ referred to in one description of a kenshō experience (that is, the experiencing of one’s Buddha Nature) as ‘the whole universe becoming I’. Hence, when the false notion of ‘having a permanent self ’ is abandoned, then what remains is just uji, ‘the time when some form of being persists’.

      After presenting Yakusan’s poem, Dōgen focuses on that aspect of the poem that does not deal with metaphors, images, symbols, etc., and which is the one element in the poem that readers are most likely to pay small heed to: the phrase uji itself. His opening statement encapsulates the whole of what he is talking about in this text, namely: “The phrase ‘for the time being’ implies that time in its totality is what existence is, and that existence in all its occurrences is what time is.”

      “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.” - Vajira Sutta


    5. I should have known it was merely conventional language. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me at such length.