中文翻译：https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/11/vs_2.html

You can get Clarifying the Natural State in PDF for $2 at Mahamudra Books for Cheap http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/05/mahamudra-books-for-cheap.html

Conversation — 18 March 2008

AEN: Hi, I bought two books. One is Maitreya's Distinguishing Phenomena and Pure Being with commentary by Mipham under the guidance of Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche. The other is Clarifying the Natural State by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal. Oh, I just realized Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche is the one who wrote the article A Teaching on Guru Rinpoche’s Supplication That All Thoughts Be Self-Liberated. I haven't read a lot yet, just came back from a BBQ.

“It is easy to resolve that this conscious mind does not consist of any shape, color, location, support, or material substance. However, if you take it to be a definable entity that is aware and empty and you remain quietly in that state, you are still unresolved, since that is the meditative mood of stillness. Therefore, make mandala offerings, supplicate with deep devotion and investigate each instance of how it is aware, how it is empty and what its real mode is.

Through this you may find that mind is not comprised of a concrete or material substance and therefore has no shape or color, no dwelling place or support. You may also understand that it is an aware emptiness that defies any description of being such-and-such—it is inexpressible and yet it can be experienced.

When that is the case, the lama should try to present confusing statements. If the meditator's understanding is merely theory or hearsay it will be inconsistent and will not withstand scrutiny. If it is personal experience, it will converge on one point even when he is unable to articulate with traditional words. When this happens, the meditator has reached personal experience.

Even so, there are eloquent and articulate meditators who lack personal experience. There are also experienced and tongue-tied meditators who are unable to explain. The lama should therefore let them thoroughly investigate and resolve this fully through real experience.

While in the previous state of lucid and thought-free shamatha, as before, look directly into your conscious mind. It is a wakefulness for which no words suffice. It is not a definable entity, but at the same time, it is a self-knowing aware emptiness that is clear, lucid and awake. Sustain this without distraction.

From another part:

Next, in order to continue to gain personal experience, examine a particular thought or perception. You may now say, "it does not have a shape, color, or definable identity. The identity of mind is simply an aware emptiness!" Or you may deliver some other piece of theoretical understanding.

However, it isn't certain what you mean by aware emptiness. Do you mean an aware emptiness that happens after a thought event has ceased or dissolved? Or is it an aware emptiness while the thought is present? In the latter case, you may say the state is aware, but it is meaningless to say it is empty. Scrutinize in this way and continue examining.

No matter what kind of thought occurs, its experience is, in itself, something unidentifiable—it is unobstructedly aware and yet not conceptualizing. As for perceptions, they are a mere impression of unobstructed presence, which is insubstantial and not a clinging to a solid reality. They are hard to describe as being such-and-such, and when you understand them to be this way you have reached personal experience.

Without getting distracted then, simply sustain this aware emptiness that is an unidentifiable awareness, also referred to as a perceiving emptiness that is perception devoid of a self-nature.

Someone may say, "When I look directly into a thought or perception, it dissolves and becomes an aware emptiness." This is a case of not having established certainty about the nature of thoughts and perceptions, but rather of using the idea of aware emptiness as an antidote against them.

Thusness: Quite good.

AEN: Then there are quite a few pointing out instructions, like actual pointing out of the innate, pointing out of the innate mind essence, etc. One of them is pointing out innate thinking and another pointing out innate perception, which I think is about non-duality. For example:

Pointing Out Innate Thinking

Second, the meditator should now assume the correct posture in front of the master, and be told the following: “Let your mind remain in its natural way. When thoughts have subsided, your mind is an intangible, aware emptiness. Be undistracted and look directly into the identity of this naked state!

“At this moment, allow a feisty thought, such as delight, to take form. The very moment it vividly occurs, look directly into its identity from within the state of aware emptiness.

“Now, is this thought the intangible and naked state of aware emptiness? Or is it absolutely no different from the identity of innate mind-essence itself? Look!”

Let the meditator look for a short while.

The meditator may say, “It is the aware emptiness. There seems to be no difference.” If so, ask:

“Is it an aware emptiness after the thought has dissolved? Or is it an aware emptiness by driving away the thought by meditation? Or is the vividness of the thought itself an aware emptiness?”

If the meditator says it is like one of the first two cases, he has not cleared up the former uncertainties and should therefore be set to resolve this for a few days.

Thusness: The mind essence that is empty is most difficult to understand. More difficult to experience than anatta.

AEN: On the other hand, if he personally experiences it to be like the latter case, he has seen the identity of thought and can therefore be given the following pointing-out instruction:

“When you look into a thought’s identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this ‘Seeing the natural face of innate thought’, or, ‘Thought dawns as dharmakaya.’

“Previously, when you determined the thought’s identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves.

I see.

Thusness: What is the example?

AEN: I just pasted above. You didn't receive? 'Pointing Out Innate Thinking'. Did you see the part starting, "Second, the meditator should now assume the correct posture..."?

Thusness: Never received.

AEN: Ok, continue from there:

“At this moment, allow a feisty thought, such as delight, to take form. The very moment it vividly occurs, look directly into its identity from within the state of aware emptiness.

“Now, is this thought the intangible and naked state of aware emptiness? Or is it absolutely no different from the identity of innate mind-essence itself? Look!”

Let the meditator look for a short while.

The meditator may say, “It is the aware emptiness. There seems to be no difference.” If so, ask:

“Is it an aware emptiness after the thought has dissolved? Or is it an aware emptiness by driving away the thought by meditation? Or is the vividness of the thought itself an aware emptiness?”

If the meditator says it is like one of the first two cases, he has not cleared up the former uncertainties and should therefore be set to resolve this for a few days.

On the other hand, if he personally experiences it to be like the latter case, he has seen the identity of thought and can therefore be given the following pointing-out instruction:

“When you look into a thought’s identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this ‘Seeing the natural face of innate thought’, or, ‘Thought dawns as dharmakaya.’

“Previously, when you determined the thought’s identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves.”

Then there is also innate pointing of perception.

Thusness: This is very good! This is anatta. From who?

AEN: Clarifying The Natural State by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal. If I'm not wrong there are two series and the same cover design, only difference in color. The other is by Thrangu Rinpoche I think.

Thusness: However this must be extended to all six senses.

AEN: Yea, I only copied the innate pointing of thinking.

Thusness: Actually it is just insight that is all.

AEN: There is also perception... where it uses visual perception.

Thusness: It cannot be attained as a state. Only as an insight. Once Bahiya Sutta is understood.

AEN: "Previously you cleared up uncertainties when you looked into the identity of a perception and resolved that perceptions are mind. Accordingly, the perception is not outside and the mind is not inside. It is merely, and nothing other than, this empty and aware mind that appears as a perception. It is exactly like the example of a dream-object and the dreaming mind..."

Thusness: It is a natural state. Empty luminosity. But must be understood from DO [Soh: Dependent Origination]. The first two cases is 'I Amness'. I am glad that it is stated.

AEN: Oh wait. Clarifying the Natural State is not in two series, though it has the same cover design as Crystal Clear by Thrangu Rinpoche.

Thusness: Where did you get this? Do I have the book?

AEN: Yeah, the same question is also asked when allowing visual perception such as a mountain and a house to be vividly experienced, and the book says:

"Let the meditator look. He may say, ‘There’s no difference. It’s an intangible, aware emptiness.’ If so, then ask: ‘Is it an aware emptiness after the perceived image has disappeared? Or is the image an aware emptiness by means of cultivating the aware emptiness? Or is the perceived image itself an aware emptiness?’"

Then he goes on to say the first two cases is that the meditator has not thoroughly investigated the above and should be once more sent to meditate and resolve this. But if he does experience that the vividly perceived visual image itself—unidentifiable in any way other than as a mere presence of unconfined perception—is an aware emptiness, the master should then give this pointing out instruction:

"When you vividly perceive a mountain or a house, no matter how this perception appears, it does not need to disappear or be stopped. Rather, while this perception is experienced, it is itself an intangible, empty awareness. This is called seeing the identity of perception."

I got it from Evergreen just now. The book you lent me was Crystal Clear, but no Clarifying the Natural State.

Thusness: I see. Anyway luminosity-emptiness cannot be separated. It also talks about the 4 yogas, simplicity, one taste, non-meditation etc. You must first understand anatta first. I like it.

AEN: It has guides to practice of shamatha and vipashyana.

Thusness: Emptiness must be understood without essence and operate like DO [Soh: Dependent Origination]. But you must be able to correctly discern stage 1 and 2. Case 1 and 2 is just about stage 1. When a person experiences stage 2, he might mistake it that he has understood what is described above. When you read, you are able to discern correctly; that is good. Didn't waste my effort... haha. Normal practitioners even after stage 2 will not understand and are unable to appreciate the passage.

AEN: I bought another book which is also all about non-duality.

Thusness: Buddhism or Advaita?

AEN: Buddhism. It's called Maitreya's Distinguishing Phenomena and Pure Being. It's a text by Maitreya Bodhisattva with commentaries by Mipham. I bought it because it contains some stuff which I was just contemplating on yesterday. I haven't read a lot yet... wait, I'll copy for you some parts:

"Those who cling compulsively to the existence of outer objects claim, 'Outer objects exist, because no one can deny that anything composed of atoms, such as mountains and any other object observed in common, exists.' But that is not how it is.

Given what appear to be outer and perceivable in common, such as mountains and so on, as the postulate subject, these are not outer referents discrete from the inner consciousness and existing with a material essence, because they are the inner perceiving awareness itself appearing as the image of this and that outer referent for those whose operative habitual tendencies correspond, just like forms in a dream.

What are being called 'outer objects observed in common' are not referents existing as something extrinsic to or other than consciousness, because they are only apparently experienced as common by a variety of beings whose mindstreams are not identical. But this is what proves that they are nothing other than differing perceptions of differing mindstreams.

And how does it prove that? What are claimed to be 'factors observed in common' are proposed as providing the proof for the existence of outer referents. But these can only be posited as 'outer referents experienced in common' due to a similarity in the character of their appearance from the subjective viewpoint of distinct mindstreams. But that means these appearances are the private impressions of mindstreams which differ among themselves. And that means they could never constitute common experience.

Thus to say, 'There are outer objects which are something other than a mere appearance (or impression)' and to say, 'Here is one experienced in common' could never be demonstrated logically, since, to do so, one would have to posit the existence of objects other than those which appear to a mind. But it would make no sense to posit an object that could not appear to any mind, since it could not be evaluated through valid cognition.

On subjecting this so-called 'common experience' to critical scrutiny, the reason for claiming it to be 'common' turns out to be built on the similarity of appearance with respect to mindstreams which themselves differ, so it follows that, even though there is a similarity in the appearance, its underlying cause includes no necessity of a specific outer common referent literally existing, just as corresponding appearances manifest for spectators under the influence of the charm of an illusionist. Similarly, for creatures whose operative habitual tendencies correspond, not only will environments and so on have a similar appearance for as long as the energy of those habitual tendencies has not been exhausted, but, what is more, the specific cause for their appearing to be similar will not be existence of a referent on the outside. Just as something which one type of being sees as water will be seen as existing under another appearance by others among the six types of beings whose karmic impressions differ, anything perceived should be understood to be neither more nor less than a self-manifestation of the mentality internal to a specific observer."

Thusness: The first book is better.

AEN: I see. The second book is more theoretical I think.

Thusness: Yes. First is a meditative and intuitive experience. Second is to logically understand something from a Buddhist perspective. It is not an arising of prajna wisdom. You can take the first book as your guide. Lend it to me once you finished. Even after anatta experience you must practice dropping especially as a lay.

AEN: Oh, I just realized the author of Clarifying the Natural State, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, is not a modern master. He's a 16th-century master. The book is translated from Tibetan by Thrangu Rinpoche.

"The words of Dakpo Tashi Namgyal are unique. Adorned with plenty of pithy advice out of his personal experience, practitioners are greatly benefited by his instructions on how to remove hindrances and progress further. His methods for practicing Mahamudra are preeminent. This book is indispensable as it focuses exclusively on practice." — Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche

Thusness: Tibetan masters seem to have deeper insight.

AEN: Hmm, how come? Because of the teachings?

Thusness: No, insight. I am referring to insight. I see many dualistic teachings nowadays in Buddhist circles. Especially Zen.

AEN: Oh I just found out Crystal Clear is Thrangu Rinpoche's "loose commentaries on Clarifying the Natural State" based on talks. But a few Zen masters are quite enlightened right? (Soh: while it is true that most Zen masters just like most other masters in any given traditions haven't realised anatta, there is actually quite a number of Zen Masters that are/were very clear about anatta including [founder of Chinese Ch'an] Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma, Zen Master Dogen, Zen Master Steve Hagen, Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, Zen Master Hong Wen Liang (洪文亮禅师), Zen Master Hui Lü, Zen Master Barry Magid, Zen Master Ven. Jinmyo Renge osho, Zen Master Judith Ragir, Zen Master Hakuun Yasutani, Zen Master Kubota [Akira] Ji'un, Zen Master Shohaku Okumura，继程法师 and many others I haven't mentioned)

Thusness: Yes.

AEN: So why is it that many Zen people are dualistic? Due to lack of proper teaching or guidance or concept?

Thusness: Yes.

AEN: By the way you know Mahamudra also practices self-inquiry?

"(C) Finally, practice the meditation by looking directly at self as guided by the question ‘Who am I?’ This meditation was taught by Milarepa. Rest in this non-dual awareness."

So not only Zen. Actually Theravada also... particularly Thai Forest tradition, Ajahn Chah that side.

Hi. Very interesting posts. I'm just speaking from direct experience about the awareness, which seems relevant to this debate too. I would call it "aware nothingness" really, as it feels empty and without identity. Yet time and again, it always feels to be the same, stable and unchanging. And recalling distant memories, it feels the same too. Perhaps that's why Vedantins describe it so. It spontaneously realises itself several times a day and it feels like it's always there too. The dimension within which all experience seems to happen, within which consciousness changes through the day. But how can this aware nothingness feel so unchanging if it is not so? I am open to it being impermanent, but it does not feel like this. I'd also be very grateful if someone could simply describe how Buddha nature is impermanent too. Many thanks. Metta, Dolphin

By the way what is the problem with Crystal Clear which you said last time?

OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): Well, if I’m not the memories and I’m not the things that happened to me and I’m not my story, then who am I?

ECKHART TOLLE (AUTHOR, "A NEW EARTH"): That's the question. And, in fact, who am I is actually a question that in some spiritual -- eastern spiritual teachings is used as a kind of mantra or pointer that you repeat to yourself in a meditation setting. So you sit down and you ask yourself, who am I? And you're not supposed to answer that question. You leave the blank after the question. In that blank, in that empty space, if it works, if this practice works as it should, you suddenly get a sense of your own presence…

OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): Mm-hmm.

ECKHART TOLLE (AUTHOR, "A NEW EARTH"): …that has nothing to do with your thought processes. Your own sense of conscious presence, your being-ness, your presence, which part of which is actually also your physical presence, but it's a sense of aliveness.

OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): Mm-hmm.

ECKHART TOLLE (AUTHOR, "A NEW EARTH"): Every cell of the body becomes part of that sense of presence and aliveness. So, as we state here, we can (unintelligible) if we can get a little glimpse of that. A glimpse of our own presence, which again is nothing to do with thinking. It is deeper than thinking.

OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): How do we get a glimpse of it sitting here?

ECKHART TOLLE (AUTHOR, "A NEW EARTH"): We get a glimpse of it. I recommend that see if you can feel the inner aliveness in your body. As (unintelligible), is there any sense in which you can feel that there is an aliveness in every cell of the body? Now, if people…

OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): But isn't my mind thinking that?

ECKHART TOLLE (AUTHOR, "A NEW EARTH"): Your mind may be thinking, yes, of course, I’m alive.

OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): Like in the book you say, feel the aliveness in your hands. Okay.

ECKHART TOLLE (AUTHOR, "A NEW EARTH"): Yes.

OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): When I go to feel the aliveness in my hand, I can't feel the aliveness in my hand unless I had a mind in which to feel that.

ECKHART TOLLE (AUTHOR, "A NEW EARTH"): No. So, if you close your eyes and you hold out your hand like this…

OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): Yes, yes.

ECKHART TOLLE (AUTHOR, "A NEW EARTH"): …and then you -- the question…

OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): You feel this -- the vibrating sensation in your hand.

ECKHART TOLLE (AUTHOR, "A NEW EARTH"): So the moment you enter the inner aliveness of the body, you sense – there is a sense of self that is deeper than thinking. You are that aliveness that you feel. You are that alive presence. And so -- and this applies whether your past or your personal history is a happy one or an unhappy one. For most people, it's a very mixed story.

Thusness: Dolphin is not bad but the way you answer must be more careful and precise. I read his reply. Need to explain more. He seems to agree in his latest mail.

AEN: I see. Seems to agree with? I'm just starting to read now. Hmm, so how to reply to him?

Thusness: He said he re-read and more deeply. "But permanent, as the Advaitins say, the awareness it is not necessarily so, even though it has the appearance of it in direct human experience." What he meant by this? I read it as he thinks although it appears permanent in direct human experience, it is not so.

AEN: What he means? Oh lol, you asking the same thing.

Thusness: What he said is he begins to understand why it is impermanent. Only in appearance it is permanent, though in direct human experience it seems to be permanent. I will tell you how to answer why... going to makan. For him, you must answer more carefully. Quote what I said in the url and link it with views. The relationship between views and consciousness. How it distorts an experience and make it appear permanent. Talk to you after I makan.

AEN: Ok... which url? The Link Between Non-Duality and Emptiness?

Thusness: No. You mean the Buddha nature is not I AM?

AEN: Yes. I see. You mean link it with karmic propensities?

Thusness: Yes. Are you denying the "I AMness" experience?

AEN: You mean in the post? No. It's more like the nature of 'i am' right? The dualistic understanding?

Thusness: Yes it is the wrong understanding of that experience. Just like 'redness' of a flower. Vivid and seems real and belongs to the flower. It only appears so, it is not so. When we see in terms of subject/object dichotomy, it appears puzzling that there is thoughts, no thinker. There is sound, no hearer and there is rebirth, but no permanent soul being reborn.

It is puzzling because of our deeply held view of seeing things inherently where dualism is a subset of this 'inherent' seeing. So what is the problem?

AEN: I see. The deeply held views?

Thusness: Yeah. What is the problem? The problem is the root cause of suffering lies in this deeply held view. We search and are attached because of these views. This is the relationship between 'view' and 'consciousness'. There is no escape. With inherent view, there is always 'I' and 'Mine'. There is always 'belongs', like the 'redness' belongs to the flower. Therefore despite all transcendental experiences, there is no liberation without right understanding.

AEN: I see. But that guy said something like the 'I'ness illusion is lost or something, though he still thinks it's permanent and formless.

Thusness: You don't have to care what is said.

AEN: Hahaha, ok. He thinks awareness is the void background of experiences even though he does treat it as 'self'.

Thusness: Doesn't.

AEN: Ya.

Thusness: But after reading the url, he knows what you meant. The subtlety of the 'bond' cannot be underestimated.

AEN: I see.