(12:48 AM) Thusness:    lasttime comment is quite good but used in wrong situation

many wants to come into buddhism and talk about simplicity and try to advice ppl not to over complicate matter

(12:50 AM) AEN:             oic..

(12:50 AM) Thusness:    this is a wrong approach

simplicity is only realized after true certain realization

(12:51 AM) AEN:             ic..

(12:51 AM) Thusness:    do not come into Buddhism with this sort of mindset

when our we see things with dualistic and inherent mind, there is no simplicity

Have u seen any sutra that can be easily understood?


(12:53 AM) AEN:             generally sutta that expounds prajna and insight cannot be understood easily.... thats why buddha said the dharma is only understood by the wise

(12:57 AM) Thusness:    from Avatamsaka sutra, heart sutra, lankavatara sutra, lotus sutra, Vimalakirti sutra, diamond sutra, perfect enlightenment sutra...

i never come across any that is easy to understand

so i just focus on one...lol

heart sutra

and it is already a big headache

a sincere and serious practitioner should not come with a wrong mindset

there is no easy way to overcome the inherent and dualistic view

as much as we would like to...

as for beacom, advice him not to see it that way





I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Kurus. Now, the Kurus have a town named Kammāsadhamma. There Ven. Ānanda approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: “It’s amazing, lord, it’s astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be.”

(The Buddha:) “Don’t say that, Ānanda. Don’t say that. Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It’s because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations.


- https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN15.html







“This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the observant. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the pacification of all fabrications, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.”





Clee Stacy Have you read http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html 


That is the summary of the realizations presented in the AtR blog. 


Also Thusness wrote in early 2010:




....What David Carse said requires more than the “I AMness” realization you narrated in your post “Certainty of Being”.  It also requires more than just glimpses of the non-dual state that can be induced by penetrating the question:


"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"


It requires a practitioner to be sufficiently clear about the cause of ‘separation’ so that the perceptual knot that creates the ‘division’ is thoroughly seen through.  At this phase, non-dual becomes quite effortless.  The three following articles that you posted in your blog are all about the thorough insights of seeing through the illusionary division created by mental constructs.  They are all very well written.  It is worth revisiting these articles.


1. Body/No-Body

2. The Teachings of Atmananda and the Direct Path

3. The Direct Path

Of all the 3 articles, I like Joan’s article Body/No-body best.  Do not simply go through the motion of reading, read with a reverent heart.  Though a simple article but is not any less insightful than those written by well-known masters, it has all the answers and pointers you need. 🙂

Next, there are several points you made that is related to the deconstruction of mental objects but you should also note that there exist a predictable relationship between the 'mental object to be de-constructed' and 'the experiences and realizations'.  For example “The Teachings of Atmananda and the Direct Path” will, more often than not lead a practitioner to the realization of One Mind whereas the article from Joan will lead one to the experiential insight of No-Mind.  As a general guideline,

1. If you de-construct the subjective pole, you will be led to the experience of No-Mind.

2. If you de-construct the objective pole, you will be led to the experience of One-Mind.

3. If you go through a process of de-constructing prepositional phrases like "in/out" "inside/outside" "into/onto," "within/without" "here/there", you will dissolve the illusionary nature of locality and time.

4. If you simply go through the process of self-enquiry by disassociation and elimination without clearly understanding the non-inherent and dependent originated nature of phenomena, you will be led to the experience of “I AMness”.

Lastly, not to talk too much about self-liberation or the natural state, it can sound extremely misleading.  Although Joan Tollifson spoke of the natural non-dual state is something “so simple, so immediate, so obvious, so ever-present that we often overlook”, we have to understand that to even come to this realization of the “Simplicity of What Is”, a practitioner will need to undergo a painstaking process of de-constructing the mental constructs.  We must be deeply aware of the ‘blinding spell’ in order to understand consciousness.  I believe Joan must have gone through a period of deep confusions, not to under-estimate it. :)

0 Responses