An article I posted to Syl Via, reposting as a separate topic as I thought it might be of benefit and useful pointers to others. Reflection and Presence: The Dialectic of Awakening

I just discovered that this book by John Welwood is currently selling at $1.99 in Amazon on the Kindle format:


 “Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: in the seen will be merely what is seen, ... in the cognized will merely be what is cognized. Practising in this way, Bāhiya, you will not be 'because of that'. When you are not 'because of that', you will not be 'in that'. And when you are not 'in that', you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

What does it mean "you will not be 'because of that'"? The Pāli is na tena. Tena is the instrumental of the word for 'that'. Na is the negative. It means, literally, "not because of that, not through that, not by that". It means in essence, you will not assume that there is a self, a soul, a me; because of, through, or by; the seen or the heard or the sensed or the cognized. The Buddha is saying that once you have penetrated the truth of sensory experience, by suppressing the Hindrances through Jhāna, you will see that there is no 'doer', nor a 'knower', behind sensory experience. No longer will you be able to use sensory experience as evidence for a self. Descartes' famous "I am because I think" is refuted. You will not be because of thinking, nor because of seeing, hearing or sensing. In the Buddha's words, "You will not be because of that (any sensory experience)".

When the sensory processes are discarded as tenable evidence for a self, a soul or a me, then you are no longer located in the sensory experience. In the Buddha's words, "You will not be 'in that'". You no longer view, perceive or even think that there is a 'me' involved in life. In the words of the doctor in the original series of Star Trek, "It is life, Jim, but not as we know it"! There is no longer any sense of self, or soul, at the centre of experience. You are no more 'in that'.

Just to close off the loophole that you might think you can escape non-existence of a self or soul by identifying with a transcendental state of being beyond what is seen, heard, sensed or cognized, the Buddha thunders, "and you will be neither here (with the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor beyond (outside of the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor in between the two (neither of the world nor beyond the world). The last phrase comprehensively confounded the sophists!

In summary, the Buddha advised both Bāhiya and Venerable Mālunkyaputta to experience the Jhānas to suppress the Five Hindrances. Thereby one will discern with certainty the absence of a self or a soul behind the sensory process. Consequently, sensory experience will never again be taken as evidence of a 'knower' or a 'doer': such that you will never imagine a self or a soul at the centre of experience, nor beyond, nor anywhere else. Bāhiya's Teaching put in a nutshell the way to the realization of No-Self, Anattā. "Just this", concluded the Buddha "is the end of suffering".” – Ajahn Brahmavamso, , also, he explained anatta from 56 minutes onwards in this video (prior to 56 minutes mark, the explanation focuses on cultivating samadhi):


Geovani Geo wrote:

Causes and effects do apply to the eddies in the flow. Cultivating equipoise is to imerse wholly into the stream. All eddies are water. No need to go back into thoroughly analyzing eddies and the flow. Once the insight has been introduced, the slightest intent is enough. Not even that.


John Tan wrote:

Geovani Geo

, I think it is still necessary. Even after anatta insight and experience, the line of reasoning of dependent origination and emptiness need not be clear.


It is not easy for the mind to realize how negative emotions and attachments are related to thoughts of production, origination and existence -- "dualistic and inherent" view; but if we keep refining and get used to the line of reasoning, we will be able to release and relief the mind from all these notions. That said the process of freeing is a very gradual and slow process unlike the sudden flash of insights as in the case of koan, self enquiry of I AM or anatta.


For firm progress, integration of these experiences, insights and the right view is needed -- how anatta insight and experience are related to the seeing through of the mental construct and convention of "self/Self" and extending such realization to all phenomena to the eventual freedom of the mind from all conceptualities.



   · 16m



John Tan just said: This comment by Malcolm is really good.👍

Session Start: Wednesday, August 09, 2006
(11:32 PM) AEN: namdrol:
While it is true that many non-Buddhist paths a renunciate and so on, the unique feature of the Buddha's path is understanding that phenomena are dependently originated. Dependent origination is critical in developing a correct view.
Is the mere knowledge that phenomena dependently originated sufficient? No.
It is possible to hold a view of dependent origination which is nevertheless realist or substantialist in nature-- a perfect example of this would the way Thich Nhat Hahn's "interbeing" is generally understood. Here, it is never questioned that the mutually depedendent phenomena exist in dependence because they all exist together. In general, this is also the naive understanding of dependent origination.
(11:32 PM) AEN: Even so, this view of dependent orgination already marks the beginning of turning from a wrong or incorrect view, to a right or correct view.
How do we move from a substantialist interpretation of dependent origination to a non-substantialist understanding?
We need to first be open to having our existential assumptions undermined. Any clinging to existence and non-existence must be eradicated before we can properly appreciate the meaning of DO. Some people think this simply means clinging to inherent or ultimate existence. But this is not so. Whatever arises in dependence also must be devoid of mere existence as well.
To understand this fully we must understand the perfection of wisdom sutras in their entirety and the thinking of Nagarjuna and his followers.
(11:32 PM) AEN:
When we have truly understood that phenomena are devoid existence and non-existence because they are dependently originated; we can understand that phenomena do not arise, since existence and dependence are mutually exclusive. Any existence that can be pointed to is merely putative and nominal, and does not bear any reasoned investigation.
Since phenomena are dependently originated, and the consequence of dependent origination is that there are no existing existents, we can understand that existents are non-arising by nature. As Buddhapalita states "We do not claim non-existence, we merely remove claims for existing existents."
Whatever does not arise by nature is free from existence and non-existence, and that is the meaning of "freedom from proliferation." In this way, dependent origination = emptiness, and this is the correct view that Buddhas elucidate. There is no other correct view than this.
Someone wrote:
(Soh's translation:
Sitting Zen is not Dao [the Way]
Sitting Zen is not other than Dao [the Way]
What is Dao [the Way]?
Katz is also not Dao [the Way])
Zen Master reply:
(Soh's translation:
Sitting Zen is the Dao [the Way]
Sitting Zen is not the Dao [the Way]
What is Is Dao [the Way]?
Katz is Katz Katz Dao [the Way])
John Tan reply in 2018:
“Sometimes I wonder why a master write in such a
(Soh's translation:
So much unnecessary Is and Is Not
So much unnecessary Dao this, Dao that
[All these are] still not as good as
[In] action only action, [in] sleeping is only sleep
[In] the seen only the seen, [in] the heard is only the heard
If it is possible to be like this, there is none who ask about Dao)”


A friend shared this recently, from HHDL. I think AtR would consider these "two levels" to map more-or-less onto I AM and anatta. I'm not entirely sure, however, since even the first level is communicated (both here and elsewhere) as perhaps easier to realize than AtR's I AM.
The true nature of the mind, a clear experience of our knowing, is obscured in our normal experience. When meditating on the mind, you must try to remain focused on the present moment. You must prevent recollections of past experiences from interfering with your reflections. The mind should not be directed back into the past, nor influenced by hopes or fears about the future. Once you prevent such thoughts from interfering with your focus, what is left is the interval between the recollections of past experiences and your anticipations and projections of the future. This interval is a vacuum. You must work at maintaining your focus on just this vacuum.
Initially, your experience of this interval space is only fleeting. However, as you continue to practice, you become able to prolong it. In doing so, you clear away the thoughts that obstruct the expression of the real nature of the mind. Gradually, pure knowing can shine through. With practice, that interval can get larger and larger, until it becomes possible for you to know what consciousness is. It is important to understand that the experience of this mental interval — consciousness emptied of all thought processes — is not some kind of blank mind. It is not what one experiences when in deep, dreamless sleep or when one has fainted.
At the beginning of your meditation you should say to yourself, “I will not allow my mind to be distracted by thoughts of the future, anticipations, hopes, or fears, nor will I let my mind stray toward memories of the past. I will remain focused on this present moment.” Once you have cultivated such a will, you take that space between past and future as the object of meditation and simply maintain your awareness of it, free of any conceptual thought processes.
Mind has two levels by nature. The first level is the clear experience of knowing just described. The second and ultimate nature of the mind is experienced with the realization of the absence of this mind’s inherent existence. In order to develop single-pointed concentration on the ultimate nature of the mind, you initially take the first level of the mind — the clear experience of knowing — as the focus of meditation. Once that focus is achieved, you then contemplate the mind’s lack of inherent existence. What then appears to the mind is actually the emptiness or lack of any intrinsic existence of the mind.
badge icon
Aditya Prasad
The last paragraph is similar to what John Tan said here. Of course, exactly what those realisations are need to be elaborated. For example, I AM is not just experience but confers some doubtless realisation. As for emptiness there are also a few kinds of insights. But I think HHDL should be pointing to the same things. I think I quoted something from the recent HHDL book that is very much about anatta and emptiness. I would think that HHDL should be having similar understandings.
Dalai Lama - "Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels...." - (Part 2)
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Hyon Gak Sunim: A Conversation - Part 2
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Hyon Gak Sunim: A Conversation - Part 2
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Hyon Gak Sunim: A Conversation - Part 2

     · Reply
     · Remove Preview
     · 1w · Edited

badge icon
What John Tan said:

     · Reply
     · 1w

badge icon
John Tan's reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:
This is like what I tell u and essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing [its] Nature. First apprehend Mind, later realise [its] Nature).
First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like zen sudden enlightenment of one's original mind or mahamudra or dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa or even self enquiry of advaita -- the direct, immediate, perception of "consciousness" without intermediaries. They r the same.
However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) yet. If u go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, u will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots r.
Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between buddhist's anatta and selflessness of other religions -- whether it is anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness.
The former focused on selflessness and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self whereas the later is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.
As for emptiness there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness of Tsongkhapa and there is the emptiness free from extremes by Gorampa. Both r equally profound so do not talk nonsense and engaged in profane speech as in terms of result, ultimately they r the same (imo).
 · Reply
 · 1w · Edited


    AF is anatta, but still in duality so anatta that skipped I AM. Correct?


    badge icon
    Sorry can you rephrase?

    • Reply
    • 1h

  • badge icon
    Anatta is without duality.
    Richard went through I AM. But not sure how thorough it is. I disagree with some of his characterization of I AM.

    • Reply
    • 1h

  • Author
    Ok. Then I wonder why he says his identity is the body which in I AM is awareness?
    Maybe like you say there was something lacking.

    • Reply
    • 54m

  • Author
    Ok... I think I understand it, he never got the nonceptual knowing of being awareness. So still believing he is the body.

    • Reply
    • 47m

  • badge icon
    He did not say his identity is the body and I AM is the awareness inside the body. He is saying there is no identity in him, no self/Self whatsoever. This is correct. Therefore, there are just the body and mind aggregates. Even the I AM is not seen as any different from another aggregates after anatta realization (and not some unchanging and permanent underlying background -- that is an illusin). This is congruent with anatta realization. He did not deny consciousness, but he rejected identity as an illusion.
    March 2011:
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Soh Wei Yu
    Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:16 PM
    To: Thusness
    Subject: You are body, not mountain
    Hi, what is richard trying to point out here by saying you are not the
    world? That there is no cosmic consciousness?
    RESPONDENT: 'There is nothing but x'; substitute for 'x' any term ...
    RICHARD: Okay ... as you say 'any term' here is what I report looks like
    under your schemata:
    . [example only]: 'There is nothing but this actual world. You are this
    actual world'.
    Now, as this actual world is the world of this body...the world of the
    mountains and the streams...and so on and so on...what you are saying is
    that you are everything... whereas I say I am this flesh and blood body only
    (sans identity in toto).
    There is no such self-aggrandisement...(there is no identity in actuality).
    And this is truly wonderful.
    John Tan's reply:
    It is like saying there is only aggregates. No aggrandisement at all. It
    is a way of attempting to get grounded to the most fundamental facts so that
    there is no abstraction or reification. A way of anchoring PCEs. It is
    similar to getting oneself grounded in the here and now. But I do not not
    want to comment about AF. Do not want u to create unnecessary problems.
    I AM is actually a PCE, although Richard may not see it that way.
    Why is I AM a PCE? This is also explained in the I AM chapter of AtR guide:
    "As John Tan also said in 2011:
    “John: what is "I AM"
    is it a pce? (Soh: PCE = pure consciousness experience, see glossary at the bottom of this document)
    is there emotion
    is there feeling
    is there thought
    is there division or complete stillness?
    in hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound!
    so what is "I AM"?
    Soh Wei Yu: it is the same
    just that pure non conceptual thought
    John: is there 'being'?
    Soh Wei Yu: no, an ultimate identity is created as an afterthought
    John: indeed
    it is the mis-interpretation after that experience that is causing the confusion
    that experience itself is pure conscious experience
    there is nothing that is impure
    that is why it is a sense of pure existence
    it is only mistaken due to the 'wrong view'
    so it is a pure conscious experience in thought.
    not sound, taste, touch...etc
    PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) is about direct and pure experience of whatever we encounter in sight, sound, taste...
    the quality and depth of experience in sound
    in contacts
    in taste
    in scenery
    has he truly experience the immense luminous clarity in the senses?
    if so, what about 'thought'?
    when all senses are shut
    the pure sense of existence as it is when the senses are shut.
    then with senses open
    have a clear understanding
    do not compare irrationally without clear understanding”
    In 2007:
    (9:12 PM) Thusness: you don't think that "I AMness" is low stage of enligthenment leh
    (9:12 PM) Thusness: the experience is the same. it is just the clarity. In terms of insight. Not experience.
    (9:13 PM) AEN: icic..
    (9:13 PM) Thusness: so a person that has experience "I AMness" and non dual is the same. except the insight is different.
    (9:13 PM) AEN: oic
    (9:13 PM) Thusness: non dual is every moment there is the experience of presence. or the insight into the every moment experience of presence. because what that prevent that experience is the illusion of self and "I AM" is that distorted view. the experience is the same leh.
    (9:15 PM) Thusness: din you see i always say there is nothing wrong with that experience to longchen, jonls... i only say it is skewed towards the thought realm. so don't differentiate but know what is the problem. I always say it is misinterpretation of the experience of presence. not the experience itself. but "I AMness" prevents us from seeing.
    Some of his PCE description actually isn't different from I AM:
    RESPONDENT: Furthermore, if you make the argument that since there is no ‘I’, there can also be no immortality of the ‘I’, you have to accept the argument that since there is no ‘I’, there can also be no death of the ‘I’. Otherwise, while you might be beyond enlightenment, you would not be very consistent.
    RICHARD: Oh, yes … it is a delicious sensation to be here; I experience myself as no-one in particular; I am simply a body enjoying this exquisite moment of being alive unimpeded by any ‘self’ within. Only this moment actually exists, for there is no lasting ‘I’ present which would make the past and future real. The freedom from enduring over time as the past, the present and the future, leaves one completely able to appreciate the impeccable purity of being here. This appreciation is the exclusive attention paid to being alive right here and now. This type of attention is best known as apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception is a way of seeing that can be arrived at by pure contemplation. Pure contemplation is when ‘I’ cease thinking ... and thinking takes place of its own accord. Such a mind, being free of the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ – ‘I’ as ego and soul – is capable of immense clarity and purity. All this is born only out of pure intent. Pure intent is derived from the PCE experienced during a peak experience, which all humans have had at some stage in their life. A peak experience is when ‘I’ spontaneously cease to ‘be’, temporarily, and this moment and place is here and now. Everything is seen to be perfect as-it-is. Diligent attention paid to the peak experience gives rise to pure intent. With pure intent running as a ‘golden thread’ through one’s life, reflective contemplation rapidly becomes more and more fascinating. When one is totally fascinated, reflective contemplation becomes pure awareness ... and then apperception happens of itself.

    • Reply
    • 27m

  • badge icon
    JT agrees with Richard that anatta is deconstruction of both self and Self (the ultimate Self):
    “(9:46 AM) Thusness: impersonality is the doing away of the ego (Soh: see four aspects of I AM in the stage 1 chapter), doing away with the I AM is anatta …
    See More

    • Reply
    • 26m

  • badge icon
    AF Richard cannot be faulted in anatta, he can only be faulted in not going far enough with his deconstruction and analytical insights. He did not push into twofold emptiness and got stuck only in anatta.

    • Reply
    • 25m

  • badge icon
    “André, to me anatta is a very specific and definite phase of seeing through the background self/Self quite thoroughly at least in the waking state but there is a tendency that experience can somehow turn very "physical, sense-based and causal" for me.
    Every experience is direct, gapless, non-dual, non-conceptual and radiance even total exertion is present, just not empty. Almost equivalent to Actual Freedom as narrated by Richard. In fact I find Richard's description very much my version of arahat 🤣.
    For Kyle, due to his view in emptiness, the experiential insight of anatta not only pierce through the self/Self but also triggered the arising insight of emptiness. However this may not be true (imo) in most cases if one's view isn't firmly established. For me when I first encountered the chariot analogy, there is an immediate and intuitive recognition that it is referring to anatta but I am unable to grasp the essence of the phrase "emptiness and non-arisen" there and then.
    In other words, in addition to self immolation, a specific insight must arise, it is the prajna that clearly sees through the referent is empty and non-arisen. So anatta I would say is about severing the self/Self whereas phase 6 is the blossoming of this specific insight. Extending this insight from self to phenomena, from conventions to magical appearances is then a natural progression.
    As for first bhumi (Soh: related: [insight] [buddhism] A reconsideration of the meaning of "Stream-Entry" considering the data points of both pragmatic Dharma and traditional Buddhism , Definition of First Bhumi) I am seriously not sure and never thought of it.
    I can only say if we practice long enough, there is a frequent occurrence of a clear, clean and pure spring of joy that emerges from nowhere, floating like cloud. A very helpful antidote for negative emotions.
    Even the experience of drinking water is like experiencing a clean and pure stream of luminous sensations in zero dimension similar to a mirage flowing spring water floating in the air.” - John Tan in the Awakening to Reality Discussion Group, 2019, John wrote this maybe a month or two before a breakthrough that Soh had which led to the writing “The Magical Fairytale-like Wonderland and Paradise of this Verdant Earth Free from Affective Emotions, Reactions and Sufferings”
    “Soh: as Richard said, the out of control experience can happen even before anatta (the complete dissolution of self/Self), that is why the "doer" dissolves but the "be-er" is still there, but in actual freedom both dissolves
    John Tan: Quite acute insight and thorough for the state no mind. Means "being" is also deconstructed.”

    • Reply
    • 24m

  • badge icon
    John Tan wrote on 24 March 2019 to me,
    “Not going back. If you want to write a guide, write with sincerity. If you write with a sincere heart, I am sure people will benefit as those are genuine insights leading to effortlessness of instant presence. However, never claim or even suggest the phases of insight are end of journey, that is very naive, untrue and misleading.
    As for powerful vivid radiance, they are normal if you have spent quality time post your anatta insight. When the center is gone, externally you will feel like a ball of radiance appearing as the world. Internally, energetic radiance will beam through your body cells, vibrating on your crown, your face, dancing as pulsation of your flowing blood, that is the time you should seriously look into energy practice. If you are not interested in energy practice, just learn deep rhythmic abdominal breathing until a state of no mind into deep release, it will help to contain and regulate and the powerful energetic radiance.
    As for AF, the immolation of Self/self is simply the deconstruction of mental construct of self as a center background. Richard has carried it far enough to reach total exertion which he called "realizing one's destiny" if I remember correctly. However the same cause reifying the background is now manifesting in the foreground as the "actual world", therefore there is no thorough liberation. Imo from the perspective of self immolation, he has carried it further than you and his essays can definitely help to guide you. It does seems final in a pseudo sense.
    For you, it will be difficult to find a teacher but if you humble yourself, everyone, every event is your teacher. When I tell you to differentiate experience from realization and established firmly on the view as your guide, the purpose is not for you to go around stereotyping people, it is strictly for your own development.
    Lastly due to the Awakening to Reality group and your relentless advertisement, I have been receiving messages. I do not want to mislead people and I am not a spiritual teacher and I do not wish to develop it into a cultic group🤣. As for me, practice is ongoing and there is no finality. So I will continue my never ending journey. You can WhatsApp me just don't message me who is at what stage… lol.”

    • Reply
    • 19m

  • badge icon
    “Yes and very good. There is a very big difference between substantialist non-dual of One-Mind and what you said. In this experience, there is no background reality. It is not about the background Awareness but rather the foreground aggregates that you are talking about - A thought. There is just aggregates that are like foams, bubbles, ethereal having all the same taste without substantiality and implicitly non-dual. No sense of body, mind and the world, nothing actual or truly there.
    Before, when insight of anatta first arose, you still risk the danger of seeing the physical as inherent and truly existing. Therefore there is a period that you are lost, unsure and AF (Actual Freedom) seems appealing - a sign that you have not extended the insight of emptiness to phenomena though you kept saying twofold emptiness.
    At present you focus on the following:
    1. When there is no cold or heat (Soh: See glossary at the bottom of the article)
    2. Total exertion
    For 1, it is not difficult to understand now but for 2, you have not directly or adequately replace the 'Self/self' with the interdependence of whatever arises.” - John Tan, 06/12/2011 E-mail

    • Reply
    • 19m

  • Author
    Ok so when he says 'I am the body' he means in the actual sense not in the sense of the body being the identity.
    Here just dropped a ton that stopped progress. More joy, more just seeing but still a subtle mental self as center background as JT calls it.

    • Reply
    • 16m

  • Author
    I can see how progress can be stopped without the insight of emptiness since the actual then is just the actual, one has not penetrated appearances.

    • Reply
    • 13m

    badge icon
    Chris Pedersen
    As long as you have right view, you don't have to worry about not penetrating further than anatta.
    The problem is only when you are not guided by right view, then you get stuck.
    This is not just in anatta -- even in I AM, John Tan and Sim Pern Chong got stuck for a decade or more, but I progressed to anatta from I AM within one year. Why? The answer is clear.

    • Reply
    • 10m

  • badge icon
    For me, I recommend people to first penetrate I AM. I am not worried that they will get stuck at I AM because as long as they are guided by AtR, they are safe.

    • Reply
    • 10m

  • Author
    Right view and bodhicitta intention here so no problem. Everything is so luminous now. Pretty crazy.

      • Reply
      • 8m

  • badge icon
    All self/Self/center/background are to be deconstructed for true and total freedom. You already know the direction so I think it you should get there eventually, likely in 1 to 2 years or less if you are open and willing to deconstruct them. There is really nothing scary about it. The worst thing is people like Mark Leher and Jackson Peterson. There is this deep unwillingness to investigate and deconstruct the Absolute to them because it seems to be the most cherished thing. This is just a misunderstanding. Nothing is lost after anatta, the luminosity is made even more effortless and full-blown and free from obstructions. Just the seeing through and dissolving the illusion of a background preventing that full blown blossoming of Instant Presence. As explained in
    Actually those who go through anatta would not be familiar with "flesh and blood body" because there are just these luminous aggregates and nothing behind or besides these aggregates. The issue is whether one can realise the aggregates are also empty.
    Zen Master Dogen who is thoroughly clear about anatta also spoke like Richard on this:
    "Our present-day seven feet of skull and bones is precisely the form and image of the whole universe in all ten directions. Indeed, the whole universe in all ten directions which trains and enlightens us in the Buddha's Way is our skull and bones, our physical body with its skin, flesh, bones, and marrow." - Dogen
    "Thus, the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind that fully manifest before us here and now are what an arhat is." - Dogen
    Four years later, when Dogen returned to Japan, he said, "I have come back empty-handed. I have realized only that the eyes are horizontal and the nose is vertical."
    "For Dogen this “dropping off body and mind” is the true nature both of just sitting and of complete enlightenment, and is the ultimate letting go of self, directly meeting the cold, clear wind and moon. After turning within while just sitting, it is carried on in all activity and throughout ongoing engagement with the world. Although just sitting now has been maintained for 750 years since Dogen, the teachings of Hongzhi and Dogen remain as primary guideposts to its practice." - Taigen Dan Leighton
    “In Dogen’s view, the only reality is reality that is actually experienced as particular things at specific times. There is no “tile nature” apart from actual “tile forms,” there is no “essential Baso” apart from actual instances of “Baso experience.” When Baso sits in zazen, “zazen” becomes zazen, and “Baso” becomes Baso. Real instances of Baso sitting in zazen is real instances of Baso and real instances of zazen – when Baso eats rice, Baso is really Baso and eating rice is really eating rice.” - Ted Biringer,
    No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
    No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
    No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness

  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
  • 11m
  • Edited