• Geovani Geo
    "You keep coming back to justify your belief in long term practice which can eventually be quite a limiting factor. "
    Generally, it is true for most people, almost everybody.
    Buddha sat for 6 years before final awakening, Bodhidharma for 9 years, and so on.
    Malcolm said it is possible to attain rainbow body/Buddhahood in one life if one is doing thodgal practices in a retreat setting, and even then it takes years, I think up to 12 years if I can remember correctly. He said most Dzogchen practitioners are never going to attain full Buddhahood in their lifetime, but can attain liberation at the time of bardo.
    Zen Master Dogen:
    Consider the Buddha: although he was wise at birth, the traces of his six years of upright sittingcan yet be seen. As for Bodhidharma, although he had received the mind-seal, his nine years of facing a wall is celebrated still. If even the ancient sages were like this, how can we today dispense with wholehearted practice?
    Therefore, put aside the intellectual practice of investigating words and chasing phrases, and learn to take the backward step that turns the light and shines it inward. Body and mind of themselves will drop away, and your original face will manifest. If you want to realize such, get to work on such right now.
    Zen
    OCEANMOON.ORG
    Zen
    Zen
    1

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 2h

  • On the duration it takes to attain Buddhahood:
    [1:21 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Have you listened to the Dan brown? [Soh: this is referring to another video -- https://www.fitmind.co/.../dan-brown-phd-meditation-great... ]
    [1:21 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: havent yet.. is it good?
    [1:21 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: From I AM to non-dual to one mind to no mind
    [1:22 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic.. but not anatta?
    [1:22 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: To dzogchen, the view is the practice or view includes practice. You listen tomorrow, you will understand. Hale must be thinking that it is quite similar with the phases of insights But I deleted that away in the comment
    [1:25 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic.. why delete
    [1:27 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: I dunno about dzogchen much, so I will stay with what I know and experience...lol. Instead of saying phases of insights are similar, will cause unnecessary issues...and I am not trying to come out some version of jaxchen or soh-chen...
    [9:23 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. you said it talks about no mind but it didnt mention about anatta realization?
    [9:29 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Yeah
    [2:09 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Frankly I like Dan brown video but the timeline is unrealistic.
    [2:11 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: The steps are however clear.
    Nauli for example. Even doing the centre extrusion will take few months of practice and to really churn the will take about 2 years. To churn and have sufficient control will take much more time. Even if you practice diligently as an exercise will take you probably 4-5 years to master.
    [2:13 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: As for insights, it is not a matter of pointing out, the stability will take probably 10-25 years post anatta to even have stability and that is practicing quite diligently. Resting in appearances without observer and observed will take probably more time. Into 3 states IMO and experiences require another understanding and that is important. The key is in the message I told andre and asked you what are the other ways beside anatta and do for active mode of no-agency.
    [2:16 PM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. but buddha said you can attain arahant between 7 days to 7 years just by practicing four foundations of mindfulness.. but i guess that timeline is for monks and often in retreat
    [2:17 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: That is not Buddhahood
    [2:17 PM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. but should have cleared the ten fetters right
    [2:17 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Yes. That is why I told you to ponder on the no agency part. You need to have that insight, otherwise it is just half done. In other words it is no self in active mode. Why is it half done? Because it is normally in passive mode. So your dreams will normally remain karmic.
    FITMIND.CO
    404 Not Found
    404 Not Found

  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
  • 2h
  •  
  •  

  • Reply
  • 15m
  •  
    • Admin
      André A. Pais
      Any other ways..? I'm not sure. Contemplating conditionality perhaps? It's less conceptual and more experiential.
      Yes, seeing non-duality is not the same as seeing no-inherency. The former is more about seeing through the characteristics of subject-object, while the latter seems to be more about seeing through all types of characteristics.
      What do you suggest to see through "thingness"? I may tend to fall into PCE's.
      2
      · Reply
      · 21w
      John Tan
      I think u have explored and r familiar with the different deconstruction methods and yes DO (general dependent origination) is an excellent tool for deconstruction. It deconstructs without ignoring diversities. In DO, one feels the deep intimacy and connectedness with the diversities, yet everything dissolves into a seamless formation of a total situation. Everything includes the sense of self and others, hereness and nowness, time and space, mind and body, physical and materiality and so and and so forth.
      But I m not looking at DO. In the Taoism YouTube that Soh
      posted, Jason Gregory provides another perspective to look at the agency-action issue. The emphasis is more on habitual repetition into elimination of the agent from the action/activity.
      But I m not referring to that as well. I m looking more on the non-attachment aspect, the freedom from gain/loss, success/failure, pride and fear in any endeavour. Practicing that way, the gap between the agent and action will also be gradually reduced to none, into the flow of actionless action.
      As for falling into PCEs, there is nothing wrong falling into PCEs imo; just how uncontrived and effortless, how natural and spontaneous the PCEs are. More importantly, are the PCEs endow with deep wisdoms that sees through:
      1. self (anatta)
      2. phenomena (chariot analogy)
      3. characteristics (redness of a flower). The lurid redness that appears to stick to a red flower seems to b an inherent part of the flower. But is it? There is neither redness out there nor in here. at the flower, nor on the mind, nor...
      4. the sematics/meanings of conventionalities
      5. appearances (experienctial emptiness). Appears but not found.
      To me over-emphasis of non-conceptualities (too early) is an extreme and can be a great disservice as it "bypasses" those valuable insights that see through reifications and semantic/meaning of conventionalities.
      But seeing through "thingness" moderates this extremity, it is like the middle path between conceptual and non-conceptualities.
      Eventually and gradually, everything too will b de-constructed; no thoughts and concepts, calmly and evenly into transparent pristine appearances in natural spontaneity.
      3
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      André A. Pais
      I don't understand why can't redness be in the mind - not intrinsically so, of course.
      · Reply
      · 21w
      Geovani Geo
      I guess its because "redness" would be another "thing".
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      John Tan
      Yes André
      , I m referring to intrinsically and inherently.
      That said, u may also want to look deeper into point 4 and compare it with the de-construction of "thingness/inherent-ness" of my earlier message:
      1. The very idea of "in", the very idea of "from" or the idea of "produce" r all sematics of conventionalities. We have mistaken "meanings" of these conventions as undeniable "reality" but they too r imputed. The mind thinks surely even without labels and designations, there is still the actuality of being "in" something, somewhere but this is not true. "In-ness" too is a formation formed from "mental constructions + sensations". They can similarly b de-constructed.
      If a mind free from all these sematics of conventionalities or total exhaustion of conceptualities, what is experience like?
      It is not "knowingness" nor a "not knowing mind", but just liberating all sematics of conventions and simply resting as mere clean, pure, pellucid sense of vivid radiance (in absorption)?
      2. Seeing through "inherent-ness/thingness" which is what I said in my earlier message.
      If u r interested, u can explore into them otherwise just treat it as some blah blah blah..🤣
      1
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      André A. Pais
      Yes, redness as a concept is totally imagined. And yet, a mere appearance is present. We can't say, of course, where it appears, or what it is, etc. Those would all be designations. But conventionally, it is indeed an appearance in mind. And I've seen John and Soh talking about such example, but how they get to the "unarisen" insight always eludes me.
      · Reply
      · 21w
      John Tan
      All appearances r like a finger drawing a circle in thin air, mere occurrences. Even the solid vivid sensations of "hardness", appears (in zero dimension) but r no where to b found - unarisen.
      3
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      Geovani Geo
      The ultimate fairer is the free empty heart. And I am not being romantic but purely "technical". Where else are all burdens shed?
      · Reply
      · 21w
      André A. Pais
      John Tan
      I resonate very much with the investigation of our sense of localization, embodiment (feeling to be inside a body), physicality, direction / perspective ("I am here looking there"), etc. You seemed to touch it, when talking about "in-ness", "from" and existing "somewhere".
      These are sensitive topics to me, as they relate to notions of space, solidity, etc. I like very much the line of inquiry "is experience happening anywhere?", for example.
      Can you explore it a bit?
      1
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      Geovani Geo
      At this point I find it quite useful to resort to "being awareness" (I think u call it PCE?). Such awareness is seeing through the luminosity of "things". But this is still a "doing", right? The "problem" with this is that there is a subtle duality awareness/stuff-being-awared. Then some may come up with the notion that awareness is not other then what is being awared. That there is only awareness. And here, I guess, is where inherency comes in. Fundamentally, is there an awareness at all? Or such awareness was also jsut a skillful means, a pointer?
      If there is not such inherent awareness, then what is here? Is there any kind of measurable dimension that could be established? etc...
      · Reply
      · 21w

      • Reply
      • 15m

    • John Tan
      André
      , what I m talking abt is the phenomelogy of day to day mumdane experiences, nothing transcendental.
      I'm merely looking at how mental constructs created by our language structures and social conventions define and shape our moment to moment of experiences.
      When we say our body is having such and such sensations, the mind really thinks in terms of containment. When we try to search for the referent we called "body", we realized there is no "body" apart from the dancing and fluxing sensations. So again, there r no two parts -- body and sensations; what we designate as "body" is just these sensations.
      Once the mind sees through this "body construct", the sense of "in-ness" also dissolves. Sensations r simply present, no where, zero dimension. Same for "self/Self" as a background.
      Just this experiential taste of thorough deconstruction is enough to take up my whole life. 🤣
      As a side note, in Taoism there is the art of "sit and forget" 坐忘. To sit and forget the "body" is difficult, to see through mental constructs is much easier once we get a hang of it and it is more penetrating and insightful.
      Ok André, been chatting too much. Thks for the exchanges.
      4
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      John Tan
      Geovani Geo
      to me, to be without dual is not to subsume into one and although awareness is negated, it is not to say there is nothing.
      Negating the Awareness/Presence (Absolute) is to not let Awareness remain at the abstract level. When such transpersonal Awareness that exists only in wonderland is negated, the vivid radiance of presence are fully tasted as the transient appearances; zero gap and zero distance between presence and moment to moment of ordinary experiences and we realize that "presence" has always only been a convention for these vivid ordinary experiences.
      Then mundane activities -- hearing, sitting, standing, seeing and sensing, become pristine and vibrant, natural and free.
      3
      · Reply
      · 21w · Edited
      Geovani Geo
      John
      , yes. Any single atom is it. And even all atoms of all universes together are not it. Tx!!
      · Reply
      · 21w

      • Reply
      • 15m

    • TAOISM | The Philosophy of Flow and Wu Wei
      YOUTUBE.COM
      TAOISM | The Philosophy of Flow and Wu Wei
      TAOISM | The Philosophy of Flow and Wu Wei

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 6m

    • Also related:
      [11:43 PM, 9/30/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Beyond subject-action-object
      [11:45 PM, 9/30/2020] Soh Wei Yu: The other day i just intuitively understood that tremendous merits and the perfections of paramitas comes from the actualization of anatta in practice and action.. like in generosity etc
      [11:45 PM, 9/30/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Beyond or empty of the three spheres
      [12:01 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Better, what else?
      [12:01 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: So what do u understand from it?
      [12:02 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Paramitas and fear....what have u understood and how is it different from just losing the background?
      [12:41 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: If for example one does an act of generosity with a self or giver in mind, a gift in mind and a receiver in mind, or the idea of a self creating merit in mind, then the merits accrued from such an act is very limited and the action can hardly be a perfection.
      When one is actualizing anatta in that action of giving with giver, gift and recipient, the action of generosity is naturally perfected and the merits accrued is immense.
      Also there is the actual mental qualities to be cultivated but the key is in the state of equipoise or actualization of anatta otherwise the quality cannot be perfected also. For example one can practice a kind of tolerance but this is different from completely dissolving the self in actualization and equipoise, then “patience” and “equanimity” arise untainted by self even when confronted with situations.
      Just losing the background can remain an inactive perceptual level but all the paramitas are qualities of mind that are perfected when anatta beyond three spheres are actualised when facing situations and people
      Likewise for fear
      [12:42 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: *without giver,...
      [12:46 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Like just chanting..
      [12:46 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Much better, but the relationship is still not clear. And it is not so correct to say that if anatta insight doesn't arise, u can't perfect paramitas. In fact it goes both ways.
      So the passive and active mode of anatta. How does the gap between the actor and action being eliminated to none in activity?
      [12:47 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: If one is in chanting samadhi no chanter or chanted.. not just samadhi but actualising one’s insight where self and objects are exhausted in equipoise, then that is most meritorious. Although one is not thinking of merits
      [12:47 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: No good.
      [12:47 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: This is not the key of anatta.
      [12:49 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: So do u have a better understanding of Wu Wei in Taoism? Effortless action, action without the sense of agent?
      [12:50 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Insight of anatta is not primary for them though it is the missing key....however still, one can enter in actionless action...by what way?
      [12:51 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: If u do not have insight of anatta, how r u to practice?
      [9:33 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Yes André, I agree with most of what u said, just 3 points:
      1. Primordial state, original face.
      What does it mean to to be without the imagined and imputed? It is simply one's primordial state, always and already so despite non-recognition.
      So the path can be directly pointing to one's original face or to rid from all imputed imagined artificialities.
      But the direct leap out of the imputed layer is often not exhaustive and thorough, many blindspots and hindrances. Therefore a short cut can often turns out to be a longer cut.
      2. Unmade, natural and spontaneous
      I agree that without imputations, there is no boundaries. Therefore all experiences is open and spacious and without the layer of imagined, whatever appears is pristine and pellucid, transpar…
      [12:42 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
      [4:05 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Lol
      [4:08 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Like zuo wang.. forgetting and dissolve self into the experience and activity
      First time i had no mind in 2006 was when i was practicing mindfulness then i forgot self into tree
      In 2008 was pondering “how is it to die and fade out of existence” then it triggered intense nondual experience but only for a short while
      [4:12 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: That is one way, more on no mind.
      [4:12 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: This is not what I m looking at.
      [4:14 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: 坐忘 (zuo wang/sitting and forgetting [self]) will not b unfamiliar to u. It is the direct day to day, down to earth aspect u need to look into it. U should see in terms of the paramitas, what exactly is actionless action.
      [4:16 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
      [4:20 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: This is imp. But the other way is equally true. Look into that direction. What if u have totally no insight at all. Does that mean u wont be able to overcome agency-action issue?
      [8:56 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: I wrote to Andre:
      I think u have explored and r familiar with the different deconstruction methods and yes DO (dependent origination) is an excellent tool for deconstruction. It deconstructs without ignoring diversities. In DO, one feels the deep intimacy and connectedness with the diversities, yet everything dissolves into a seamless formation of a total situation. Everything includes the sense of self and others, hereness and nowness, time and space, mind and body, physical and materiality and so and and so forth.
      But I m not looking at DO. In the Taoism YouTube that Soh posted, Jason Gregory provides another perspective to look at the agency-action issue. The emphasis is more on habitual repetition into elimination of the agent from the action/activity.
      But I m not referring to that as well. I m looking more on the non-attachment aspect, the freedom from gain/loss, success/failure, pride and fear in any endeavour. Practicing that way, the gap between the agent and action will also be gradually reduced to none, into the flow of actionless action.
      As for falling into PCEs, there is nothing wrong falling into PCEs imo; just how uncontrived and effortless, how natural and spontaneous the PCEs are. More importantly, are the PCEs endow with deep wisdoms that sees through:
      1. self (anatta)
      2. phenomena (chariot analogy)
      3. characteristics (redness of a flower). The lurid redness that appears to stick to a red flower seems to b an inherent part of the flower. But is it? There is neither redness out there nor in here. at the flower, nor on the mind, nor...
      4. the sematics/meanings of conventionalities
      5. appearances (experienctial emptiness). Appears but not found.
      To me over-emphasis of non-conceptualities (too early) is an extreme and can be a great disservice as it "bypasses" those valuable insights that see through reifications and semantic/meaning of conventionalities.
      But seeing through "thingness" moderates this extremity, it is like the middle path between conceptual and non-conceptualities.
      Eventually and gradually, everything too will b de-constructed; no thoughts and concepts, calmly and evenly into transparent pristine appearances in natural spontaneity.
      [11:00 AM, 10/2/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
      [11:33 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: No. Magical is not empty illusory nature.
      [11:34 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: Magical because the radiance is unmade...not mechanical, not artificial.
      [11:36 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: U feel it is of a totally different dimension from the artificial. Intense radiance and wondrous manifestation r all parts of being magic.
      [11:37 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: Or magic by being empty and luminous.
      [11:40 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: His [Tinh Panh] description is quite good. Brahman or not doesn't matter as long Brahman is not any transpersonal being in a wonderland, but is the very relative phenomena that we misunderstood.

    • Reply
    • 1m
     
Friends
John Tan and I find this to be very well expressed
 
 

Comments by Soh: Provisionally tracing back all thoughts and perceptions to the Source via Self-Enquiry is important as the first step in one's practice to realise the I AM. This is taught in many direct path teachings, not only in AtR, not only in Advaita but also in various forms in Zen, Dzogchen, and other traditions of Buddhism, etc. But at a later phase, one moves on from self enquiry (see Flawed Mode of Enquiry) and realises the emptiness of source/awareness/mind/etc, empties and exhausts even source/awareness/mind/rigpa/etc (related: Exhaustion of All Phenomena, Acarya Malcolm on Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta, The Degrees of Rigpa etc)



Session Start: Friday, 2 October, 2009

(Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, Rainbow Painting: "All our thoughts come out of the buddha nature as its expression, like rays of sunlight emanate from the sun. It is not that the sun comes out of the rays.")

(7:53 PM) Thusness:    Tulku Urgyen makes a good statement but that is before understanding stage 5 and 6.
(7:53 PM) Thusness:    that is without the source, nothing happens
(7:55 PM) Thusness:    However in Buddhism, insight is to see, penetrate and investigate and become thoroughly clear that the idea of a source, an essence is unnecessary.  Once you experience and arise the insight of anatta, u begin open to happening without source, without the need of an essence.
(7:56 PM) Thusness:    This is then the beginning of Buddhism.

(11:51 PM) AEN:    http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/index.php?action=vthread&forum=4&topic=2399&page=5
still there
(11:52 PM) AEN:    i go update the link

(12:01 AM) AEN:    http://now-for-you.com/viewtopic.php?t=5593
(12:04 AM) AEN:    oh ya btw vajrahridaya and some others think tulku urgyen writings is prone to advaita
u read the 'as it is' right? what u tink
(12:04 AM) Thusness:    yeah
i commented
(12:04 AM) AEN:    oic where
(12:05 AM) Thusness:    to u...i said that is only true when one after non-dual experience still rest in a subject-object view.
(12:07 AM) AEN:    oic...
(12:08 AM) Thusness:    however if one thoroughly eliminates the agent through the insight of anatta, then the practitioner will not make such a remark.  He will gradually move into the dependent origination and no-self.  To know the breadth and depth of no-self, be willing to drop also the view and replace it with DO.  Rest on a view that requires no source and essence.
(12:09 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:03 AM) AEN:    i read that tulku urgyen rinpoche has a literal take of the shentong view.. his view is inclined to shentong
(1:03 AM) AEN:    btw it's fine to talk about source right? i mean The Supreme Source talks about it.... but i think its different from other non-buddhist views?
(1:04 AM) Thusness:    talking about the source is okie but ur understanding of how things are interdependent without a source.
(1:04 AM) Thusness:    when u hear sound
do u say awareness is the source?
(1:05 AM) Thusness:    or when u hit a bell, the bell is the source of the sound?
or the stick?
(1:05 AM) AEN:    the supreme source seems to state that consciousness is the source of everything but at the same time it says all manifestations are the display of me (consciousness)... so it doesnt dualify source/manifestation i think
(1:06 AM) Thusness:    there is no duality and there is no effort in the supreme source
(1:06 AM) AEN:    icic..
(1:06 AM) Thusness:    what i want u to know is to eliminate the entire idea of a source
(1:07 AM) Thusness:    but that comes after non-dual and u really feel like awareness is the source of everything even after non-dual realization, u felt that awareness is the source
(1:07 AM) Thusness:    experience is non-dual, even after realization, there is still an idea of a source
why is this so?
(1:08 AM) Thusness:    why can't we eliminate the idea of a source even after the experience of anatta?
(1:08 AM) Thusness:    clearly there is no agent
thought after thought without an agent
a thinker
(1:09 AM) Thusness:    in complete clarity we see this
yet the idea of a source still persist
(1:09 AM) Thusness:    this is why i meant desync of view and experience
therefore replace the view
(1:10 AM) AEN:    oic..
(1:12 AM) Thusness:    kok ur head...since when did i say dharma dan is an arhant
(1:12 AM) Thusness:    i said his insight is deep and profound
(1:13 AM) AEN:    icic..
😛
(1:13 AM) Thusness:    and many practitioners are not his level
(1:13 AM) AEN:    oic..
(1:13 AM) Thusness:    i believe I nv said he is an arahat
(1:14 AM) Thusness:    even ajahn chah, i never said i think he is an arahat
(1:14 AM) Thusness:    i nv said anyone is an arhat. 😛
(1:14 AM) AEN:    lol
icic..
(1:16 AM) Thusness:    i am never interested in others attainment
i merely tell u, the depth of his insight
(1:16 AM) Thusness:    how will that help u in a practical sense
(1:17 AM) AEN:    oic..
(3:36 AM) AEN:    Come to think of it now, why didn't I become like a blind and deaf person right away? "Blind and deaf" here means a state of mind where there is nothing to see and nothing to hear. When you see, there's only the seeing, and the subject
that sees doesn't exist. When you hear, there's only the hearing, and the subject that hears doesn't exist. The objects which are seen or heard are, just as they are, without substance. But understanding the logic of this will not do. When this is realized as a fact, you become like a "blind and deaf" person.
...The point is why the person inside the hermitage (subject) cannot see the things "in front of the hermitage" (object). That's because there isn't anything in front of the hermitage. You may say that there is only the subject, there being no object at all. Yet, in actual truth, that "subject" doesn't exist either.
(3:36 AM) AEN:    
    The water flows of itself and the flowers are naturally red.

The water runs smoothly, the flowers are colored scarlet. This line seems to imply that there are only the objects and there's no subject at all. However, as a matter of fact, those objects do not exist at all.
It's simply that the water is running smoothly, and flowers are scarlet. Everything is just as it is [tada korekore], and everything is void as it is
now [arugamama no aritsubure]. The fact that there is no distinction between self and others simply continues without end - "The water flows of itself and the flowers are naturally red.".
(3:47 AM) AEN:    http://www.terebess.hu/english/oxherding.html

Session Start: Saturday, 3 October, 2009

(3:03 PM) AEN:    i asked namdrol "Just to clarify: in your understanding, all Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras/tantras come from realized masters other than Buddha?" he replied "Yup."
(10:32 PM) Thusness:    That is zen enlightenment. 🙂
stage 5.
(10:34 PM) AEN:    icic..
(10:38 PM) AEN:    my mom said lzls hopes i can discontinue posting in forum cos she scared my guan nian (concept) not v clear yet 😛 and she wants to know who is john (you) lol... cos that guy i brought to ren cheng last time told her about it
i mean lzls wants to know who r u
hahaha
(10:38 PM) AEN:    now i dun feel like meeting her 😛 dunnu what to say haha
(10:39 PM) Thusness:    lol
(10:41 PM) Thusness:    she wants to meet u then u don't want to meet her?
(10:41 PM) AEN:    no la
but i mean i dunnu how to explain
hahaha
(10:41 PM) Thusness:    ahahah
(10:41 PM) Thusness:    go get a phd.
(10:44 PM) Thusness:    u can start pursuing a diploma first then step by step so that u know what is true and right understanding.
(10:44 PM) Thusness:    her understanding is advaita sort of understanding
(10:44 PM) AEN:    yeah
(10:47 PM) Thusness:    at present, her knowledge is not there to guide u into correct understanding
(10:47 PM) Thusness:    and u already have some experiences of non-dual and right views, it is better u pursue ur own in the right direction.
(10:48 PM) AEN:    icic..
(10:48 PM) AEN:    anyway i dun feel like going hahaha... some more she is asking that my mom and dad come along also
lol
(10:50 PM) Thusness:    u told ur parents?
(10:50 PM) AEN:    i told my mom i dont feel like going 😛 but i din say i wont go la
(10:50 PM) Thusness:    i mean is ur parent worried?
(10:51 PM) AEN:    my mom told me she's not worried about u haha... she more worried about my link with truth 😛 lzls dunnu say something like truth caused some trouble at the vihara side
and i tink not v into ren cheng or something... din get what she said
(10:52 PM) AEN:    weird lor i dun even know anything about it
haha
(10:52 PM) Thusness:    meaning about the teaching?
(10:53 PM) AEN:    i also dunnu what happen. i dunnu what 'trouble' he caused la
he's still quite into ren cheng but now he is v into vipassana also
(10:53 PM) Thusness:    yes i told him to practice vipassana
(10:53 PM) AEN:    icic
he went to goenka vipassana retreats many times
and said he is v impressed
(10:53 PM) Thusness:    yeah
that is good
it is important to have the right understanding
(10:54 PM) Thusness:    with the right practice
(10:54 PM) AEN:    icic
(10:55 PM) Thusness:    u must have clear understanding and confidence first
(10:56 PM) Thusness:    in ur view, r u confident with ur understanding?
(10:56 PM) AEN:    yea
(10:57 PM) Thusness:    can u see clearly the various phases of experiences and insights?
(10:57 PM) AEN:    yah guess so
(10:58 PM) Thusness:    do u see how buddha is not talking about Eternal Witness?
(10:59 PM) AEN:    yea
(10:59 PM) Thusness:    even non-dual
(10:59 PM) AEN:    ya
(11:00 PM) Thusness:    what buddha is talking is have direct experience of non-dual and with the right view, so that insight can arise
(11:01 PM) Thusness:    anatta and DO is most important
(11:02 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:03 PM) Thusness:    understand the 3 characteristics, understand dispassion, arise insight of anatta and DO and go on with ur life. 🙂
(11:03 PM) Thusness:    many teachers do not have clear understanding
(11:03 PM) AEN:    oic..
(11:04 PM) Thusness:    same goes for ur lzls, she worries too much
but is not exactly wrong
(11:04 PM) Thusness:    however it is difficult for her to guide u now
(11:04 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:06 PM) Thusness:    but good and bad
(11:06 PM) AEN:    the reason why lzls worries is also bcos i v seldom talk with her
(11:07 PM) Thusness:    i do not know whether u can find one person that satisfy ur understanding of insight now
(11:07 PM) AEN:    u lor 😛 hahahaha
(11:07 PM) Thusness:    so u must experience urself directly
(11:07 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:08 PM) Thusness:    i am not an authoritative teacher, so at best as a friend that share with u my experiences
(11:09 PM) AEN:    oic..
(11:09 PM) Thusness:    so u have to have ur own experience and find a good teacher that has gone through the various phases of insights
(11:09 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:10 PM) Thusness:    at least until phase 5 of insight
(11:10 PM) AEN:    oic..
(11:10 PM) Thusness:    however one might still miss certain point
why do i stressed ignorance
(11:11 PM) Thusness:    normally those Advaita or Zen practitioners disregard DO.
(11:11 PM) Thusness:    disregard ignorance
but ignorance is DO
(11:11 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:12 PM) Thusness:    wisdom is DO
(11:12 PM) Thusness:    if u do not understand, then u r thinking of an essence
(11:12 PM) Thusness:    u will not know how manifestation dependently originates
(11:13 PM) AEN:    oic..
(11:15 PM) Thusness:    there will be many that reads my phases of insights but will not understand
(11:15 PM) Thusness:    they will not be able to correctly discern non-dual from anatta
just like u 2 yrs back
(11:15 PM) Thusness:    u r not clear about phase 4 and 5
(11:16 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:16 PM) Thusness:    mike is not clear too
(11:16 PM) AEN:    yea he tot its same haha
(11:17 PM) Thusness:    but the past few posts u wrote, i can see that u r understanding with clarity the difference now
(11:19 PM) Thusness:    then u must be able to rest ur view entirely on DO so they u r able to see the 'logic' of DO, without a source, an essence together with ur experience from the arising insight of anatta, u will be able to appreciate the teaching of Buddha better.
(11:20 PM) AEN:    oic..
(11:21 PM) AEN:    btw do u think D.O. without source is contradictory with the stuff written in The Supreme Source? as long as the source is understood as individual and not a universal essence that's fine right?

 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: https://www.amazon.com/.../B00K6H.../ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0...

 

 “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, https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books6/Ajahn_Brahm_BAHIYA_S_TEACHING.htm , also, he explained anatta from 56 minutes onwards in this video (prior to 56 minutes mark, the explanation focuses on cultivating samadhi): https://youtu.be/RYbe7W7XRu8

 

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.

     · 

Reply

   · 16m

   · 

Edited”