• Anurag Jain "I Am", if you mean it to be Self can never be an object of any perception so it's strange how you see it as 'one of the ten thousand things'. Self I that which witnesses the ten thousand things' including your thought which says I Am is one of the ten thousand things.
  • Hide 178 Replies
    • Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain only after anatta it is realised to be another condition

      Even consciousness without object, pure subjectivity is no longer seen as pure subjectivity


      But at the I AM level it is indeed seen as pure subject that cannot be made an object of observation.

      Pure I, not even am
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu the one who is talking about Self as subject is object to the Self.
  • Soh Wei Yu In I, there is only I. No subject or object.
  • Soh Wei Yu After anatta that too is another pure nondual condition. No different from in hearing just sound. So there is no reifying pure subjectivity.
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu. Who is the one who talks about it?
  • Soh Wei Yu self enquiry is only for leading to self realization

    Further realization requires other kinds of inquiry
  • Anurag Jain All realizations of every kind are object to Self. There are infinite realizations possible but all are objects to Self.
  • Soh Wei Yu
    Nov
    18

    Anatta and Pure Presence
    Someone told me about having been through insights of no self and then progressing to a realisation of the ground of being.

    I replied:

    Hi ____

    Thanks for the sharing.

    This is the I AM realization. Had that realisation after contemplating Before birth, who am I? For two years. It’s an important realization. Many people had insights into certain aspects of no self, impersonality, and “dry non dual experience” without doubtless realization of Presence. Therefore I AM realisation is a progression for them.

    Similarly in Zen, asking who am I is to directly experience presence. How about asking a koan of what is the cup? What is the chirping bird, the thunder clap? What is its purpose?

    When I talked about anatta, it is a direct insight of Presence and recognizing what we called background presence, is in the forms and colours, sounds and sensations, clean and pure. Authentication is be authenticated by all things. Also there is no presence other than that. What we call background is really just an image of foreground Presence, even when Presence is assuming its subtle formless all pervasiveness.

    However due to ignorance, we have a very inherent and dual view, if we do see through the nature of presence, the mind continues to be influenced by dualistic and inherent tendencies. Many teach to overcome it through mere non conceptuality but this is highly misleading.

    Thusness also wrote:

    The anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of no-self. But it must first have an intuitive insight of Presence. Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights
    Labels: Anatta, Luminosity |
  • Anurag Jain What you call anatta is nothing but avyakta Prakriti in Advaita.
  • Soh Wei Yu No, what i call anatta is totally unknown in advaita
  • Soh Wei Yu And also 98% or more of buddhist “realised” masters and teachers do not realise what I call anatta. They too do not go beyond I AM and one mind
  • Soh Wei Yu In the whole of china and taiwan, only two teachers I can find have realised what i realised -

    Zen Master Hui Lu and Zen Master Hong Wen Liang.


    You can see how rare it is.

    (Update by Soh: please do not mistaken this to be condescending to Advaita and other Buddhist teachers who do not speak from the insight of anatta. I do not intend to promote
    one-upmanship based on certain insights. I have great respect, and in fact gratitude, for Advaita and other Awareness teachings as they have helped me much in the past, and I continue to recommend these teachings to others depending on conditions. I see the value and preciousness of these teachings, even if certain aspects of them may not agree with my current view. Furthermore, I maintain as Ratnashree said, "I must reiterate that this difference in both the system is very important to fully understand both the systems properly and is not meant to demean either system." - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

    My reason for posting this is:
            1) Anurag posted something by a Buddhist master earlier that day, which sounded like Advaita, so I wanted to confirm with him that indeed, many Buddhist teachers fall into the category of Advaita view, it is not surprising to me. 2) To create discernment on the diversity of views even among a specific religion or tradition  3) I want others to take the teachings of Zen Master Hui Lu and Zen Master Hong Wen Liang seriously if they want to study anatta, total exertion and emptiness teachings from a realised master, and discern the essence of Buddha's intent, and happen to be Chinese.)
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu you will have to do more than assertions :-) There is nothing unknown to Advaita because Self is beyond space and time.
  • Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

    Look, we are arguing past each other. I have realised what you realised and you have not realised what I have realised. Of course I understand you are not convinced, so be it.


    I rather prefer Buddha’s version of omniscience since it lines up with my current insight:

    https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_24.html
  • AN 4:24  Kāḷaka Sutta | At Kāḷaka’s Park
    dhammatalks.org
    AN 4:24  Kāḷaka Sutta | At Kāḷaka’s Park
    AN 4:24  Kāḷaka Sutta | At Kāḷaka’s Park
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu I have realized that which has always been realized :-)
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu omniscience is a duality. In Self, which is partless, there is nothing apart from itself to be known. Self is knolwedge itself.

    Buddhism, by the way has come from the Vedas. It has commonalities with Sankhya.
  • Soh Wei Yu Buddha was a refuter of Samkhya, although he learnt from and attained what the two Samkhya teachers he had taught him, he left them in pursuit of further realisation.

    See the commentary and discourse at:


    https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN1.html

    Also:

    "What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage." - Lopon Malcolm

    “The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept 'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when you will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies. If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be confused.

    When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness.” - John Tan, 2005
  • MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
    dhammatalks.org
    MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
    MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu the perceiver is an object to Self. And the Self cannot be experienced. Please convey this to John Tan :-)
  • Anurag Jain And neither can the Self be known, because You Are Self.
  • Anurag Jain Buddha gives a view of dependent origination which is different from Sankhya but like Sankhya he gives a reality to Prakriti.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain you should read Boddhisattvacharyavatara chapter on Prajna. Samkhya view is completely obliberated there. I reccomend "Nectar of Manjushri's Speech" for easier read.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, please answer me whether Buddhism denies reality to the world of phenomena.
  • Robert Dominik In essence Buddhadharma has no view. The tathagata has done away with views.
  • Robert Dominik Oneness is just another view on the absolute.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, are you talking about absolute?!
  • Robert Dominik There are languages which don't have distinction between plural and singular with regards to many phenomena. Clinging to one is just yet another form of clinging to a concept - in this case a number.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, to the Self all languages are objects. All views are objects, right view, wrong view or no view.
  • Robert Dominik Also Buddha calls teaching that all pertains to one self or all is one self "completely" "a fool's teaching" in the Pali Canon. So even though Buddhadharma arose in a Vedic world - it doesn't buy into central ontological premise of the Vedas.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, it is talking of emptiness which is very much part of the "fools teaching" Buddha was referring to :-) Please read Katha Upanishad. The Self is beyond emptiness, beyond being and non-being.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain you don't understand emptiness clearly.
  • Robert Dominik So how about you read what I reccomended you and then I read that Upanishad? Then we can discuss, deal?
  • Anurag Jain The Anatta experience is an experience located in space and time. It did not exist at one time and then the insight arises.
  • Robert Dominik Anatta is a seal - not an experience.
  • Robert Dominik You don't know what Anatta is, do you? :P
  • Anurag Jain Robert, call it a seal. It does not exist at some time and then it comes to be known.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, I know that Anatta is known at one point and then it becomes known. I know that this knowing is an occurrence in time.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain haha the same could be said about the Self. It does not exist at some time and then it comes to be known xD
  • Anurag Jain Robert, no that's not the same with Self. It exists at all times.
  • Robert Dominik So claiming that about Anatta is as stupid as claiming that about the Self. It's just a misunderstanding on the nature of these realisations.
  • Robert Dominik And Anatta is always already so.
  • Anurag Jain Robert Self exist at all times. The insight happens in time.
  • Robert Dominik Same with Anatta. So you have failed to prove your point. In the meantime I've gotta go so have a good day :)
  • Anurag Jain Yes. Who knows Anatta?
  • Anurag Jain Robert. Have a good day :-)
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain as a PS: Anatta is revealed when the illusion of the self - including the knower - is extinguished ;)
  • Anurag Jain Robert and who knows that the knower is dropped:-)
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain doesn't apply. This question is based on an assumption which is baseless. Sorry. Ok really gotta go. All the best <3
  • Anurag Jain Robert, just an assertion :-)
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

Robert is very clear. Anatta is a realisation of what is always already the case. Anyone who speaks of anatta as a stage or experience is deluded.

    Like
     · Reply · 4h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu my question was, who knows anatta? Clear and simple 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 4h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

That is a wrong question to ask for anatta as it has hidden assumptions.

We discussed before.

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/10/flawed-mode-of-enquiry_12.html


Flawed Mode of Enquiry
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
Flawed Mode of Enquiry
Flawed Mode of Enquiry

    Like
     · Reply · Remove Preview · 4h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan did you not go through the thread? Convey that Self cannot be experienced.

    Like
     · Reply · 2h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I am not going to teach concepts. I am going to teach elimination of all falsity (which includes all concepts)

    Like
     · Reply · 2h

John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain, u cannot experience Self.

    Like
     · Reply · 2h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan , absolutely. Soh shared some dialogue in which he talks about you talking of experience of Self. Please scroll up.

    Like
     · Reply · 2h


John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain, knowing is relative. To know is to measure and compare. Knowingness is beyond knowing. Knowingness is realized not by the relativity of a conditioned mind. U need to leap out of the conditioned.

I-I or I M is a direct and gapless authentication.
2

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan absolutely agreed.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Im speaking relatively.

If you prefer I will use words "there is no assumption of who in the absolute truth"

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Obviously the language is based on words like who or selves.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain an experience is an after thought.
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik So with your attachement to "who" you are showing you do not go beyond linguistically enforced concepts.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I can always ask the same question. "Who says that there is no assumption of who in the absolute truth"?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan absolutely.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Anurag Jain but thats just hammering your assumption based question like a broken record.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I said we shall go into infinite regress 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Why are you walking naked on the street?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain to realize the I-I, a koan will b more appropriate to leap one out of the relative. As for Soh Wei Yu, yes. He knows what he is talking about...lol
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Yes the regress is caused by that concept of who. When you let go of it there is no regress.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John, I understand and agree to all that you are saying 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I can really imagine you with a hammer ready to strike me now. But "Who let's go off the concept of who". Sorry 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Anurag Jain the concept relaxes and unties on its own.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Like drawing on water.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Nobody has to make it so.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain And who knows that the concept is untied and has relaxed?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik And why you assume there is someone who knows?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, are you talking without knowing you are realized??!!

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Without what?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Whats that?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, without having realized anatta. You just said that

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Whats knowing?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Good question. Have you realized anatta Robert?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Relatively or absolutely speaking?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, say both the ways. You know the relative and absolute levels. Right?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Relatively - I realised Anatta.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, ok. So who knows that he has realized anatta?




............................... [lengthy conversation cut]



Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu After anatta, even the I-I is not seen as a “who”. It is not the subject behind all objects. It is realised that there never was a subject. I-I is just I-I, but not reified into a background. It is just another foreground manifestation, another “occurrence”. Likewise in hearing, only sound, no subject or object, knower or known. Seeing is only colors without seer-seeing-seen. And so on. Direct authentication in all and everything

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, do you like John Tan?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Doing this mantra over and over until they are programmed with the concepts of "who" and "knowing"?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Anurag Jain thats beside the point.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I am not teaching you Advaita. You did not give me the permission 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Anurag Jain but self enquiry doesn not lead to Total Release

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Neti neti also

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

John Tan
John Tan Anurag, the Self cannot b the perceiver nor can the Self b the percieved. Why then do u still ask "Who"?

Though u may have the eureka authentication, If post authentication one is still within the who, what, where, when and why mode of enquiry, he will forever be playing hide and seek.

Anatta as Robert said, relook the entire matter in another way so happy exploring.
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Neti assumes that you will be left with that which cannot be negated. So starting the search you already reinforce false assumption.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu John Tan nice just as i was posting at the same time 😂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

Robert realised anatta

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John, the Self never asks questions 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Self enquiry assumes "I". The version with asking "who knows" assumes who and knowing.
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Questions based on assumption do not lead to truth. They only reinforce another false assumption.
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John, you are assuming that I am inquiring. I am not. I am asking questions to others.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h



......
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu did you read the thread completely and my responses?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert,ha, ha that is not talking of Self as experience dear !

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

In anatta, one realises that the experiencer-experiencing-experience paradigm to be fundamentally flawed. This applies to everything, not only I-I. Then in hearing, hearing is only sound without hearer, and so on, is the same luminous taste as I-I

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu, did you go through this thread?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik You werent clear on that. In any case what a "self" or "Self" is?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, in Advaita they are different from an unenlightened view and same from an enlightened view.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

Yes, why?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain But we will have to cover a lot of ground to understand this

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu because, I do not deviate an inch from what he said.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain And he did not speak of anatta. He was speaking of Self in that thread.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu You mean you agree with John?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu that means you did not go through the thread 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu I agree with John too. But you fail to see that John agrees with Robert too, on anatta.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu You fail to understand anatta just like when you said anatta is an experience. It is not.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu talk about what John Tan wrote in this thread. Exactly the same words.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain ?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu I meant quote his words again.

    Like


.........



Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anyway its not surprising at all. John Tan and I have gone through self realization.

The I-I is not itself the issue, the issue we and Robert are debating and John Tan is pointing out is that you are caging the I-I into a dualistic paradigm of knower-known and asking a question of who/etc based on dualistic assumptions.

All these do not apply at all after anatta is realised.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited


......



Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu John tan wrote:

Anurag Jain, knowing is relative. To know is to measure and compare. Knowingness is beyond knowing. Knowingness is realized not by the relativity of a conditioned mind. U need to leap out of the conditioned.

I-I or I M is a direct and gapless authentication.

...

Anurag Jain to realize the I-I, a koan will b more appropriate to leap one out of the relative. As for Soh Wei Yu, yes. He knows what he is talking about...lol

...

Anurag, the Self cannot b the perceiver nor can the Self b the percieved. Why then do u still ask "Who"?

Though u may have the eureka authentication, If post authentication one is still within the who, what, where, when and why mode of enquiry, he will forever be playing hide and seek.

Anatta as Robert said, relook the entire matter in another way so happy exploring.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

...

Soh Wei Yu


     · Reply · Remove Preview · 29m

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu knowingness is Self.

    Like
     · Reply · 27m · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain You are talking about I-I. I am not denying, I am saying that this taste is found as all manifestation after anatta. Plus caging it in who/what/where/when/why enquiry and dualistic paradigm simply puts a limit to the boundless and limitless unfolding of this taste.

    Like
     · Reply · 21m · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Right now this same I-I taste is always unfolding in its intensity, naturally, effortlessly throughout day and night not just as a formless Presence but also as the very vivid foreground manifestation that we normally call sky, trees, and birds chirping. Even before these labels. Everything is brilliant radiating presence, knowingness, aliveness, intelligence. If we cage this taste into a ghostly entity hiding behind everything else, this is merely imposing artificial boundaries and limitations. Falling into the framework of experiencer-experiencing-experience instead of the direct authentication of this

    Like
     · Reply · 17m · Edited



  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu I was asking who/what/why to others....not for myself. I cleared that in my comments above.
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu, your language is different from mine but yes, I-I is in all states.
  • Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

    The same taste is in all states and manifestation and is none other than manifestation. But in terms of view your view is different because I do not posit a changeless background
  • Soh Wei Yu John tan:

    “The Absolute as separated from the transience is what I have indicated as the 'Background' in my 2 posts to theprisonergreco.


    84. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4]
    Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT
    Hi theprisonergreco,

    First is what exactly is the ‘background’? Actually it doesn’t exist. It is only an image of a ‘non-dual’ experience that is already gone. The dualistic mind fabricates a ‘background’ due to the poverty of its dualistic and inherent thinking mechanism. It ‘cannot’ understand or function without something to hold on to. That experience of the ‘I’ is a complete, non-dual foreground experience.

    When the background subject is understood as an illusion, all transience phenomena reveal themselves as Presence. It is like naturally 'vipassanic' throughout. From the hissing sound of PC, to the vibration of the moving MRT train, to the sensation when the feet touches the ground, all these experiences are crystal clear, no less “I AM” than “I AM”. The Presence is still fully present, nothing is denied. -:) So the “I AM” is just like any other experiences when the subject-object split is gone. No different from an arising sound. It only becomes a static background as an afterthought when our dualistic and inherent tendencies are in action.

    The first 'I-ness' stage of experiencing awareness face to face is like a point on a sphere which you called it the center. You marked it.

    Then later you realized that when you marked other points on the surface of a sphere, they have the same characteristics. This is the initial experience of non-dual. Once the insight of No-Self is stabilized, you just freely point to any point on the surface of the sphere -- all points are a center, hence there is no 'the' center. 'The' center does not exist: all points are a center.

    After then practice move from 'concentrative' to 'effortlessness'. That said, after this initial non-dual insight, 'background' will still surface occasionally for another few years due to latent tendencies...

    86. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4]
    To be more exact, the so called 'background' consciousness is that pristine happening. There is no a 'background' and a 'pristine happening'. During the initial phase of non-dual, there is still habitual attempt to 'fix' this imaginary split that does not exist. It matures when we realized that anatta is a seal, not a stage; in hearing, always only sounds; in seeing always only colors, shapes and forms; in thinking, always only thoughts. Always and already so. -:)

    Many non-dualists after the intuitive insight of the Absolute hold tightly to the Absolute. This is like attaching to a point on the surface of a sphere and calling it 'the one and only center'. Even for those Advaitins that have clear experiential insight of no-self (no object-subject split), an experience similar to that of anatta (First emptying of subject) are not spared from these tendencies. They continue to sink back to a Source.

    It is natural to reference back to the Source when we have not sufficiently dissolved the latent disposition but it must be correctly understood for what it is. Is this necessary and how could we rest in the Source when we cannot even locate its whereabout? Where is that resting place? Why sink back? Isn't that another illusion of the mind? The 'Background' is just a thought moment to recall or an attempt to reconfirm the Source. How is this necessary? Can we even be a thought moment apart? The tendency to grasp, to solidify experience into a 'center' is a habitual tendency of the mind at work. It is just a karmic tendency. Realize It! This is what I meant to Adam the difference between One-Mind and No-Mind.” - John Tan, 2009, excerpt from Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience
  • Soh Wei Yu Of course the above talks about “experience” but actually both I AM and anatta is a realization, not a passing experience

    The point is rather about no background and presence as manifestation
  • Robert Dominik "The same taste is in all states and manifestation and is none other than manifestation. But in terms of view your view is different because I do not posit a changeless background" <- it matches what Malcolm Smith says that the experience, the taste of nonconceptual Samadhi can be the same and equally strong in both Hindu and Buddhadarma traditions but the view is different and is the crucial, key factor of liberative power. So the usual problem is that people - and in some way they're right - that the experience is the same in all traditions. But that misses the point as Buddhadharma stresses the right view. That's why there is distinction between Shamatha and Vipassana.
  • Robert Dominik So three experiences of "non-thought", "clarity" and "bliss" are accessible to everyone on all the paths. However the unique import of Buddhadharma is that contextualising experience with wrong view leads to involuntary rebirth in the three realms of formless, form and desire while experiences in the absence of wrong views are a Path to final release.
  • Soh Wei Yu Robert Dominik

    The meditative experience of nonthought, clarity or bliss is not the realization of I AMness. This is where john tan and I agree with anurag. It is a realization
  • Soh Wei Yu http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../realization...

    1. On Experience and Realization


    Comments by Soh: Also see related article - I AM Experience/Glimpse/Recognition vs I AM Realization (Certainty of Being)

    One of the direct and immediate response I get after reading the articles by Rob Burbea and Rupert is that they missed one very and most important point when talking about the Eternal Witness Experience -- The Realization. They focus too much on the experience but overlook the realization. Honestly I do not like to make this distinction as I see realization also as a form of experience. However in this particular case, it seems appropriate as it could better illustrate what I am trying to convey. It also relates to the few occasions where you described to me your space-like experiences of Awareness and asked whether they correspond to the phase one insight of Eternal Witness. While your experiences are there, I told you ‘not exactly’ even though you told me you clearly experienced a pure sense of presence.

    So what is lacking? You do not lack the experience, you lack the realization. You may have the blissful sensation or feeling of vast and open spaciousness; you may experience a non-conceptual and objectless state; you may experience the mirror like clarity but all these experiences are not Realization. There is no ‘eureka’, no ‘aha’, no moment of immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood something undeniable and unshakable -- a conviction so powerful that no one, not even Buddha can sway you from this realization because the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. It is the direct and unshakable insight of ‘You’. This is the realization that a practitioner must have in order to realize the Zen satori. You will understand clearly why it is so difficult for those practitioners to forgo this ‘I AMness’ and accept the doctrine of anatta. Actually there is no forgoing of this ‘Witness’, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature. Like what Rob said, "keep the experience but refine the views".

    Lastly this realization is not an end by itself, it is the beginning. If we are truthful and not over exaggerate and get carried away by this initial glimpse, we will realize that we do not gain liberation from this realization; contrary we suffer more after this realization. However it is a powerful condition that motivates a practitioner to embark on a spiritual journey in search of true freedom. 🙂
  • Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    Realization and Experience…
    Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
  • Jax's (Jackson Peterson) Message
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    Jax's (Jackson Peterson)…
    Jax's (Jackson Peterson) Message
  • Robert Dominik Soh Wei Yu sure. I wasn't clear on that - what I was trying to underline is that there is difference with regards to the view while some "qualities" might appear to be the same.
  • Soh Wei Yu I underwent I AM realization less than a year after John Tan wrote that to me in september 2009. Before that i had glimpses
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu in Advaita, as indicated in Mandukya, Self is beyond Form and Formless.

    Also, after Self is known, all forms are also seen as Self only.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain in Buddhadharma we call that a wrong view.
  • Robert Dominik For more you can read the screens I've posted below.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, I know that. In Advaita we say all views are mind, thoughts and concepts which aee objects to Self.
  • Robert Dominik The Self posited above doesn't stand analysis posited below which reveals it's a mistaken way of cognizing.
  • Robert Dominik No philosopher or mystic of Advaita has never made any point that couldn't stand the Madhyamaka analysis presented there and never will.
  • Robert Dominik So they avoid confronting with it - rightly sensing it is so.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, Self is that which witnesses the one making positions and negations.
  • Robert Dominik Such Self is illusory.
  • Robert Dominik As it is revelead when one goes through contemplations provided there.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, Self is that which witnesses all these assertions.
  • Robert Dominik Also one stops asking questions based on "who" after going through these contemplations.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, Self is one that witnesses the questioner and the questions and the answers.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain so read these screens for yourself and see whether that Self of yours can stand that analysis?
  • Robert Dominik I dare you it is not so.
  • Anurag Jain Robert Dominik the Self is that which witnesses reading this screen and thinking and daring.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain nah this self is witnessed by another self.
  • Robert Dominik which is witnessed by another self
  • Robert Dominik which is even witnessed by a SupersuperSelf even beyond that self xD
  • Robert Dominik Until you get to a fractal in 1000dimension which is seen by Paramatmabhramaextrasupersayanself :D
  • Robert Dominik I respect for you it is ultimate truth and I can see honest conviction in you that I too shared when I was at the level of Advaita. I just say what you propose is seen as empty and shallow when you have the Buddhadharma realisation.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, Self is the one who witnesses all this history :-)

    My wife has come back home. Having some tea with her. Take care Roberts. Hope we shall have tea together some day too :-)
  • Robert Dominik The thing is both Soh Wei Yu and John Tan had the realisation of Self you speak of but they went deeper. Like many seekers you got stuck on something that seems ultimate to you. However what you say is pointless because unless you check for yourself and honestly and humbly follow pointers Soh and John give then your position has no value. As they have checked both your Self and Emptiness of Buddhadharma and you only checked the Self. Sorry but this is simply how it is and no amount of repeating Advaita claims will change it.
  • Robert Dominik If you were interested in truth and actual dialogue then you would suspend your arrogance and spend time earnestly contemplating what Buddhadharma says to verify for yourself. For now you are trying to convince people who have seen the larger perspective to cling to your narrow perspective.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain for people who have realised both the "Self witnesses all of it" of Advaita and Emptiness of Buddhadharma - the Self is not liberation. There is also a master Ratnashree whos realisation of Self was confirmed by great Hindu sages. However he then met Buddhadharma and studied it until realising its teachings. According to him the teachings you advocate are mundane compared to the liberative insight of the Buddhadharma. So you can write "but the Self is witnessing all of it" or asking "who is witnessing all of this" like an Advaitron 9000 robot but this doesn't change anything and makes you seem ignorant in your being so sure in promoting your view even though you only see one side of this debate and not both sides like the people I've mentioned.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, I know all this :-) I winess all this too :-)
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain so the debate is meaningless as we could go on until the end of time saying:
  • Robert Dominik Self is empty - the Self sees that - Self is empty - the Self sees that
  • Robert Dominik It's completely pointless as in myself the mistake cognition of "witnessing" and "self" can arise never again - it's impossible. And as long as you will reject all possibility of investigating what Buddhadharma is about but will just promote "Self" view then it's going to be just going back and forth between me saying "Self you speak of is illusory" and you saying "Self is witnessing that" and so on and so on and so on
  • Anurag Jain Robert, yups. Self is the eternal Witness :-)
  • Robert Dominik So if you are unwilling or unable verify my points without rejecting them with your assumption then we're wasting our time here and it's better to drop the subject alltogether and just drink tea instead.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, I was just going to say that. Thank you so much for accepting my invitation for tea brother :-)
Someone posted in AtR group:

interesting view on awareness and no seer, no seeing, only the seen from Broasca Om

No, it is not. Awareness is just a word. Just an idea. When you look for awareness what do you really find? From what is awareness made of? Can you really see awareness? Can you feel it? How do you experience awareness right now? You may say that you are aware because if you hadn't you could not know that you live the experience of this moment, but is it really so? Is this not just a mental construct, just an assumption, based on inductive logic? The concept of "being aware" of an experience or phenomena is at the heart of the believe that you are separate from life. In the essence it can be seen as the idea or the feeling that you are here and life is somewhere else, there, that there is some kind of distance between what you are and the rest of life.

To think that you are awareness or consciousness is just another level of identification. You were identified with the body and you thought that you see and experience life from the inside of the body. You freed yourself from this idea and now you believe that you are not the body but you are instead immaterial awareness seeing and experiencing life but as immaterial awareness you are and you feel as separated from life as you felt when you believed that you were the body. You have just changed the object of your identification. You were identified with the idea of body and now you became identified with the idea of awareness or consciousness. But you are still identified and you feel as separated from life as before. This is nothing more than another level of delusion.

Can you see that the word awareness is spoken and then it comes to an end and in silence it is like it never existed? Can you see the thought awareness appearing and disappearing leaving no traces of its existence? Where is awareness when you don't talk about it? Where is awareness when you don't think about it? Does life really needs the word awareness or the concept of awareness? Isn't life happening even when you are not talking about awareness? Isn't life still happening when you are not thinking about awareness? Life doesn't need our ideas about life, our beliefs about it, our explanations about what it supposedly means. Life exists and happens free of any concepts, free of any believes. Life just happens. Does seeing need the idea that there is a seer to happen? Does the seeing not happen even when you don't think "I see"?

And if you go even more profound and sincerely with this introspection can you really perceive not only a someone who sees but even a seeing as a phenomenon apart from the image that is seen? We use to believe that there are three distinct parts, the seer, the seeing and the image that is seen but is it really so? Is this not just another assumption based on inductive logic? If you look sincerely for the seer, where is he, can you really find him? Can you really find more than the thought that there is a seer? Can you really perceive a seer? And if you look sincerely for the sense of seeing, can you really find the seeing itself? Can you really perceive in some way the seeing as if it is a concrete phenomenon? Can you really find more than the idea that there is seeing happening? Do you "see" what is here in the end?

The image or that "something" that we call image is here. It exists. it is real. it is happening right now. But the seeing is not. And the seer is not. Both the seeing and the seer are nothing more than impermanent thoughts appearing and disappearing and trying to explain what is with "the image". "The image" can be there without the thought that there is seeing and without the thought that there is a seer. Thoughts like "there is seeing" and "there is a seer" cannot exist unless there is an "image" happening first. And you my friend cannot be the seer and neither the seeing. You are "the image" itself. You are life manifesting itself as "the image", right in this moment. And you are also "the sound" about you thought that there is an entity called "me" who is hearing it. But the thought "I am here and I hear" cannot exist if there is not "the sound" happening first. And it is the same with all the other sensations and feelings and states. You are the entire flow of life manifesting right in this moment as the appearance and the disappearance of every image, sound, sensation, thought, feeling and state and whatever else you may name.

But what you are not is an entity being it called body, person, immaterial awareness, consciousness or self that is separated from the flow of live and exists outside of the flow of life. That's why you cannot free yourself from life, you cannot transcend life, you cannot "escape" or "evade" life. Because you are not a presence outside of life existing independent of life, you are life itself exactly like it is happening in this very moment. And there is nothing wrong with it. Even when a tiny drop of the flow of life takes the shape of the thought that tells that "there is something wrong that needs to be changed". There is nothing wrong. It is as it is. Just don't fight your nature anymore. Your fight is distorting your understanding. Accept everything as it is in this moment. Unconditionally. And you will realize that you are already home. That you are already what you should be. You may finally rest as you flow and happen as everything that happens. Finally at rest. Rest. Peace.



[8:49 AM, 5/14/2020] John Tan: This book is talking abt anatta and it tries to present as clear as possible the steps towards it without anatta insight.  Means it does not focus on insight breakthrough leading naturally into action but step by step practice into a stage of no mind and explaining the meaning of anatta along the way in the practice of mind.
[8:50 AM, 5/14/2020] John Tan: So the goal of mahamudra is about anatta.
[9:42 AM, 5/14/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. but lacking insight?
[9:42 AM, 5/14/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Do u think the book is good?
[10:04 AM, 5/14/2020] John Tan: Not that it lacks insight but it does not see how the insight that sees through actually lead one towards the meditation they r talking about.  They r explaining the experience and the understanding of view.  But the path prescribed is gradual, it lacks the triggering point.

[10:25 AM, 5/14/2020] John Tan: Go read that book, although dry it attempts to present the way of anatta (the explanation may not b clear and not well articulated), for one that has anatta insight, he will know what it is trying to arrive at.
I know nowadays you can find PDFs of dharma books for free (although not so legally) from google.

However, if you want to support the publisher/teacher/dharma and get them legally for cheap, check out this website: https://namobuddhapub.org/zc/PDF

You can get books like 'Clarifying the Natural State' and 'Essentials of Mahamudra' for $1.25 each, both of which I recommend.

I am getting some of the other pdfs.

I confirmed that this website is legit as it is listed in https://www.shambhala.com/khenchen-thrangu-rinpoche-readers-guide/

"Namo Buddha Publications is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, all-volunteer organization, which was was established to collect and publish all of Thrangu Rinpoche's books, Audio teachings, Video DVDs, and practice materials. The royalties and sale of his books go to towards publishing Rinpoche's teachings and supporting his charitable activities. The goal of Namo Buddha Publications is to make all of Thrangu Rinpoche's books, audio CDs, video DVDs, and Dharma photos available to everyone at a reasonable price."




  • Soh Wei Yu The I AM is not about having an experience, it is about discovering and realizing what You are. It is not something you do, not something you experience, but something that is realized. Eureka. So find out what is the experiencer. Who and what am I?

    W
    hen you realize that with complete certainty, you simply know (or rather, is simply the Knowingness) of what you are and don't get confused about conceptual notions of a self entity that is existing and dissolving in time and so on. It is pure, radiant, timeless Presence.

    Tracing back all thoughts and perceptions to its source, there is just a radiant light of Being. Before birth, I AM.
  • Image may contain: text
  • Soh Wei Yu http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../realization...



    1. On Experience and Realization

    Comments by Soh: Also see related article - I AM Experience/Glimpse/Recognition vs I AM Realization (Certainty of Being)

    One of the direct and immediate response I get after reading the articles by Rob Burbea and Rupert is that they missed one very and most important point when talking about the Eternal Witness Experience -- The Realization. They focus too much on the experience but overlook the realization. Honestly I do not like to make this distinction as I see realization also as a form of experience. However in this particular case, it seems appropriate as it could better illustrate what I am trying to convey. It also relates to the few occasions where you described to me your space-like experiences of Awareness and asked whether they correspond to the phase one insight of Eternal Witness. While your experiences are there, I told you ‘not exactly’ even though you told me you clearly experienced a pure sense of presence.

    So what is lacking? You do not lack the experience, you lack the realization. You may have the blissful sensation or feeling of vast and open spaciousness; you may experience a non-conceptual and objectless state; you may experience the mirror like clarity but all these experiences are not Realization. There is no ‘eureka’, no ‘aha’, no moment of immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood something undeniable and unshakable -- a conviction so powerful that no one, not even Buddha can sway you from this realization because the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. It is the direct and unshakable insight of ‘You’. This is the realization that a practitioner must have in order to realize the Zen satori. You will understand clearly why it is so difficult for those practitioners to forgo this ‘I AMness’ and accept the doctrine of anatta. Actually there is no forgoing of this ‘Witness’, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature. Like what Rob said, "keep the experience but refine the views".

    Lastly this realization is not an end by itself, it is the beginning. If we are truthful and not over exaggerate and get carried away by this initial glimpse, we will realize that we do not gain liberation from this realization; contrary we suffer more after this realization. However it is a powerful condition that motivates a practitioner to embark on a spiritual journey in search of true freedom. :)
  • Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different…
    Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
  • William Lim So the million dollar question is :

    HOW DO YOU REALIZE?


    HOW DO YOU INVOKE EUREKA?
  • Soh Wei Yu Just investigate who you are
  • William Lim Besides description, what's the prescription?
  • Soh Wei Yu Before thought, there is still a knowingness of existence. The knowingness of existence is not a subject-object knowing -- The Knowingness is the Self, it is not a knower knowing the self. You keep inquiring Before Birth, Who am I?/Who am I? until there is a quality of complete certainty of Existence, and that you find that certainty to be more real and obvious and certain than anything else you have known.

    Just keep inquiring who you are until you arrive at that.
  • William Lim I tried that for two days... nothing yet :)
  • Soh Wei Yu Without a thought, do you exist? Are you aware that you exist? What is existence-awareness at that moment?
  • Soh Wei Yu The first two questions simply usually returns concepts like 'yes'. But it doesn't lead to complete non-conceptual certainty. The third one, or questions and koans like Who am I? leads to that non-conceptual certainty and realization. It requires penetrating all discursive thinking to arrive at the actuality of the fundamental ground.
  • Soh Wei Yu When you get a sense of being a Living Spirit, go deeply into that. Don't think, just come to the point of complete stillness of Being. “Be still, and know that I am God.”

[4:52 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What u understand

[4:53 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: When u say the tree exist, it is out there....how u feel and experience

[4:55 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Feel like a separate observer interacting with an observer independent object out there.. everything about the tree including its shapes and colours just exist out there and are intrinsic attributes of the object

[4:55 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Also experience things from a distance as a self before anatta

[4:55 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Yes

[4:55 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Even the sound we hear.

[4:56 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: We don't actually examine and investigate deeply.

[4:57 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What happened in I M or I-I or just I and post that?

[4:59 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Theres a doubtless direct immediate taste of luminosity.. without concept or intermediary. Just a pure sense of presence

[5:00 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: But for I AM just the thought realm and not as sound etc

[5:00 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: I m not talking about that

[5:01 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: I m talking about trees, separation, objects...as u said earlier...does it change anything

[5:03 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: At the I AM level up to one mind, all phenomena are like passing clouds floating by from within a vast ground of being.. especially at I AM it still feels dualistic. At one mind everything is indistinguishable but there is not the clarity of view and no mind not fully stabilized. Anatta realization dissolves the background observer

[5:03 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: At I AM and one mind i feel like the source out of which everything emerges

[5:05 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: At I M, do u feel things r still external?

[5:05 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yes and the focus is on the internal sense of background beingness

[5:06 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Just recall ur experience even after I M. Don't mixed up phases of insights and gross through.

[5:07 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Do u or do u not feel things r still external?

[5:09 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: There is a sense that they are contained or emerging from and subsiding within a formless container of pure being.. so things are in a sense within me but not me, still dualistic

I wrote about how i am not running past objects, the scenery is passing within me

[5:10 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: So from before I M and post I M, what has changed?

[5:11 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Before I AM, i am a little person or ego residing inside the body relating to an object out there

After I AM, the body and mind and universe merely emerges and subsides from the source of pure beingness

[5:12 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Ok. Before that, what is reality to u?

[5:12 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: And after that what do u mean by reality?

[5:13 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Before that the identity self as well as objective world is reality

[5:13 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: After I AM, only the I AM is ultimately real. Everything else is just like projection of a movie on a movie screen

[5:14 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Before that reality is physical reality correct?

[5:14 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: After that I M is the Reality.

[5:15 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah.. physical reality plus the sense of being a person relating to physical reality.. the person is also seen to be part of that

[5:15 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah

[5:15 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Now from before I M to I M, what has changed?

[5:17 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Before I AM ignorance and karmic propensity projects ego and world as real... After I AM the intense luminosity is so real and overwhelming yet its nature is not understood, the mind with its ignorant mechanism of understanding reality then swaps the sense of identity and imputation onto the I AM. Then it turns into ultimate reality and background

[5:19 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Don't tell me on hindsight, tell me just before and after I M experience....don't tell me anything other thing...

[5:19 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: U r not focusing. from things being very physical to I M spiritual, what has happened?

[5:20 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: U r turning ur attention from external to internal right?

[5:21 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: So what r the difference from before I M and After?

[5:21 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yes focus on internal, just pure beingness

[5:21 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Until what happened?

[5:21 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Before i am focus is as a observer focusing outwards but dualistic

[5:23 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Until the four aspects of i am and then nondual insights.. the aspect of impersonality is not focused solely on internal but leads to a sense of universality, diffused and being lived. But its still dual here and attention is still mainly focused on internal and background.

What really changed is after nondual and especially anatta

[5:24 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: No

[5:24 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What is the most important experience in I M?

[5:24 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What must happen in I M?

[5:25 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: There is not even an M, just I... complete stillness, just I correct?

[5:26 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Realization, certainty of being.. yes just stillness and doubtless sense of I/Existence

[5:26 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: And what is the complete stillness just I?

[5:26 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Just I, just presence itself

[5:28 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: This stillness absorbs excludes and includes everything into just I. What is that experience called?

[5:29 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: I am everything?

[5:29 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: That experience is non-dual.

[5:30 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: And in that experience actually, there is no external nor internal, there is also no observer or observed.

[5:30 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Just complete stillness as I.

[5:31 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. yeah even I AM is nondual

[5:31 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: That is ur first phase of a non dual experience.

[5:32 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: We say this is the pure thought experience in stillness

[5:32 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Thought realm

[5:33 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: But at that moment we don't know that...we treated that as ultimate reality.

[5:33 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah

[5:34 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: I find it weird at that time when u said it is non conceptual thought

[5:34 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Lol

[5:34 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Yeah

[5:34 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Lol

[5:34 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Now I dun want to mix up

[5:35 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: But u really do not know what that encounter is...seems mystical

[5:35 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: We thought it is damn special right🤣🤣🤣

[5:37 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah lol

[5:38 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Now what about non-dual? What leads to non-dual for u before anatta?

[5:41 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: The first breakthrough was when i was dancing on the nightclub.. at that time i was a little drunk but because i was dancing and listening to the music, the attention was shifted from background to foreground.. then the bahiya sutta came up in my mind and that triggered a vivid nondual experience and i understood that the taste of existence is not just background i amness but in everything.. then that nondual experience lasted two days before background witnessing returned. When i went to army in september i was contemplating the border and edge between manifestation and awareness a lot and i became increasingly certain that awareness is nondual and the nondual experience is stabilizing but it is not anatta yet. I realised anatta in october

[5:43 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Now from I M, is the not just a non-dual experience, u have en-counter clarity directly and without intermediary.

[5:44 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Therefore 明心 (apprehending Mind) or 验证本心 (experientially verifying the original Mind)

[5:45 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: This is the most key insight but it requires a non-dual mode to 验证 (experiential verification)。

[5:46 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

[5:46 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: So it is what I call 顿悟 (sudden awakening) also.

[5:46 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Now Reality in esoteric practice is referring to this reality.

[5:48 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: When ur focus turned internal, u find that without this I, nothing is real, this is more real than real. Correct?

[5:50 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. yeah

[5:50 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Only I AM is more real than real

[5:51 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: When u turned from I M to non-dual, u r dissolving the line or layer that divides, when u dissolve that line, u have sort of non-dual experience.

[5:51 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: But that dissolving is not effortless, y?

[5:51 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yes.. i saw in august that the taste of reality and existence is also found in everything.. although the dualistic view and inherent view still hasnt gone through refinement

[5:51 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah

[5:52 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What exactly is preventing u from have effortless non-dual, what exactly is causing the oscillation to and fro from background to foreground?

[5:53 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Don't talk about "inherent view"

[5:54 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: The very strong tendency to view that I AM as eternal witness and ultimate reality is still there.. so without a breakthrough in view i returned to witnessing after 2 days until insights into nondual deepen

[5:56 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: U don't have to know about "emptiness" or "inherent view", u can just contemplate on certain koans and stanzas. What must happen for effortlessness to happen?

[5:57 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Insight into anatta leads to effortlessness

[5:58 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What is anatta?

[5:58 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What exactly is seen through?

[5:59 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: In seeing just the seen.. i saw through the sense of a seer besides seeing or seeing besides seen.. the subject-action-object and background/foreground paradigm is seen through and therefore i realise and actualized awareness as pure manifestation

[6:01 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Now there r two important points, seeing through self/Self and seeing through subject-action-object, any difference?

[6:02 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Subject/object if seen as undivided can still end up in one mind, seeing through self/Self dissolves the construct via realisation into mere luminous manifestation and aggregates

[6:03 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Its a bit like chariot except i wasnt thinking of that analogy at that time

[6:04 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: But anatta properly seen dissolves subject-action-object

[6:04 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: (referring to Chariot) This is much more deeper

[6:05 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: This seeing through, what did u understand?

[6:07 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: The emptiness of the construct of self/Self and awareness, as well as subject-action-object structure.. seeing through the emptiness of awareness as background and realising and actualising luminous taste as manifestation.. also at that time no agency and two stanza becoming clearer. One week later the same insight of anatta applied on mind body led to mind body drop

[6:09 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: 1. U see through constructs

2. U understand the relationship between constructs and experience

3. What else???

[6:09 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What did i tell u?

[6:13 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Hmm not sure.. after that no mind and luminous taste becomes effortless mode rather than efforting

[6:14 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: The power of constructs, how it creates an experience so real and so convincing, how it blinds. U cannot just look at just one side of the coin.

[6:15 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. yeah i had a better understanding of the power of constructs a year after that

[6:17 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: If u do not understand the power of constructs, u r only knowing half. It is the process of forming and dissolving these constructs in relation to consciousness creating all the one mind, no mind, anatta, non-dual experiences.

[6:18 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: And u r always overcoming those, so know the power and know the way of overcoming and what do u call that?

[6:20 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Prajna?

[6:20 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Wisdom

[6:20 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: No

[6:23 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Karmic propensities?

[6:23 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Bond

[6:23 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ignorance

[6:24 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: U can say all that...but what do u call these constructs in Buddhism?

[6:25 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Mental proliferation?

[6:26 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: 造作

[6:26 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Means what?

[6:26 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Mental proliferation means what?

[6:27 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: It is the continuous activity of projecting those constructs into reality

[6:28 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: It is the continuous activity of projecting those constructs into experience...

[6:29 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Now there r 2 one is releasing these constructs, the other is the post releasing...so what r the difference?

[6:30 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: The actual experience post releasing

[6:31 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: And the question is emptiness and DO just seeing through these constructs? Or is there something more?

[6:34 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: When u see through the background, u don't just experience vivid effortless non-dual experiences. But u always realize all along there isn't any self behind, just this activity of on going proliferation ... And the freedom of it. When it is free...what is experience like?

(to be continued)