See: 

 
 
"Now if one discards the wondrous, then even the very essence of the Buddha Way has no place to abide; since no though is left, no discriminative thinking takes place. Both the deluded mind and wisdom have forever expired, and perceptions and reflections are at an end - calm and without ado. This is called tai; it means the ultimate of the principle. And shang means 'without peer.' Hence it is called taishang, the ultimate. This is simply another designation for Buddha, the Tathagata."
This explanation is similar to Dzogchen and Mahamudra. At the end of the path, dharmins, dharmata, all phenomena, mind, and even rigpa/vidya (knowledge/wisdom) is exhausted. The exhaustion of all phenomena is said to be equivalent to Buddhahood and rainbow body, the ultimate.

Dzogchen teacher Arcaya Malcolm taught that many people have the wrong idea that Vidya/Rigpa is some eternal thing that just goes on forever, but it too is exhausted later along with all other phenomena.

It is so clear in the original texts -- be it Zen, Mahamudra or Dzogchen. (Theravada too has clear teachings of anatta)

Yet so many teachings and even authoritative teachers nowadays in each of these traditions, including Theravada, just don't get it. They reify wisdom, awareness, etc, as if they are real and eternal, falling into extremes no different from the Vedantins, etc.
 
 
................
 
Also, previously: 

Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
Author
after self/Self is exhausted, phenomena also needs to be exhausted
1

     · Reply
     · 3w

Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
Author
Image may contain: text

“Dakpo Tashi Namgyal:

 

You have seen the essence of Nonmeditation if your realization of nonmeditation is free from an object of remembering or familiarization so that the savoring has dissolved. You have not seen the essence if you retain a sense of something that needs to be remembered or grown accustomed to.

 

You have perfected the strength of Nonmeditation if the subtlest dualistic perception has dissolved and you have brought all phenomena to the state of exhaustion, so you are always indivisible from original wakefulness. You have not perfected its strength if you experience even the slightest dualistic perception and you have not exhausted the phenomena of knowable objects.

 

Your thoughts have become meditation if every instance of all-ground consciousness, without being rejected, has dissolved into being dharmadhatu wisdom. They have not become meditation if you retain a subtle type of propensity for conceptual clinging and the subtle tarnish of savoring an experience.

 

The qualities have arisen if your body appears as the wisdom rupakaya of the rainbow body and your mind as the luminous dharmakaya. Thus the world is experienced as all-encompassing purity. The qualities have not arisen if you retain even the slightest impure perception regarding body and mind, the world and beings.

 

Comments by Soh: ‘Clarifying the Natural State by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal is a good book, highly recommended. You can get it for $2 at https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2020/05/mahamudra-books-for-cheap.html


[4:27 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Interesting
[4:27 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: I reread this part in mahamudra book

[4:27 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Dakpo tashi also related stage of nonmeditation with exhaustion of all phenomena and rainbow body
[4:27 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: So their explanation seems similar
[4:28 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: ?  Y is this interesting?
[4:28 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Dunno why i didnt notice that before.. maybe i forgot
[4:29 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: Appearances r not phenomena
[4:31 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: Exhaustion of phenomena means like the sense of observer being dissolved, the sense of object also dissapeared.
[4:38 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah..
[4:38 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm also said exhaustion of phenomena doesnt mean no more appearance
[4:39 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: Yes
[4:39 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: U should not have that sense by now also
[4:45 PM, 9/6/2020] John Tan: A few years post anatta, I do not have sense of objects and physicality....objects r deconstructed by contemplating DO and total exertion.  Therefore there is no seer, no seeing and nothing seen.

I m now compiling the different nuance of total exertion in taoism, zen and yoga...🤣
[5:05 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. yeah i dont have sense of solid phenomena
[5:06 PM, 9/6/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Wow nice.. looking forward to reading 😂”
     · Reply
     · 3w

Mr. AA
badge icon
I've read that Buddhas have no perception from their own side, that rupakayas appear only from the perspective of beings to be "tamed". That would imply a total lack of appearances, all the while not falling into non-existence or a deep sleep type of state.
I like the idea that "no phenomena" does not mean "no appearance". Yet, that's not what the texts seem to be pointing to.

     · Reply
     · 3w · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
Author
Mr. AA
Malcolm said that appearances do not cease even at the final stage/exhaustion of phenomena in the retreat. It is very clear from his teaching that ultimate Buddhahood is about apperceiving appearances as wisdom.
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=21700&start=20
Someone asked: Does "appearance" here mean the same thing it normally does? I am a little perplexed if so. How can a Buddha be said to perceive appearances? Don't appearances end when non-dual wisdom is completely realized? I thought that appearance implies a duality from wisdom itself and that Buddhas have eliminated that.
Malcolm replied:
A Buddhas appearances are wisdom.
Tom:
Sure. But I thought appearances have ended for Buddhas, no?
Malcolm:
No. What has ended for a Buddha are impure appearances.
Tom:
I thought that "appearance" implies a duality between the wisdom itself and the appearance of that wisdom.
Malcolm:
That is true only below the 13th bhumi. The difference between a buddha on the thirteenth bhumi and the eleventh and twelfth bhumi is that buddhas on the thirteenth bhumi experience appearances as their own wisdom, whereas the lower two stages of buddhahood experience wisdom and the appearances as distinct.
https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html
Malcolm:
Malcolm wrote:
[Quoting gad rgyangs: in the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.]
'The way that great transference body arises:
when all appearances have gradually been exhausted,
when one focuses one’s awareness on the appearances strewn about
on the luminous maṇḍala of the five fingers of one’s hand,
the environment and inhabitants of the universe
returning from that appearance are perceived as like moon in the water.
One’s body is just a reflection,
self-apparent as the illusory body of wisdom;
one obtains a vajra-like body.
One sees one’s body as transparent inside and out.
The impure eyes of others cannot see one’s body as transparent,
but only the body as it was before...'
Shabkar, Key to One Hundred Doors of Samadhi
Outer appearances do not disappear even when great transference body is attained. What disappears are the inner visions, that is what is exhausted, not the outer universe with its planets, stars, galaxies, mountains, oceans, cliffs, houses, people and sentient beings.
M
Also:
gad rgyangs wrote:
When all appearances cease, what are you left with?
Malcolm wrote:
They never cease....
Samayasattva/Jnanasattva - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel
DHARMAWHEEL.NET
Samayasattva/Jnanasattva - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel
Samayasattva/Jnanasattva - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel
1

     · Reply
     · Remove Preview
     · 3w

Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
Author
Also John Tan just wrote:
I dunno abt buddhahood. To me appearances r ceaseless and the energetic display continues endlessly becoz it's just one's natural radiance.
I was chatting with Tyler just the other day that although my breakthrough in experiential insights is mainly to due buddhism, my understanding is still very much taoist/ I Ching oriented. The universe is an ongoing interplay.

     · Reply
     · 3w

Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
Author
I resonate and concur with both their explanations
 · Reply
 · 3w

.....





  • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    "We must accept that all are mere imputations but from the insight of anatta, not from the insight of substantialist view. "Phenomena" is understood differently from our general English usage, "phenomenon" in Buddhism in general is object possessing identifiable characteristic and therefore having essence that is findable.
    “ - John Tan
     
     
    ..........
     
     

     

        Kyle Dixon
        Admin
        Phenomena often glosses “dharma” which is an entity that bears characteristics.
        The appearance is the colors/shapes, tactile sensation, sound, etc., that the dharma is extrapolated from.
        Relative and ultimate truth are two ways of seeing a single appearance. In relative truth we mistakenly conceive of conditioned dharmas, phenomena, objects and such which possess characteristics
        4
         ·
        Reply
         ·
         · 12h

     

     
    ..........

    Anurag Jain

    badge icon

    Kyle

    , good that you are asking me this.This is what Wikipedia says, "Therefore, in Madhyamaka, phenomena appear to arise and cease, but in an ultimate sense they do not arise or remain as inherently existent phenomena"

    I am assuming the phenomena as the five skandhas

     

         · Reply

         · 1d

     

    Kyle Dixon

    badge icon

    Phenomena is generally a gloss for “dharma” which indicates an entity which bears characteristics.

    Dharmas would indeed be classified as belonging to either the mental or material aggregates.

     

         · Reply

         · 1d

     

    Kyle Dixon

    badge icon

    But phenomena is intended to indicate an entity.

     

         · Reply

         · 1d

     

    Anurag Jain

    badge icon

    Kyle

    , I am sure I am referring to skandhas otherwise we would land in quantum physics. Lol !

     

         · Reply

         · 1d

     

    Kyle Dixon

    badge icon

    The skandhas are just an overarching model used to classify mental and material phenomena.

    My point is that when you read “phenomena” you can just treat that as “entities,” or even certain processes.

    So for instance in your wiki excerpt:

    “Entities appear to arise and cease, but in the ultimate sense they do not.”

  •  
    ..........

    • André A. Pais
      Admin
      Phenomena probably implies dualistic perception of phenomenal objects with their own characteristics - something epistemology would care about. Appearances mean sheer experiential clarity, the bare fact of experience, yet devoid of further characterization and categorization - something non-dual meditative approaches would care about.
      Yet, the very idea that Buddhas 'see', or that there are entities, principles, processes or states called 'Buddhas' (different from other Buddhas or non-Buddhas) is itself very dualistic. We usually tend to 'picture' buddhahood using the colors of our dualistic palette, but that naturally cannot make sense. That's nothing but prapanca (conceptual fermentation) about buddhahood. 'Buddha' is precisely the absence of the structural configuration that frames the dualistic notion of subject-perception-object. Non-dual perception is no perception, but mere presence or clarity. 'Knowing' becomes 'being'. And in non-dual being there is no seeing, no seen, no seer. And finally, there is not even 'non-dual being'.
      Instead of "Buddhas see appearances," perhaps we could say that "'Buddha' is the term applied to appearances when they are seen as being devoid of the notion of 'sentient beings' (and non-sentient beings too)". Devoid of notions pertaining to both sentience and non-sentience.
      That's what I assume Dōgen means with "mind-body (and the minds and bodies of others) dropping," and in Mahamudra "body, mind and phenomena merging."
      Just a few unsolicited thoughts.
      2

    • Reply
      • 1h
      • Edited

      André A. Pais
      Admin
      (now included in the previous comment)
      Instead of "Buddhas see appearances," perhaps we could say that "Buddha is the term applied to appearances when they are seen as being devoid of the notion of 'sentient beings' (and non-sentient beings too)". Devoid of notions pertaining to both sentience and non-sentience.
      That's what I assume Dōgen means with "mind-body (and the minds and bodies of others) dropping," and in Mahamudra "body, mind and phenomena merging."
      1

    • Reply
      • 1h
      • Edited

    • André A. Pais
      Admin
      Or like I wrote in this group in the past:
      Buddhas are not sentient beings.
      They've gone beyond the notions
      of being, mind, sentience.
      Being 'reality beyond all dualistic notions'
      they lose all sense-doors to it.
      The notion that one perceives reality
      is the womb of a double-headed beast,
      simultaneously giving birth to
      the notions of duality and perception.
      1

    • Reply

      Soh Wei Yu
      Admin
      Was reminded of a quote shared by Kyle:
      Longchenpa:
      From the [ultimate] perspective the meditative equipoise of the realised (sa thob) and awakened beings (sangs rgyas), there exists neither object of knowledge (shes bya) nor knowing cognitive process (shes byed) and so forth, for there is neither object to apprehend nor the subject that does the apprehending. Even the exalted cognitive process (yeshes) as a subject ceases (zhi ba) to operate.
      1

          • Reply
          • 46m






    • Soh Wei Yu
      Admin
      Malcolm:
      I doubt very much that Karl is an annihilationist. You have really misunderstood his point, quite grievously. What he and the karmapas are implying is that there never were sentient beings to begin with. This is not controversial. Haribhadra, a Madhyamaka, points out than when one realizes buddhahood, one realizes too there was never a time when one was not a buddha. This insight does not depend on the Buddhanature doctrine at all, since it is straight out of the PP Sutras. Moreover, it is commonly stated that from the point of the view of the result, Buddhas only perceive other Buddhas, they do not perceive sentient beings, because to perceive obscurations would equal being obscured. Buddhas have no obscurations, hence they do not perceive them, ergo, they have no perception of sentient beings at all. Thus is another reason why Haribhadra points out that the path is entirely illusory from beginning to end, including the attainment of buddhahood.
      ….
      Soh: also reminds me of an insight where i saw there are no buddhas vs sentient beings, or stages at all.. only spontaneous perfection. in terms of ultimate
      John Tan: Actually in ultimate view, there is not any form of apprehension, spontaneous perfection has no perception.
      But if it is expressed this way it will be misunderstood as nihilistic.
      Have u ever wondered y instantaneous and sudden enlightenment is possible?
      Soh: the nature of mind is always so.. thats why realisation is sudden
      John Tan: Yes
      2

      • Reply
      • 1h
      • Edited

      André A. Pais
      Admin
      From that thread on Dharmawheel, quoting Brünnholzl:

  • Post by Matt J »

    I'm don't think he is saying that. From When the Clouds Part, p. 303:
    In more detail, the introduction refutes all external phenomenon and affirms the internal nature of the mind as being the dharmakaya--- the inseparability of the unconditioned expanse and self-arisen, self-aware wisdom, whose nature is lucid and unceasing. All adventitious stains are nothing but thoughts, and through realizing the luminous nature of the mind and letting thoughts be as lucid wisdom in an uncontrived manner, their essence is realized as lacking any root and thus they are self-liberated. In other words, sentient beings are nothing but the adventitious flaws of thoughts and therefore one familiarizes with them as being nonentities. Buddhahood is nothing but the luminosity of one's own mind having become free from these adventitious stains. Without thoughts and clinging, everything that appears and exists dawns as the essence of the three kayas.
    In his footnote, he quotes the same text where it says: "through realizing one's own mind, there is not the slightest to be removed because there is no sentient being to be relinquished apart from [mind's] playing as thoughts without a basis." He also quotes HHK 3/8. He wraps up the footnote by stating "Clinging to the personal self and the resultant notion of a sentient being is just like being stuck in a claustrophobic and gloomy outlook of fixating on the configuration of one of these clouds (which moreover keeps changing all the time) from within that cloud, while being aware of the cloudless and sunlit expanse of the sky without any reference points resembles the non conceptual wisdom of the dharmadhatu of the buddha."

    Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:37 am
    I think what he is saying is that Buddhanature + defilements = sentient beings,
    Brunnhölzl is saying this is incorrect—at least within the narrow context of HHK #3 and #8

    What the Karmapa #17 meant I can only speculate. And yes, the Green Tara was on the same day but I don’t see it on the video.
    "The world is made of stories, not atoms."
    --- Muriel Rukeyser
    •  
       
      ........
       
      Aditya Prasad
      Defc6uembcpieunol3r 12 3a7t 1h2:3af1 70Af9M  ·
      I'm sure I've seen "appearances" and "phenomena" distinguished here before, but can't find where. Anyone wanna take a stab? (The context is that a Buddha sees appearances but not phenomena.)
      19 Comments
      Jayson MPaul
      Phenomena having the quality of thingness. Inherent existence from their own side. Appearances are sensations of the 6 streams like a mirage or rainbow. Vividly undeniably appearing but without existence at all
      4
       · Reply
       ·

           · 1w · Edited

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      May be an image of text that says '1:30 4G John Tan Anurag Jain badge icon Kyle good that you are asking me this.This is what Wikipedia says, "Therefore, in Madhyamaka, phenomena appear to arise and cease, but an ultimate sense they not arise or remain as inherently existent phenomena" am assuming the phenomena as the five skandhas .Reply 1d Kyle Dixon badge icon Phenomena is generally a gloss for "dharma" which indicates an entity which bears characteristics. Dharmas would indeed be classified as belonging either the mental or material aggregates. .Reply 1d Kyle Dixon badge icon But phenomena is intended to indicat an entity. Reply'

           · Reply
           · 1w

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      May be an image of text that says '1:30 John Tan Kyle Dixon badge icon The skandhas are just an overarching model used to classify mental and material phenomena My point is that when you read "phenomena" you can just treat that as "entities," or even certain processes. So for instance your wiki excerpt: "Entities appear arise and cease, but in the ultimate sense they do not." .Reply 1d Edited Anurag Jain badge icon Kyle yes am aware of no arising. (conceptually). am looking at processes rather than entities. Reply 1d Kyle Dixon badge icon Well for instance Ãjătivada also asserts non-arising, but is eductive rendition. Reply'

           · Reply
           · 1w

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../dependent...

      "We must accept that all are mere imputations but from the insight of anatta, not from the insight of substantialist view. "Phenomena" is understood differently from our general English usage, "phenomenon" in Buddhism in general is object possessing identifiable characteristic and therefore having essence that is findable.

      Dependent Designation
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Dependent Designation
      Dependent Designation
      1

           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 1w

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../exhaustion-of-all...
      Exhaustion of All Phenomena
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Exhaustion of All Phenomena
      Exhaustion of All Phenomena
      3

           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 1w

      Aditya PrasadAuthor
      Soh Wei Yu Thanks. How do we reconcile these two?
      "It is very clear from [Malcolm's] teaching that ultimate Buddhahood is about apperceiving appearances as wisdom."
      "At the end of the path ... rigpa/vidya (knowledge/wisdom) is exhausted."
      Is wisdom exhausted or not?
       · Reply
       ·

           · 4d

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      Aditya Prasad Discussed in https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=35965... "
      The basic point that Rongzom and Mipham make is that in Dzogchen, the absence of gnosis in the result is not an absence of gnosis per se. In Dzogchen, gnosis is the basis. Recognizing that gnosis is the path. The gnosis lacking the result is the two-fold gnosis. It is a complicated issue, totally beyond the scope of this forum or my energy to address. "
      Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo‘s understanding of Buddhahood and Gnosis - Page 3 - Dharma Wheel
      DHARMAWHEEL.NET
      Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo‘s understanding of Buddhahood and Gnosis - Page 3 - Dharma Wheel
      Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo‘s understanding of Buddhahood and Gnosis - Page 3 - Dharma Wheel
      1

           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 4d

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      For more definitive answers on Dzogchen, try asking Kyle Dixon or Malcolm. But from AtR perspective this might be relevant: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/01/no-awareness-does-not-mean-non.html
      No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
      No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
      http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/01/no-awareness-does-not-mean-non.html
           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 4d

      Aditya PrasadAuthor
      Soh Wei Yu I guess I will settle for "it is a complicated issue" 🙂. It sounds like wisdom both is and is not exhausted.
       · Reply
       ·

           · 21h

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      Aditya Prasad According to Acarya Malcolm Smith's explanation of how rigpa is exhausted last year, which I'm not supposed to share in details but I'll just give a brief outline.. for more of this you'll have to attend Malcolm's teachings (maybe you did? can't remember) although he is not accepting new students nowadays.
      There was a point in his retreat where Arcaya Malcolm Smith described how at the mature phase of Dzogchen practice, the 'vidya'/'rigpa' (the knowing/knowledge) is exhausted where the vidya and dhatu (something like knowing and field of experience) totally collapsed in a 1:1 synchrony (and he gestured two circles coming together), whereas before that point [the exhaustion of vidya] there is a sort of out of phase issue between vidya and dhatu. That's said to happen in the fourth vision (in terms of bhumi map, Malcolm mentioned years ago that's 8th to 16th bhumi based on some text). Kyle did inform me that it is the same as what I call anatta realization. But as Kyle pointed out, the realisation of anatman should happen even at 1st bhumi, so perhaps fourth vision is the full maturity of the anatman insight [inclusive of twofold emptiness] in all aspects. Or as John Tan elaborated last year, "Yes [the description] sounds like [anatta realisation]. But it can mean the entire insight is exhausted and one lives completely in that wisdom naturally... ...all descriptions seems to be anatta. How stable and how mature is the question." "Maybe after one matures thoroughly anatta... ...insight and live in that wisdom and cycle day and night 24/7."
      Somehow the description by Malcolm reminded me of one of Daniel's descriptions in MCTB on fourth path about the 1:1 synchrony because they almost used the same words and analogy -
      https://vimeo.com/250616410 . Also, Malcolm mentioned many people have the wrong idea that Vidya/Rigpa is some eternal thing that just goes on forever, but it too is exhausted later along with all other phenomena [although this is not annihilation as appearances/pure vision still manifest] (elaboration: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../acarya-malcolm... )
      Vipassana
      VIMEO.COM
      Vipassana
      Vipassana

           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 1h · Edited

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      And then even when after that is exhausted, it doesn't mean awareness or wisdom then becomes non-existent, it just means no longer reified and abstracted from the crystal clear yet empty appearances. Or the Dzogchen term is clearly apparent non-existents.
      Kyle Dixon wrote 8 months ago:
      "It means the appearance and the knowing of the appearance are the same. However “appearances are mind” is primarily a sarma school view. In Dzogchen mennagde it is not said that appearances are mind but rather that appearances are med par gsal snang, which means “non-existent clear appearances” or “clearly apparent non-existents.”" - https://www.reddit.com/.../what_does_mind_mean_in_the.../
      Daniel M. Ingram:
      http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../intelligence...
      "So you have these two extremes - both of which I find pretty annoying (laughs) - and uhm, not that they are not making interesting points that counterbalance each other. And then, from an experiential point of view, the whole field seems to be happening on its own in a luminous way, the intelligence or awareness seems to be intrinsic in the phenomena, the phenomena do appear to be totally transient, totally ephemeral. So I would reject from an experiential point of view, something in the harshness of the dogma of the rigid no-selfists that can't recognise the intrinsic nature of awareness that is the field. If that makes sense. Cos they tend to feel there's something about that's sort of (cut off?)..."
      Interviewer: "And not only awareness..."
      Daniel: "Intelligence. Right, and I also reject from an experiential point of view the people who would make this permanent, something separate from, something different from just the manifestation itself. I don't like the permanence aspect because from a Buddhist technical point of view I do not find anything that stands up as permanent in experience. I find that quality always there *while there is experience.* Because it's something in the nature of experience. But it's not quite the same thing as permanence, if that makes sense. So while there is experience, there is experience. So that means there is awareness, from a certain point of view, manifestation - awareness being intrinsically the same thing, intrinsic to each other. So while there is experience, I would claim that element (awareness) is there - it has to be for there to be experience. And I would claim that the system seems to function very lawfully and it's very easy to feel that there's a sort of intelligence, ok, cool... ...the feeling of profundity, the feeling of miraculousness, the wondrous component. So as the Tibetans would say, amazing! It all happens by itself! So, there is intrinsically amazing about this. It's very refreshingly amazing that the thing happens, and that things cognize themselves or are aware where they are, manifestation is truly amazing and tuning into that amazingness has something valuable about it from a pragmatic point of view."
      What Does "Mind" Mean in the Phrase, "All Appearances are Mind"?
      REDDIT.COM
      What Does "Mind" Mean in the Phrase, "All Appearances are Mind"?
      What Does "Mind" Mean in the Phrase, "All Appearances are Mind"?

           · Reply
           · Remove Preview
           · 1h · Edited

      Soh Wei YuAdmin
      Some other nice posts by Kyle in 2014,
      "'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness."
       · Reply
       · 1h 


      • Aditya Prasad
        Author
        Soh Wei Yu So it sounds like the point is that wisdom / knowledge is realized to be nondual from appearance itself. But if so, I don't know why Malcolm says it is a "complicated issue."
        What it means to be an "appearance" is that it appears. "Appear" is the objective pole and "know" is the subjective pole. When these are realized to be primordially nondual, I guess it doesn't matter if we call what's left "appearances" or "knowingnesses" (or anything else).

      • Reply

      • Soh Wei Yu
        Admin
        Aditya Prasad The key insight is that appearance is empty of being object, and knowing is empty of being a subject. As Kyle said, "Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]."
        Also, as Kyle just posted,
        "
        Krodha:
        When
        anātman is applied to the mind’s cognizance, the realization associated
        with that insight means we recognize, non-conceptually, that there is
        not a seer of sights, or a hearer of sounds, etc.
        For
        deluded sentient beings who dwell in dualistic consciousness, or
        vijñāna, it experientially feels like there is an internal observer that
        is experiencing external phenomena that reside at a distance from the
        observing cognizance.
        In realizing
        anātman, that internal observer collapses and the practitioner realizes
        that there has never actually been a subjective observer at any point
        in time. No seer of sights, no hearer of sounds, etc. That collapse of
        the internal substratum removes the basis for a self, and the mind
        awakens and realizes that the self is not real, and never has been. In
        that insight it can still seem like phenomena are “over there” or “out
        there” however the sights and sounds are just no longer mediated by an
        internal reference point.
        But just
        like the feeling of an internal observer can collapse, the feeling of
        things being “out there” can also collapse, and that is the second fold
        of anātman which applies to phenomenal appearances, which is synonymous
        with emptiness or śūnyatā.
        Rebirth
        only occurs because that internal observer remains in tact, because the
        fetters of I-making and mine-making persist. Buddhas have eliminated
        those obscurations and so rebirth does not occur for them.
        In
        short anātman in the context of awareness concerns the bifurcation of
        experience into subject and object. The self is just this observing
        reference point and the identity based on that reference point. But when
        that reference point disappears in awakened insight then the self is
        completely gone for as long as that equipoise lasts. For Buddhas that
        equipoise is unfragmented, for āryas it is fragmented and for deluded
        sentient beings that equipoise is absent.
        10"

        • Reply
        • 3m

      • Soh Wei Yu
        Admin
        If there is a knowingness that exists but is nondual with objects, that is substantialist nondualism. That is not anatta insight. Anatta insight is the insight that knowingness has never existed as anything besides appearance. It has no existence of its own. Much like there has never been a wind besides blowing, a lightning besides flash, or a river besides the flow.

        • Reply
        • 2m
        • Edited

      • Soh Wei Yu
        Admin
        "Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self. "
        AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
        www.awakeningtoreality.com
        www.awakeningtoreality.com

          • Reply
          • Remove Preview
          • 1m
    .....
     
     
    There is no cessation of perception in the fourth vision. Concerning this Shabkar writes:

    • It so happens that in the past some pracititioners of the Great Perfection
      have asserted that the kāyas and pristine consciousnesses
      do not exist within the state of original purity, but this is great error.
    And:
    The way that great transference body arises:
    when all visions have gradually been exhausted,
    when one focuses one’s consciousness on the appearances strewn about
    on the luminous maṇḍala of the five fingers of one’s hand,
    the environment and inhabitants of the universe
    returning from that appearance are perceived as like the moon in the water.
    One’s body is just a reflection,
    self-apparent as the illusory body of pristine consciousness;
    externally and internally pellucid; free from being harmed by the four elements;
    one obtains a vajra-like body.
    One sees one’s body as transparent inside and out.
    The impure eyes of others cannot see one’s body as transparent,
    but only the body as it was before;
    for example, when the hand of Mutri Tsanpo touched
    the body of Master Padmasambhava,
    according to account of their meeting.

     
     
     
    .....

    How could "this" awareness not be considered self?

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/rfo2m0/awareness_as_notself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

    Krodha = Kyle Dixon

    level 1
    krodha

     · 2 days ago

    "How
     could "this" awareness (which knows life, death, and the states in
    between, rather than ordinary vijnana) not be considered self? If it is
    the one irreducible constant that remains when bodies, minds, and
    objects pass, surely it would be considered one's true nature?"


    Krodha:
    When
     anātman is applied to the mind’s cognizance, the realization associated
     with that insight means we recognize, non-conceptually, that there is
    not a seer of sights, or a hearer of sounds, etc.
    For
     deluded sentient beings who dwell in dualistic consciousness, or
    vijñāna, it experientially feels like there is an internal observer that
     is experiencing external phenomena that reside at a distance from the
    observing cognizance.
    In realizing
     anātman, that internal observer collapses and the practitioner realizes
     that there has never actually been a subjective observer at any point
    in time. No seer of sights, no hearer of sounds, etc. That collapse of
    the internal substratum removes the basis for a self, and the mind
    awakens and realizes that the self is not real, and never has been. In
    that insight it can still seem like phenomena are “over there” or “out
    there” however the sights and sounds are just no longer mediated by an
    internal reference point.
    But just
     like the feeling of an internal observer can collapse, the feeling of
    things being “out there” can also collapse, and that is the second fold
    of anātman which applies to phenomenal appearances, which is synonymous
    with emptiness or śūnyatā.
    Rebirth
     only occurs because that internal observer remains in tact, because the
     fetters of I-making and mine-making persist. Buddhas have eliminated
    those obscurations and so rebirth does not occur for them.
    In
     short anātman in the context of awareness concerns the bifurcation of
    experience into subject and object. The self is just this observing
    reference point and the identity based on that reference point. But when
     that reference point disappears in awakened insight then the self is
    completely gone for as long as that equipoise lasts. For Buddhas that
    equipoise is unfragmented, for āryas it is fragmented and for deluded
    sentient beings that equipoise is absent.

    10








    level 2
    InfiniteQuestion5

    Op · 2 days ago

    Hi
     Krodha, thanks for a thorough take on the question. In reference to the
     nondual perception, however, what does one make of the apparent field
    of phenomena that continue to arise? Is it regarded as "it is what it
    is," AKA without name and "true reality," as a spontaneous activity?

    2








    level 3
    krodha

     · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

    For
     Buddhas the field of phenomena does not appear as external but as their
     own display. Essentially meaning that knowing and what is known are not
     different. What is known is itself the activity of knowing.
    Rongzom:
    Buddhas
     and bodhisattvas are the knowers, and unmistakable true reality is the
    object of knowledge. Therefore, it is stated that there is no difference
     between knowledge and the object of knowledge.
    Kūkai:
    Although
     mind is distinguished from form, they share the same nature. Form is
    mind, mind is forms. They interfuse with one another without difficulty.
     Therefore, knowing is the objects of knowledge, and the objects,
    knowing. Knowing is reality, reality knowing.

    7









    level 4
    xenobum

     · 2 days ago

    can I just say, thank you for making these concepts much simpler to understand. you've helped me tremendously over the years.

    4










    level 4
    InfiniteQuestion5

    Op · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

    Thanks!
     So, in essence... Buddhas are manifesting spontaneous wisdom and
    purity? How does this fit in with the overlapping mindstreams idea of
    Yogacara, in which various sentient beings collaborate to form realms?
    Edit:
     Had a reread of the quotes a few times to wrap my head around them...
    on reflection, it seems to be suggesting that all Buddhas are simply
    instances of pure knowing. So in that sense, whatever manifests would be
     the activity of knowing. Hard to fully grasp!

    1
    - https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/rfo2m0/awareness_as_notself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
    [9:51 pm, 15/12/2021] John Tan: 👍 Kyle answer is good and rightly point out that anatta Initially only dissolve internal reference of self, "externality" as well as "physicality" will still need to be de-contructed and exhausted.
    [9:53 pm, 15/12/2021] John Tan: Btw I rem writing something to u abt dependent designation that seer dependent on seen is no seer and seen dependent on seer is nothing seen. U know when is it?


    Soh:

    John TanSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:34am UTC+08 when we talk about illusion, there is a difference between water-moon and rabbit-horn. Appearances r like water-moon being dependently originated, without substance and base but not non-existent whereas inherent existence is rabbit horn, it is non-existence and does not exist even conventionally.


    John TanSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:30am UTC+08
    Therefore when seer is dependent on seeing/seen, there is no seer. When seen is dependent on seer/seeing, there is nothing seen.
    Soh Wei YuSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:30am UTC+08
    shld i post this?
    John TanSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:28am UTC+08When we see dependencies, we must also see the absence of phenomena. That is although phenomena appears, by its mere dependencies, it is absence. Absence when sought using Madhyamaka analysis.



    John Tan: Yes




    Soh:
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:33pm UTC+08
    U hv direct insight of anatta, y r u not able to understand seer dependent of seeing and seen as no seer? Because u r comparing direct insight of anatta (non conceptual experience) with conceptuality.
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:28pm UTC+08
    "Ultimate analysis" is just a way of analyzing the validness of true existence therefore dependent arising phenomena r not within the (ultimate analysis) scope. It is not used to negate conditioned existence that dependent originates.
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:28pm UTC+08
    Seen dependent on seeing and seer is nothing seen.. that makes sense.. can u expand what u mean seeing the way of the conventional is different from nonconceptual mode
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:24pm UTC+08
    What it meant is when madhyamikas employ "ultimate analysis" -- a systematic approach of analyzing the validity of ultimate/absolute mode of being, causality is impossible. Means if phenomena inherent exist, causality is impossible. Therefore it is not denying causality, contrary it is affirming causality by seeing emptiness of phenomena.
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:18pm UTC+08
    When fan and blowing are severed via seeing dependent designation, its casuality cannot be established? Like as in fan being inherent causal power of wind
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:17pm UTC+08
    For example "causality is impossible in ultimate analysis". What does that mean?
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:13pm UTC+08
    The 2 models of 2 truth of Mipham suits u better becoz it emphasizes meditative experiences. As for the gelug, u must be very careful of the way they use their jargons.
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:07pm UTC+08
    Of*
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:06pm UTC+08
    Oh.. so the fact that designations do not reference objective object makes it "mere"? Designation is not referring to an object but is designated dependent on parts and conditions and imputing consciousness.. like music is designated on the whole series on notes yet it does not reference anything in particular
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:06pm UTC+08
    What u expressed is quite good. Similarly u must understand "seen" dependent on "seeing" and "seer" is nothing seen...to taste emptiness of conceptuality u must see the way of the conventional is different from the non-conceptual mode just like not to look for shapes and colors in sound.
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 9:59pm UTC+08
    So to experience the "interconnectedness" of total exertion is to see the web of designations. There r 2 points u r missing: 1. "Mere" designation of Prasangika is special. It is not a designation that reference an objective object. 2. The other part u r missing is the dream in a dream to make these designations alive.
    John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 9:55pm UTC+08
    So to experience of the "interconnectedness" of total exertion is to see the web of designation. The part u r missing is the dream in a dream to make these designations alive.
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 8:44pm UTC+08
    To see things as conventions liberates.. since we no longer see it terms of intrinsic existence. So emptiness leads to seeing things as mere conventions
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 8:10pm UTC+08
    And to see the emptiness of the conventions is not to negate the conventions.. its to let you see conventions not from standpoint of intrinsic existence but from their being dependently designated.. the two truths are one..
    Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 7:04pm UTC+08
    Now i see why u told me that seer dependent on seeing and seen is the same thing as no seer.. what is dependently designated is to have no existence of its own


    Soh: i think you wrote something even earlier than that but dunno where



    John Tan: Yeah

    Labels: , , , 0 comments |
     
     

    Buddhahood in This Life is a complete translation of the earliest Tibetan commentary on the Dzogchen secret instructions.

    Available for the first time in English, Buddhahood in This Life presents the Great Commentary of Vimalamitra—one of the earliest and most influential texts in the Dzogchen tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. It explores the theory and practice of the Great Perfection tradition in detail, shows how Dzogchen meditation relates to the entirety of the Buddhist path, and outlines how we can understand buddhahood—and even achieve it in our lifetime.

    This essential text includes topics such as

    ·      how delusion arises 
    ·      the pathway of pristine consciousness 
    ·      how buddhahood is present in the body
    ·      and more.

    Translator Malcolm Smith includes an overview, analysis and clarification for all topics. Buddhahood in This Life covers fine details of Dzogchen meditation, including profound “secret instructions” rarely discussed in most meditation manuals. This text is essential for any serious student of the Great Perfection.

    (The book: https://www.amazon.com/Buddhahood-This-Life-Commentary-Vimalamitra/dp/1614293457)

    John Tan and I are attending a course held by Arcaya Malcolm Smith on this text, to take place later this month (October). Visit Ask the Ācārya for more information.

    Myriad Objects sent me a text by Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero

    [12:59 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Btw what do u think of this:
    [12:59 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: When Ajahn Chah talks about the “Original Mind”, again, you can mystify that: you can think “Oh, it’s this pure bright mind that you just have to tap into.” No, the “Original Mind” is right in front of you where your thoughts are, where these appearances are. The way things arise, you realize they have arisen on their own to that extent, and you’ve no say in that. And that is that “originality” of it: it’s not your mastery, your creation of those same things. You realize you can only appropriate things to be “mine” because they were given beforehand: they’ve arisen on their own so you appropriate them. You realize you can’t even create anything in that sense; but it’s not like a delay—it’s not like things have arisen and then you don’t see them—it’s the simultaneous presence of these things enduring and your ownership of that endurance, but you want to realize that that endurance cannot be owned, that’s why you stop owning things. You can’t stop owning things by trying to destroy them, get rid of them and say no to everything: you can stop owning them by realizing that your ownership cannot belong to you. Hence, it’s not ultimate ownership.
    That is the “Original”, the “Pure Mind”, as Ajahn Chah said, that there is no room for anyone there, in a way, means exactly that: inasmuch as the mind gives a significance and recognition—it allows matter to manifest on its basis—to that same extent without that matter, there would be nothing for the mind to discern; so the matter is the measure of the extent of the mind, and the mind determines the extent of the appeared matter, and whichever way you look, it’s going to be determined by the other. So “I am independent of this” becomes inconceivable to even assume, but in order to see this correctly, a person has to stop just focusing on things in front of them because these two levels I talk about, that Ajahn Chah talks about, they’re not in front of you as two objects. Only one can be in front of you. The other one is always behind from where you look, and that’s what we spoke about in other talks: “the peripheral.”


    ....


    Going back to that “Original Mind”, as Ajahn Chah says, is not some hidden reality behind all these appearances: it’s actually stopping to misconceive the appearances for what they’re not, and that is its original state. It was always there. That’s why arahantship is possible in the first place. That’s why undoing of the wrong conceiving is possible: because these things are truly independent of whether you conceive them or not. So that’s why the sense of self is a problem: because it’s a contradiction in terms. “Self” means mastery, ownership, rulership of your experience. Yet you can only rule that which was given to you beforehand, which means you’re not the ruler then because if you were the true creator, master, ruler of these things, you would have been creating it, you would have been truly independent of it. But your whole existence depends on these things still being there so that you can maintain your ownership in regard to it; but when that thing decides to go, and it will—that’s why the Buddha encouraged reflecting on the four great elements, how they change—you realize it’s inconceivable that you would still exist in your domain of ownership. So, that’s not ownership then, and you realize the only way to maintain that sense of ownership of things around you is to ignore the fact that you cannot actually own it. That’s why people don’t want to think about death naturally—don’t want to think about losing their loved ones, losing things they care about—because it’s implicit that it will happen, so it just reminds them of the obvious. So you stop being ignorant by making an effort to not ignore things. That’s it. Because ignoring things is effortless. It’s with the grain of sensuality, the grain of ignorance; not ignoring takes effort. But not ignoring is not like “resolving some mystery of the universe.” You just need to stop ignoring the very things that are in front of you: stop ignoring the broader context; stop ignoring the peripheral to the actual; stop trying to get rid of the states of mind you don’t like or that “should have not arisen.”

    ...


    Ven. Nyanamoli: Exactly. That’s why the Mūlapariyāya Sutta (MN 1) talks about that conceiving: “He conceives in matter,… apart from matter,…. thinks matter is mine,” and so on. He develops all these attitudes towards that which is matter, failing to see that he can only experience his experience of matter, not the matter—so his perception can only perceive perception, his feeling can only feel feelings, his intentions can only intend intentions—because assuming that you’re perceiving the genuine rūpa means you are actually accessing that external world of the four mahābhūta (the four great elements) and that’s inconceivable. Hence, the slightest of those assumptions as described in the Mūlapariyāya Sutta means that there is a conceiving of “I am.” There is a conceiving of a separate entity that’s independent and objective from the experience as a whole. That’s why the Buddha referred to the four great elements, saying: “they cease to find footing”—they don’t cease to be wherever they are, but they stop finding footing in your experience. As in you stop conflating the perception that has arisen on account of the four great elements being there with the perception of the actual four great elements; but see, now, when you think: “Oh, so the four great elements are something different”, that’s also your perception on the level of your thought. So by no means of grasping—by your thought, by your intentions—can you actually ever enter the domain of the four great elements. So you realize all you have to do is stop misconceiving it. That’s how it will stop finding the footing, not by finding it where it is and removing it and so on: just stop making the mistake of thinking that you can relate to it. And you will keep making the mistake of relating to it for as long as you hold your sense of self dearly because the relations with the world are the direct result and also direct fuel for the sense of self.
    So, if you’re willing to let go of that sense of self, you will then have no reason to keep maintaining this gratuitous assumption of the world external to you because the only reason you do that maintenance is that that’s how you maintain your sense of self.
    Ven. Thaniyo: What about, as Ajahn Chah is saying, “the state of the mind”?
    Ven. Nyanamoli: If you start recognizing that no amount of materiality or objectivity can be found elsewhere except on the basis of the mind, you realize the mind is the gateway—it doesn’t matter what comes your way through your senses, good or bad, threatening or agreeable and friendly—the mind is the basis, and in itself, on that basis of the mind, things are quite indifferent. It’s your own attitude, then, towards what comes through the mind, by not seeing that you want to deal with it, prevent it, want more of it, indulge in sensuality, engage in ill-will: because you don’t see that you don’t need to go and chase these things out there; because even the assumption of “out there” can only be known as such on the level of the phenomenon of your mind, which means, you realize: “What if I just know it as a persisting, enduring phenomenon right here, right now? I don’t need to go anywhere, I just stay with this framework.” And then there will be no overly delighting or trying to deny it to get rid of it, which means equanimity will be a natural result.
    Ven. Thaniyo: That’s what is there anyway, without “you”.
    Ven. Nyanamoli: Absolutely. The mind and the body are there without “you”. They don’t need your sense of self. So that’s why you can develop equanimity. Because things, in themselves, are equanimous: they’re indifferent to you. It’s your own passion and confusion—and passion that comes out of that confusion—that confuses that whole thing; but if you stop fueling that passion, confusion disappears, which means, then, equanimity is restored because all you have is things that have arisen and persist, and that’s it. It has nothing to do with you.
    [1:18 PM, 10/4/2020] John Tan: Ok smart but u might have to wait for a few weeks later to get ur painting which is almost completed.  It's beautiful!
    [1:21 PM, 10/4/2020] John Tan: Quite good.
    [1:27 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah im ok with waiting. Yeah its beautiful
    [1:27 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Full text:

    https://pathpress.org/ajahn-chah-and-the-original-mind/
    [1:28 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: AJAHN CHAH AND THE ORIGINAL MIND
    Posted on August 25, 2019
    by Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero
    Ven. Thaniyo: This is another talk by Ajahn Chah called “The Path to Peace.” Now, this is just a few paragraphs from it that I found interesting. In this talk, Ajahn Chah gives a complete outline of the practice. It’s about the middle of the talk that I’ll begin from:
    “At a certain point in the practice, you see that it is the mind which gives orders to the body. The body has to depend on the mind before it can function. However, the mind itself is constantly subject to different objects contacting and conditioning it before it can have any effect on the body. As you continue to turn attention inwards and reflect on the Dhamma, the wisdom faculty gradually matures, and eventually, you are left contemplating the mind and mind-objects, which means that you start to experience the body, rūpadhamma, as arūpadhamma, formless. Through your insight, you’re no longer uncertain in your understanding of the body and the way it is. The mind experiences the body’s physical characteristics as arūpadhamma or formless objects, which come into contact with the mind. Ultimately, you’re contemplating just the mind and mind-objects—those objects which come into your consciousness. Now, examining the true nature of the mind, you can observe that in its natural state, it has no preoccupations or issues prevailing upon it. It’s like a piece of cloth or a flag that has been tied to the end of a pole—as long as it’s on its own and undisturbed, nothing will happen to it. A leaf on a tree is another example. Ordinarily, it remains quiet and unperturbed. If it moves or flutters, this must be due to the wind, an external force. Normally, nothing much happens to leaves—they remain still. They don’t go looking to get involved with anything or anybody. When they start to move, it must be due to the influence of something external, such as the wind, which makes them swing back and forth. It’s a natural state. The mind is the same. In it, there exists no loving or hating, nor does it seek to blame other people. It is independent, existing in a state of purity that is truly clear, radiant and untarnished. In its pure state, the mind is peaceful, without happiness or suffering—indeed, not experiencing any feeling at all. This is the true state of the mind.”
    Ven. Nyanamoli: That’s nothing other than seeing things arise as phenomena, appear as phenomena, which they already are, because phenomena, i.e. dhammā, are the objects of the mind, of mano, as a sense. Most people in their day-to-day life don’t even see that because they’re too absorbed with the sense world, and usually, that then results in all the views as well. That’s why it’s so common to have the assumption of the external public world that “we inhabit”—the world that is independent of our experience, the “material” world; but you fail to see that even your assumption of “material” is actually a phenomenon arisen on the level of your thought, on the level of the dhammā, on the level of the image in your mind. And that’s usually how people go about in their day-to-day life: not even seeing the mind, the field where these phenomena appear. So they’ve no signs of it, no recognition of it. So then everything revolves around the assumptions of the material world, interpretations based on that and so on.
    Again, in itself, it’s still on the level of phenomena, but the only difference is the person’s completely unaware of it; but a person can become aware of it. So once you start recognizing that your own body—no matter how material it is or how material it might “feel”—it still can only be known as such because it has arisen on the level of that mind. And in that sense, you realize “This, in a way, has nothing to do with this matter that I’m thinking of, this matter that I assume; it’s the opposite way: the matter that I think of and assume is only intelligible because the thing is still there in the level of that mind as a phenomenon,” and that’s what Ajahn Chah referred to as arūpa, non-material. But even a material thing is known as such only because that phenomenon has arisen on the level of your mind, which is non-material. So that’s what he meant when he said the mind is the one that governs and precedes these things structurally.
    A person now might start thinking: “So I must find the immaterial” or something like that. The arūpa that Ajahn Chah refers to—the phenomenal nature of things—is within the material that you’re perceiving. It’s not that you must abandon or deny or get rid of the material or stop thinking it in order to see the immaterial: you just have to discern it properly whereby you know that the arisen experience of the material body right here, right now, is an image in your mind already. And that’s these two tiers of existence, so to speak. Two domains: the simultaneous presence of the material domain and the mental domain. Material is inconceivable without the mental designation of it—without the mental phenomenon being there simultaneously present; but, in the same manner, there would be nothing present as a phenomenon on the level of the mental domain if the actual physical rūpa is not there, still alive. So nāmarūpa determines viññana, and viññana determines nāmarūpa to the same extent, like the simile of the two reeds supporting each other: you can’t separate them, you can’t investigate them independent of each other—one implies the other. That’s just how it works. But in practical terms, the way the experience proliferates, with lack of sense restraint, sensuality and views, you drift away from that phenomenal side of things that’s simultaneously there: you drift away from your mind. That’s why the Buddha said it’s hard to see the mind correctly for what it is. That’s why it’s a prerequisite for sotāpatti—seeing the signs of your mind, seeing the domain of the phenomenal, phenomenological, whatever you want to call it—because for most people that’s completely overlooked.
    Ven. Thaniyo: Do they go directly into the senses?
    Ven. Nyanamoli: Yes. Usually, the entire attention gets absorbed, even if you don’t necessarily proliferate it or are not wild and unrestrained—just naturally—not discerning your mind means automatically over-discerning that which comes from the senses, which then influences all the views that you have on account of it, which is the public material world independent of my experience, science, scientific measure and data as the objective value. Again, independent of your experience, failing to see that you cannot even conceive those things unless they are your experience.
    Ven. Thaniyo: For example, thinking: “When I die, this world will continue.”
    Ven. Nyanamoli: Exactly. All the wrong views can be boiled down to the two fundamental points: “when I die the world will continue” or “when I die I will continue, not the world.” Either way, it’s this external projection of your experience as a whole, which is wrong, not because some higher authority told you it is, but because it’s a contradiction in terms. How can you even know something external of your experience if that’s not already experienced? Which means, then, it’s not external to your experience.

    Parts of your experience present themselves based on your ignorance as if they were independent of your experience, but you’re experiencing it, and that’s a contradiction in terms. That’s why attavāda is one of the first contradictions to go when you get the Right View: the assumption of the external sense of self, independent of this experience. And that will go when you realize that no matter how external it might feel, it’s still experienced, which means it’s still internal in that manner. So it doesn’t matter how material, how objective it is: the notion of objectivity, the notion of materiality is on the level of the phenomenon persisting in your mind that gives it it’s meaning. That’s why things are significant and determined by the mind. That’s why the mind is the forerunner—as the Buddha would say in the Dhammapada (verse 1 and 2)—the forerunner of all things: without the mind giving it’s determination to these things, there would be no experience; but now if you say “it’s all in the mind”, that’s not true either because that mind wouldn’t be there mirroring the phenomena if the matter is not there to be mirrored in the first place, if the four great elements are not there.

    Ven. Thaniyo: And it shows that inaccessibility of that matter to you.

    Ven. Nyanamoli: Exactly. The only way you can access it is the indirect experience of it, which is not it, it exists because of it.

    Ven. Thaniyo: And that’s anicca?

    Ven. Nyanamoli: Exactly. That’s why the Mūlapariyāya Sutta (MN 1) talks about that conceiving: “He conceives in matter,… apart from matter,…. thinks matter is mine,” and so on. He develops all these attitudes towards that which is matter, failing to see that he can only experience his experience of matter, not the matter—so his perception can only perceive perception, his feeling can only feel feelings, his intentions can only intend intentions—because assuming that you’re perceiving the genuine rūpa means you are actually accessing that external world of the four mahābhūta (the four great elements) and that’s inconceivable. Hence, the slightest of those assumptions as described in the Mūlapariyāya Sutta means that there is a conceiving of “I am.” There is a conceiving of a separate entity that’s independent and objective from the experience as a whole. That’s why the Buddha referred to the four great elements, saying: “they cease to find footing”—they don’t cease to be wherever they are, but they stop finding footing in your experience. As in you stop conflating the perception that has arisen on account of the four great elements being there with the perception of the actual four great elements; but see, now, when you think: “Oh, so the four great elements are something different”, that’s also your perception on the level of your thought. So by no means of grasping—by your thought, by your intentions—can you actually ever enter the domain of the four great elements. So you realize all you have to do is stop misconceiving it. That’s how it will stop finding the footing, not by finding it where it is and removing it and so on: just stop making the mistake of thinking that you can relate to it. And you will keep making the mistake of relating to it for as long as you hold your sense of self dearly because the relations with the world are the direct result and also direct fuel for the sense of self.

    So, if you’re willing to let go of that sense of self, you will then have no reason to keep maintaining this gratuitous assumption of the world external to you because the only reason you do that maintenance is that that’s how you maintain your sense of self.

    Ven. Thaniyo: What about, as Ajahn Chah is saying, “the state of the mind”?

    Ven. Nyanamoli: If you start recognizing that no amount of materiality or objectivity can be found elsewhere except on the basis of the mind, you realize the mind is the gateway—it doesn’t matter what comes your way through your senses, good or bad, threatening or agreeable and friendly—the mind is the basis, and in itself, on that basis of the mind, things are quite indifferent. It’s your own attitude, then, towards what comes through the mind, by not seeing that you want to deal with it, prevent it, want more of it, indulge in sensuality, engage in ill-will: because you don’t see that you don’t need to go and chase these things out there; because even the assumption of “out there” can only be known as such on the level of the phenomenon of your mind, which means, you realize: “What if I just know it as a persisting, enduring phenomenon right here, right now? I don’t need to go anywhere, I just stay with this framework.” And then there will be no overly delighting or trying to deny it to get rid of it, which means equanimity will be a natural result.

    Ven. Thaniyo: That’s what is there anyway, without “you”.

    Ven. Nyanamoli: Absolutely. The mind and the body are there without “you”. They don’t need your sense of self. So that’s why you can develop equanimity. Because things, in themselves, are equanimous: they’re indifferent to you. It’s your own passion and confusion—and passion that comes out of that confusion—that confuses that whole thing; but if you stop fueling that passion, confusion disappears, which means, then, equanimity is restored because all you have is things that have arisen and persist, and that’s it. It has nothing to do with you.

    Ven. Thaniyo: I’ll continue with Ajahn Chah’s talk, “The Path to Peace.” He continues:

        “The purpose of practice, then, is to seek inwardly, searching and investigating until you reach the Original Mind. The Original Mind is also known as the Pure Mind. The Pure Mind is the mind without attachment.”

    Ven. Nyanamoli: That’s what I just said. You find the phenomena there, and you realize the phenomena, the way they have arisen in that mind, are already indifferent, already non-polluted by passion and lust, and they can’t really be polluted. Your actions can be polluted by desire and lust, but the persisting phenomenon is still the way it has arisen, which means it’s impenetrable to your assumptions, your cravings, your attachments. That’s why it needs constant maintenance: it can never really get settled in these things that you’re attached to or trying to get rid of or whatever, it’s only an attitude in regard to it; but the thing in itself remains completely indifferent. So you recognize that that true indifference, true equanimity comes from the things—the way they have arisen—and you have no say, even if you want to have a say.

    Ven. Thaniyo: That’s the original state.

    Ven. Nyanamoli: Exactly. And then you realize: “Things were always like this, in a way. It was because I did not know that they were this way that I kept assuming them to be different.”

    Ven. Thaniyo: Ajahn Chah said further:

        “The Pure Mind is the mind without attachment. It doesn’t get affected by mind-objects. In other words, it doesn’t chase after the different kinds of pleasant and unpleasant mind-objects. Rather, the mind is in a state of continuous knowing and wakefulness, thoroughly mindful of all it’s experiencing. When the mind is like this, no pleasant or unpleasant mind-objects it experiences will be able to disturb it. The mind doesn’t become anything. In other words, nothing can shake it. Why? Because there is awareness. The mind knows itself as pure. It has evolved its own true independence, has reached its original state. How is it able to bring this original state into existence? Through the faculty of mindfulness wisely reflecting and seeing that all things are merely conditions arising out of the influence of elements, without any individual being controlling them.”

    Ven. Nyanamoli: The mind gives the meaning, gives the significance, simultaneously, to the present material domain; but without the material domain, there would be nothing manifesting in the mind. It’s the two reeds simile holding each other: it’s the “dyad”, as the Buddha referred to it. And that’s the experience as a whole, back and front. That’s it. Wherever you look, it’s within these two bases that are mutually determined.

    There is no room for your sense of self, for your ownership, for your mastery. Or rather, your sense of ownership, as it is now, is within that, which means it’s determined by that basis independent of your sense of self. And the sense of self, that’s not in your own control… Well, that’s not your self, then, is it? Because sense of self implicitly declares ownership, mastery over experience. That’s why it’s my self, my own self. So you realize that your own self depends upon this basis that you’ve no say in, and that’s how your own self is not yours. You realize the basis that’s not my self, that cannot be my self, determines this sense of self, and it’s, because of that, not my self. You actually learn how to perceive not-self with not-self, and that’s what the Buddha was talking about in those various Suttas.

    When Ajahn Chah talks about the “Original Mind”, again, you can mystify that: you can think “Oh, it’s this pure bright mind that you just have to tap into.” No, the “Original Mind” is right in front of you where your thoughts are, where these appearances are. The way things arise, you realize they have arisen on their own to that extent, and you’ve no say in that. And that is that “originality” of it: it’s not your mastery, your creation of those same things. You realize you can only appropriate things to be “mine” because they were given beforehand: they’ve arisen on their own so you appropriate them. You realize you can’t even create anything in that sense; but it’s not like a delay—it’s not like things have arisen and then you don’t see them—it’s the simultaneous presence of these things enduring and your ownership of that endurance, but you want to realize that that endurance cannot be owned, that’s why you stop owning things. You can’t stop owning things by trying to destroy them, get rid of them and say no to everything: you can stop owning them by realizing that your ownership cannot belong to you. Hence, it’s not ultimate ownership.

    That is the “Original”, the “Pure Mind”, as Ajahn Chah said, that there is no room for anyone there, in a way, means exactly that: inasmuch as the mind gives a significance and recognition—it allows matter to manifest on its basis—to that same extent without that matter, there would be nothing for the mind to discern; so the matter is the measure of the extent of the mind, and the mind determines the extent of the appeared matter, and whichever way you look, it’s going to be determined by the other. So “I am independent of this” becomes inconceivable to even assume, but in order to see this correctly, a person has to stop just focusing on things in front of them because these two levels I talk about, that Ajahn Chah talks about, they’re not in front of you as two objects. Only one can be in front of you. The other one is always behind from where you look, and that’s what we spoke about in other talks: “the peripheral.”

    Learning how to see things peripherally without directly looking at them because that’s where the mind is, that’s where phenomena are. But what you see in front of you is the objects of your senses. That’s why people are naturally, with the grain, automatically absorbed with the world and senses and chasing pleasures: it actually takes effort to learn how to see the context behind it, how to develop that peripheral vision without needing to turn away and look at it because it won’t be peripheral then. Like, I’m looking at you now, and I’ve all these things peripheral to me, and they will remain peripheral if I keep looking at you, but if I start looking at that… Well, that’s not peripheral anymore. Now that’s the actual thing right in front of me. And that’s the point that you must keep in mind when you try to discern what Ajahn Chah’s describing here. Rūpa is what you’re staring at, arūpa would be everything around it. You want to learn how to see arūpa as arūpa; you want to see the peripheral as peripheral.

    By the way, rūpa and arūpa are not quite used in this sense in the Suttas, but Ajahn Chah used it on a practical level, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

    Ven. Thaniyo: So I’ll continue with the talk:

        “This is how it is with the happiness and suffering we experience. When these mental states arise, they’re just happiness and suffering. There’s no owner of the happiness. The mind is not the owner of the suffering—mental states do not belong to the mind. Look at it for yourself. In reality, these are not affairs of the mind, they’re separate and distinct. Happiness is just the state of happiness; suffering is just the state of suffering.”

    Ven. Nyanamoli: Any phenomenon is a phenomenon in itself; that’s why it’s independent of you. That’s why the Suttas say: “He knows the mind affected with lust as mind affected with lust.” It’s not like “me affected with lust.” There is lust present; there is non-lust present. There is happiness present; there is sadness present. It’s enduring inasmuch as sights are enduring, sounds are enduring and so on. Anything that manifests, that is its nature: to be manifested. That’s it. So even if it’s a weird, ambiguous thought, it’s real as such: as the experience of an ambiguous thought. But it’s our own expectation of “concreteness” which is fueled by that assumption of “material, public concreteness”, so to speak, —the world independent of me— that prevents you from seeing the mind, seeing the phenomena, seeing the Dhamma. That’s why dhammā means, literally, “phenomena”. And then the Dhamma is the teaching of the knowledge of the phenomena, of that which manifests.

    Ven. Thaniyo: It’s right there.

    Ven. Nyanamoli: Yes, it cannot be anywhere else. So it’s learning how to see it correctly.

    Ven. Thaniyo: Ajahn Chah says:

        “You are merely the knower of these things. In the past, because the roots of greed, hatred, and delusion already existed in the mind, whenever you caught sight of the slightest pleasant or unpleasant mind-object, the mind would react immediately—you would take hold of it and have to experience either happiness or suffering. You would be continuously indulging in states of happiness and suffering. That’s the way it is as long as the mind doesn’t know itself—as long as it’s not bright and illuminated. The mind is not free. It is influenced by whatever mind-objects it experiences. In other words, it is without a refuge, unable to truly depend on itself. You receive a pleasant mental impression and get into a good mood. The mind forgets itself. In contrast, the original mind is beyond good and bad. This is the original nature of the mind. If you feel happy over experiencing a pleasant mind-object, that is delusion. If you feel unhappy over experiencing an unpleasant mind-object, that is delusion. Unpleasant mind-objects make you suffer and pleasant ones make you happy—this is the world. Mind-objects come with the world. They are the world. They give rise to happiness and suffering, good and evil, and everything that is subject to impermanence and uncertainty. When you separate from the original mind, everything becomes uncertain—there is just unending birth and death, uncertainty and apprehensiveness, suffering and hardship.”

    Ven. Nyanamoli: Yes, and you’re separated from the “Original Mind”—you’re separated from that domain of phenomena, you don’t see them as phenomena—when you never restrain your actions in regard to your senses. The threshold of the being you are used to is on the level of the senses and the pleasure or pain that comes from it. That’s why many people would have the implicit attitude that even their own thoughts don’t really exist, are not real: because the expectation of reality has been proliferated so far out.

    Going back to that “Original Mind”, as Ajahn Chah says, is not some hidden reality behind all these appearances: it’s actually stopping to misconceive the appearances for what they’re not, and that is its original state. It was always there. That’s why arahantship is possible in the first place. That’s why undoing of the wrong conceiving is possible: because these things are truly independent of whether you conceive them or not. So that’s why the sense of self is a problem: because it’s a contradiction in terms. “Self” means mastery, ownership, rulership of your experience. Yet you can only rule that which was given to you beforehand, which means you’re not the ruler then because if you were the true creator, master, ruler of these things, you would have been creating it, you would have been truly independent of it. But your whole existence depends on these things still being there so that you can maintain your ownership in regard to it; but when that thing decides to go, and it will—that’s why the Buddha encouraged reflecting on the four great elements, how they change—you realize it’s inconceivable that you would still exist in your domain of ownership. So, that’s not ownership then, and you realize the only way to maintain that sense of ownership of things around you is to ignore the fact that you cannot actually own it. That’s why people don’t want to think about death naturally—don’t want to think about losing their loved ones, losing things they care about—because it’s implicit that it will happen, so it just reminds them of the obvious. So you stop being ignorant by making an effort to not ignore things. That’s it. Because ignoring things is effortless. It’s with the grain of sensuality, the grain of ignorance; not ignoring takes effort. But not ignoring is not like “resolving some mystery of the universe.” You just need to stop ignoring the very things that are in front of you: stop ignoring the broader context; stop ignoring the peripheral to the actual; stop trying to get rid of the states of mind you don’t like or that “should have not arisen.”

    Ven. Thaniyo: You can just look at “mind-objects.”

    Ven. Nyanamoli: Yes. That’s what we do when we do the questioning, asking: “How am I feeling right now, fundamentally? Is it OK or is it not OK?” And you realize you find that a state there enduring, and you have no say in it. You may have lots of joy now because you feel OK, or you have a bit of a pressure and unpleasant feeling because you don’t feel OK, but that fundamental bit of whether it’s OK or not OK has arisen on its own. Feeling has been manifested to its own extent, and you have no say in that. That’s why I compare it to the weather that comes and goes. You will act differently when the weather’s bad, you’ll act differently when the weather’s good. In the same way, you’ll act differently when there is a pleasant feeling than when there is an unpleasant feeling, but that in itself is not necessarily the problem until your actions delude you into believing that they are the controller of the weather: they are the controller of the feelings. And that’s why the Buddha would ask that person in that Sutta: “Well, if the feeling is truly yours (as in you’re the controller), which one is it then?” because they keep coming and going. Good feelings, bad feelings, neutral feelings, but if you were truly the owner, you would only have good feelings because ownership and pleasure go hand in hand. That’s why you want to undermine that pleasure, not by trying to get rid of it, but seeing that it cannot actually be yours—it hasn’t come from you. That’s how you also then undermine the ownership.
    Posted in Dhamma Article
    [1:28 PM, 10/4/2020] John Tan: I thought ajahn+Chah was I M, doesn't sound so.
    [1:28 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah ajahn chah is definitely I AM
    [1:29 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: But this student seems not into that
    [1:29 PM, 10/4/2020] John Tan: Student?
    [1:29 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero
    [1:30 PM, 10/4/2020] John Tan: Ic.  Seems like most of his student r more non-dual and anatta.
    [1:30 PM, 10/4/2020] John Tan: 🤣
    [1:30 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Lol yeah
    [1:30 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ajahn brahm also
    [1:30 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: I think
    [1:30 PM, 10/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: He went through the I AM phase before anatta