[1:42 AM, 3/13/2021] John Tan: 👍

[6:29 AM, 3/13/2021] John Tan: I would say:

If there is no knowing, seeing or perception and yet appearances spontaneously radiates, then it should not be dependent origination, should be spontaneous presence.

If there is name and form (namarupa), there is consciousness then there is dependent origination.

Comments

• 
  
André A. Pais
John Tan
I wonder exactly what the difference is between DO and spontaneous presence. In a way, DO seems more intellectual, inferential and more into the aproximate ultimate (emptiness as negation). That's been part of my difficulty with the term "total exertion" - it seems to invite a conceptualization of a whole web of causality that arises as "this moment."
On the other hand, lately DO (and by extension total exertion) is taking the shape of "vivid radiance," or "spontaneous clarity." DO means that there is clarity (origination), but it is spontaneous (dependent and thus empty - initially as negation, but finally as non-referentiality, beyond notions and "pure").
I've been trying to connect the dots between "nature of mind" - which feels rather sujective and "in here" - and the whole Madhyamaka enterprise of emptiness and DO - which feels rather objective and "out there." When investigating the nature of mind, one usually tries to look within, kind of turning the attention backwards; when investigating DO, one may knock on a table, drop a pen, etc., checking the inexorable "law of causality" - when this is, that is.
But what's coming up to me is that the "nature of mind" - as inseparable clarity and emptiness/unobstructedness - is nothing but the dependently arisen nature of experience/appearances. From the openness and referencelessness of mind, vivid appearances "naturally" manifest - and this is nothing but DO ("naturally" paradoxically means "when conditions are present").
Madhyamaka, when stressing the union of the two truths as inseparable union of appearance and emptiness, seems to be opening the same door that Mahamudra and Dzogchen seem to be opening with the nature of mind as inseparable emptiness, clarity and responsiveness/ expression/ compassion.
This is what I was trying to convey in a recent post in AtR:
The two truths meet everywhere.
.
- Dependent origination refutes
both extreme views of is and is-not.
- Appearance and emptiness are united
as the scent that is experience.
- Clarity and limitlessness are inseparable
as the nature of mind.
.
Mind as clarity is nothing
but experience as appearingness.
Experience as emptiness is nothing
but limitlessness as mind.
.
Clarity-appearance is nothing but origination.
Empty-limitlessness is nothing but dependency.
The diving into the nature of mind is nothing
but the embracing of dependent origination.
.
A feather slowly floats its way towards the ground;
The breeze makes the trees sway;
A sound suddenly pierces the silence;
That itself is the nature of mind.
.
The very pulsing of dependent origination
is the primordial face of the Tathāgata.
Like blood and veins and heart
- the two truths meet everywhere.
• 
  
•  · 
  Reply
•  · 2h
• 
  
André A. Pais
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 2h
• 
  
John Tan
André A. Pais
To me when spontaneous presence is expressed conventionally, it is expressed as dependent origination and emptiness.
I m glad that u have understood total exertion this way. In seeing for examples, it is not only the eyes that sees, the ears, the hairs, the entire body-mind-enviroment are fully exerted and participating into the act of seeing. How is this possible if eyes, ears, nose, environment...everything r not conventional? If their conventionalities r not seen through, going beyond their designated boundaries into just the "seen" as the "lurid scenery" will just be another experience, not an insight.
Although integration of two truth is crucial, I think a difference must still b made on spontaneous presence from freedom of conceptual notions and DO and emptiness before integration. At least until certain experiential insights arise:
One is the supreme purity that relinquishes both pure and impurity, freedom from both notions. Without going through this process, it is difficult to "see" how notions create "things" and "existence".
When we affirm "internal", we are in fact affirming "externality" at the same time. This is what the mind can't see easily. Surely the mind thinks " 'internal and private and in here' r still undeniably true even without designated conceptual constructs". This undeniable conviction of "in here" is real and "undeniably exist" is the "inherentness" that must be deconstructed. When the relationship of conceptual notions aren't clear, distinguishing mere appearances from added imputation on mere appearance will not be easy for the mind. Like why is the plant growing instead of decaying? At which point is exactly is it growing and decaying? Same applies to cause and effect. like the plant that grows and decays, the designated consciousness determines that a cause has ceased and effect has come into "existence".
This emphasis of the thorough understanding of conceptual notions to be negated instead of creating "inherent existence" on top of the conventional is y Mipham said abt Tsongkhapa notional emptiness. We do not empty the "inherent existence" of the vase, the entire conventional notion of "vase" is the "inherent existence" to be emptied, there is no "extra" inherent existence of something to be emptied. U can't retain the conventionality of vase and talk abt emptiness.
Next is the freedom from all notions will lead one into another taste -- unmade, unconditioned, natural spontaneity in contrast to artificially man-made mind constructs.
Once natural clarity, supreme purity, unconditioned natural spontaneity r realized via seeing through conventionalities, then I think integrating the two truth will b more fruitful.

2
• 
  
•  · 
  Reply
•  · 30m
•  · 
  Edited

Nice meditation app by Angelo Gerangelo

‎Simply Awake on the App Store (apple.com)

• John Tan
  When Dogen was still a monk in Tendai School, he was puzzled and couldn't understand the teaching of "original enlightenment". If we were originally enlightened, how can we be lost? Unsatisfied he traveled to China in search for answers and when he returned back to Japan, he began promoting "practice-enlighthment". What did Dogen realize from this koan of "original enlightenment" into "practice-enlightenment"?
  Those that went for the ATR gathering don't answer ah🤣.
  2
  
       · Reply
       · 22h · Edited
  
  Robert Dominik Tkanka
  John Tan
  anatta is a seal. Its permament in the sens it is always already so, originally so. Its not permament substance but more like - impermanence is permament.
  Not seeing that however one suffers like a beggar who sleeps on a rock with precious stone inside. He is free of poverty altough his ignorance covers that. Or like water. Water is pure, limpid and clear. It can look though as if water is unclear due to the mud of obscurations. Practice is resting (samatha) so the mud settles down and seeing (vipassana) so one recognises the natural state of water.
  Also koan about wind being permament and penetrating everywhere comes to mind. One still practises fanning to cool the suffering and refresh the mind distracted with it.
  Just some ramblings that came to me when I saw your comment 🙂
  1
  
       · Reply
       · 22h · Edited
  
  John Tan
  Robert Dominik Tkanka
  is this the first time u hear this koan and and has an intuitive immediate direct recognition? Or u have heard of this koan and had contemplated it before?
  
       · Reply
       · 22h · Edited
  
  Robert Dominik Tkanka
  John Tan
  about your comment its the first time I see it worded like that.
  Though Ive contemplated similar themes and pointers. I think most of all your pointer of Anatta being a seal has triggered the recognition.
  Post-anatta Ive came to see Buddha nature teachings as hinting at that.
  
       · Reply
       · 22h · Edited
  
  John Tan
  Robert Dominik Tkanka
  well said. When I heard of this koan shortly after anatta insight, I too have a direct immediate recognition and I was telling the ATR gathering yesterday that Soh Wei Yu
  was too lazy to contemplate when I asked him abt this koan post his anatta insight 🤣🤣🤣.
  Indeed this is similar to anatta insight. When no self/Self is seen through, seen is just seen and heard is just heard. When original enlightenment is seen through, sitting is just sitting, walking is just walking, and sleeping is just sleeping -- practice enlightenment!
  2
  
       · Reply
       · 21h · Edited
  
  Soh Wei Yu
  John Tan
  I can't remember when I first read about practice-enlightenment, but it has resonated with me from the very early years... I also like this one:
  No Buddha is Conscious of its Existence [of having a Perfect-nature]
  "By his fifteenth year one burning question became the core around which his spiritual strivings revolved: "If, as the sutras say, our Essential-nature is Bodhi (perfection), why did all Buddhas have to strive for enlightenment and perfection?" His dissatisfaction with the answers he received at Mount Hiei led him eventually to Eisai-zenji, who had brought the teachings of the Rinzai sect of Zen Buddhism from China to Japan. Eisai's reply to Dogen's question was: "No Buddha is conscious of its existence [that is, of this Essential-nature], while cats and oxen [that is the grossly deluded] are aware of it." In other words, Buddhas, precisely because they are Buddhas, no longer think of having or not having a Perfect-nature; only the deluded think in such terms. At these words Dogen had an inner realization which dissolved his deep-seated doubt."
  -- recommended reading, Yasutani-roshi's Introductory Lectures on Zen Training (it's a practical text on Zazen and Koan training)
  2
  
       · Reply
       · 21h
  
  Soh Wei Yu
  My journal entry 25th February 2012
  I see Shikantaza (The Zen meditation method of “Just Sitting”) as the natural expression of realization and enlightenment.
  But many people completely misunderstand this... they think that practice-enlightenment means there is no need for realization, since practicing is enlightenment. In other words, even a beginner is as realized as the Buddha when meditating.
  This is plain wrong and thoughts of the foolish.
  Rather, understand that practice-enlightenment is the natural expression of realization... and without realization, one will not discover the essence of practice-enlightenment.
  As I told my friend/teacher 'Thusness', “I used to sit meditation with a goal and direction. Now, sitting itself is enlightenment. Sitting is just sitting. Sitting is just the activity of sitting, air con humming, breathing. Walking itself is enlightenment. Practice is not done for enlightenment but all activity is itself the perfect expression of enlightenment/buddha-nature. There is nowhere to go."
  I see no possibility of directly experiencing this unless one has clear direct non-dual insight. Without realizing the primordial purity and spontaneous perfection of this instantaneous moment of manifestation as Buddha-nature itself, there will always be effort and attempt at 'doing', at achieving something... whether it be mundane states of calmness, absorption, or supramundane states of awakening or liberation... all are just due to the ignorance of the true nature of this instantaneous moment.
  However, non-dual experience can still be separated into:
  1) One Mind
  - lately I have been noticing that majority of spiritual teachers and masters describe non-dual in terms of One Mind. That is, having realized that there is no subject-object/perceiver-perceived division or dichotomy, they subsume everything to be Mind only, mountains and rivers all are Me - the one undivided essence appearing as the many.
  Though non-separate, the view is still of an inherent metaphysical essence. Hence non-dual but inherent.
  2) No Mind
  Where even the 'One Naked Awareness' or 'One Mind' or a Source is totally forgotten and dissolved into simply scenery, sound, arising thoughts and passing scent. Only the flow of self-luminous transience.
  ....
  However, we must understand that even having the experience of No Mind is not yet the realization of Anatta. In the case of No Mind, it can remain a peak experience. In fact, it is a natural progression for a practitioner at One Mind to occasionally enter into the territory of No Mind... but because there is no breakthrough in terms of view via realization, the latent tendency to sink back into a Source, a One Mind is very strong and the experience of No Mind will not be sustained stably. The practitioner may then try his best to remain bare and non-conceptual and sustain the experience of No Mind through being naked in awareness, but no breakthrough can come unless a certain realization arises.
  In particular, the important realization to breakthrough this view of inherent self is the realization that Always Already, never was/is there a self - in seeing always only just the seen, the scenery, shapes and colours, never a seer! In hearing only the audible tones, no hearer! Just activities, no agent! A process of dependent origination itself rolls and knows... no self, agent, perceiver, controller therein.
  It is this realization that breaks down the view of 'seer-seeing-seen', or 'One Naked Awareness' permanently by realizing that there never was a 'One Awareness' - 'awareness', 'seeing', 'hearing' are only labels for the everchanging sensations and sights and sounds, like the word 'weather' don't point to an unchanging entity but the everchanging stream of rain, wind, clouds, forming and parting momentarily...
  Then as the investigation and insights deepen, it is seen and experienced that there is only this process of dependent origination, all the causes and conditions coming together in this instantaneous moment of activity, such that when eating the apple it is like the universe eating the apple, the universe typing this message, the universe hearing the sound... or the universe is the sound. Just that... is Shikantaza. In seeing only the seen, in sitting only the sitting, and the whole universe is sitting... and it couldn't be otherwise when there is no self, no meditator apart from meditation. Every moment cannot 'help' but be practice-enlightenment... it is not even the result of concentration or any form of contrived effort... rather it is the natural authentication of the realization, experience and view in real-time.
  Zen Master Dogen, the proponent of practice-enlightenment, is one of the rare and clear jewels of Zen Buddhism who have very deep experiential clarity about anatta and dependent origination. Without deep realization-experience of anatta and dependent origination in real time, we can never understand what Dogen is pointing to... his words may sound cryptic, mystical, or poetic, but actually they are simply pointing to this.
  Someone 'complained' that Shikantaza is just some temporary suppressing of defilements instead of the permanent removal of it. However if one realizes anatta then it is the permanent ending of self-view, i.e. traditional stream-entry.
  1
  
       · Reply
       · 21h
  
  John Tan
  Soh Wei Yu
  din know u wrote this. Means u did put in some effort🤣.
  4
   · Reply
   · 21h · Edited
• 
  
•  · 
  Reply
•  · 20m
•  
•  
•  Anurag Jain
  Thanks Geovani Geo
  I get your point. Was the original face not manifest then is the point I was making 😉
  2
  
       · Reply
       · 1h
  
  Geovani Geo
  I wrote "original self" instead of "original face". Corrected.
  
       · Reply
       · 1h
  
  Geovani Geo
  I think everything is always manifested but mind fabrications stir and infuse mud into de clean pure water making one believe that the clean water has disappeared.
  1
  
       · Reply
       · 1h
  
  John Tan
  Geovani Geo
  If original face is always manifested, then there is no orignal face other than the zillions of manifested faces. Each face is is neither same nor different, pure in every manifestion.
  All along there is no dust on the mirror, all dusts r mirrors; only when a particular speck of dust claimed to b special and pure, all other mrriors suddenly become dusts.
  Also to answer ur below post since it is related:
  👇👇👇
  Take everything away, strip it empty. No colors, no taste, no sensations, so that colors, tastes and sensations can arise. Empty of knowing, so that knowing can abide. Empty it from everything imaginable or not. Empty it even from the idea of no-thingness that is still there: nothing. That is the Ground. So, is there a Ground? If yes, than its not yet empty enough. If no, how come we are talking? Good morning children... 😉
  2
   · Reply
   · 1h · Edited
•  
• Also see: Original Enlightenment and Original Nature is a wrong view / How did Ignorance originate etc

• 
  
Soh Wei Yu
Admin

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

OCEANMOON.ORG
Zen
Zen

1
• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 
    Remove Preview
  •  · 2h
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu
Admin

On the duration it takes to attain Buddhahood:
[1:21 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Have you listened to the Dan brown? [Soh: this is referring to another video -- https://www.fitmind.co/.../dan-brown-phd-meditation-great... ]
[1:21 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: havent yet.. is it good?
[1:21 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: From I AM to non-dual to one mind to no mind
[1:22 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic.. but not anatta?
[1:22 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: To dzogchen, the view is the practice or view includes practice. You listen tomorrow, you will understand. Hale must be thinking that it is quite similar with the phases of insights But I deleted that away in the comment
[1:25 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic.. why delete
[1:27 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: I dunno about dzogchen much, so I will stay with what I know and experience...lol. Instead of saying phases of insights are similar, will cause unnecessary issues...and I am not trying to come out some version of jaxchen or soh-chen...
[9:23 AM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. you said it talks about no mind but it didnt mention about anatta realization?
[9:29 AM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Yeah
[2:09 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Frankly I like Dan brown video but the timeline is unrealistic.
[2:11 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: The steps are however clear.
Nauli for example. Even doing the centre extrusion will take few months of practice and to really churn the will take about 2 years. To churn and have sufficient control will take much more time. Even if you practice diligently as an exercise will take you probably 4-5 years to master.
[2:13 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: As for insights, it is not a matter of pointing out, the stability will take probably 10-25 years post anatta to even have stability and that is practicing quite diligently. Resting in appearances without observer and observed will take probably more time. Into 3 states IMO and experiences require another understanding and that is important. The key is in the message I told andre and asked you what are the other ways beside anatta and do for active mode of no-agency.
[2:16 PM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. but buddha said you can attain arahant between 7 days to 7 years just by practicing four foundations of mindfulness.. but i guess that timeline is for monks and often in retreat
[2:17 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: That is not Buddhahood
[2:17 PM, 10/8/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. but should have cleared the ten fetters right
[2:17 PM, 10/8/2020] John Tan: Yes. That is why I told you to ponder on the no agency part. You need to have that insight, otherwise it is just half done. In other words it is no self in active mode. Why is it half done? Because it is normally in passive mode. So your dreams will normally remain karmic.
FITMIND.CO
404 Not Found
404 Not Found
• 
  
•  · 
  Reply
•  · 
  Remove Preview
•  · 2h
•  
•  
• 
  
•  · 
  Reply
•  · 15m
•  
• Soh Wei Yu
  Admin
  
  André A. Pais
  Any other ways..? I'm not sure. Contemplating conditionality perhaps? It's less conceptual and more experiential.
  Yes, seeing non-duality is not the same as seeing no-inherency. The former is more about seeing through the characteristics of subject-object, while the latter seems to be more about seeing through all types of characteristics.
  What do you suggest to see through "thingness"? I may tend to fall into PCE's.
  2
  · Reply
  · 21w
  John Tan
  I think u have explored and r familiar with the different deconstruction methods and yes DO (general dependent origination) is an excellent tool for deconstruction. It deconstructs without ignoring diversities. In DO, one feels the deep intimacy and connectedness with the diversities, yet everything dissolves into a seamless formation of a total situation. Everything includes the sense of self and others, hereness and nowness, time and space, mind and body, physical and materiality and so and and so forth.
  But I m not looking at DO. In the Taoism YouTube that Soh
  posted, Jason Gregory provides another perspective to look at the agency-action issue. The emphasis is more on habitual repetition into elimination of the agent from the action/activity.
  But I m not referring to that as well. I m looking more on the non-attachment aspect, the freedom from gain/loss, success/failure, pride and fear in any endeavour. Practicing that way, the gap between the agent and action will also be gradually reduced to none, into the flow of actionless action.
  As for falling into PCEs, there is nothing wrong falling into PCEs imo; just how uncontrived and effortless, how natural and spontaneous the PCEs are. More importantly, are the PCEs endow with deep wisdoms that sees through:
  1. self (anatta)
  2. phenomena (chariot analogy)
  3. characteristics (redness of a flower). The lurid redness that appears to stick to a red flower seems to b an inherent part of the flower. But is it? There is neither redness out there nor in here. at the flower, nor on the mind, nor...
  4. the sematics/meanings of conventionalities
  5. appearances (experienctial emptiness). Appears but not found.
  To me over-emphasis of non-conceptualities (too early) is an extreme and can be a great disservice as it "bypasses" those valuable insights that see through reifications and semantic/meaning of conventionalities.
  But seeing through "thingness" moderates this extremity, it is like the middle path between conceptual and non-conceptualities.
  Eventually and gradually, everything too will b de-constructed; no thoughts and concepts, calmly and evenly into transparent pristine appearances in natural spontaneity.
  3
  · Reply
  · 21w · Edited
  André A. Pais
  I don't understand why can't redness be in the mind - not intrinsically so, of course.
  · Reply
  · 21w
  Geovani Geo
  I guess its because "redness" would be another "thing".
  · Reply
  · 21w · Edited
  John Tan
  Yes André
  , I m referring to intrinsically and inherently.
  That said, u may also want to look deeper into point 4 and compare it with the de-construction of "thingness/inherent-ness" of my earlier message:
  1. The very idea of "in", the very idea of "from" or the idea of "produce" r all sematics of conventionalities. We have mistaken "meanings" of these conventions as undeniable "reality" but they too r imputed. The mind thinks surely even without labels and designations, there is still the actuality of being "in" something, somewhere but this is not true. "In-ness" too is a formation formed from "mental constructions + sensations". They can similarly b de-constructed.
  If a mind free from all these sematics of conventionalities or total exhaustion of conceptualities, what is experience like?
  It is not "knowingness" nor a "not knowing mind", but just liberating all sematics of conventions and simply resting as mere clean, pure, pellucid sense of vivid radiance (in absorption)?
  2. Seeing through "inherent-ness/thingness" which is what I said in my earlier message.
  If u r interested, u can explore into them otherwise just treat it as some blah blah blah..
  1
  · Reply
  · 21w · Edited
  André A. Pais
  Yes, redness as a concept is totally imagined. And yet, a mere appearance is present. We can't say, of course, where it appears, or what it is, etc. Those would all be designations. But conventionally, it is indeed an appearance in mind. And I've seen John and Soh talking about such example, but how they get to the "unarisen" insight always eludes me.
  · Reply
  · 21w
  John Tan
  All appearances r like a finger drawing a circle in thin air, mere occurrences. Even the solid vivid sensations of "hardness", appears (in zero dimension) but r no where to b found - unarisen.
  3
  · Reply
  · 21w · Edited
  Geovani Geo
  The ultimate fairer is the free empty heart. And I am not being romantic but purely "technical". Where else are all burdens shed?
  · Reply
  · 21w
  André A. Pais
  John Tan
  I resonate very much with the investigation of our sense of localization, embodiment (feeling to be inside a body), physicality, direction / perspective ("I am here looking there"), etc. You seemed to touch it, when talking about "in-ness", "from" and existing "somewhere".
  These are sensitive topics to me, as they relate to notions of space, solidity, etc. I like very much the line of inquiry "is experience happening anywhere?", for example.
  Can you explore it a bit?
  1
  · Reply
  · 21w · Edited
  Geovani Geo
  At this point I find it quite useful to resort to "being awareness" (I think u call it PCE?). Such awareness is seeing through the luminosity of "things". But this is still a "doing", right? The "problem" with this is that there is a subtle duality awareness/stuff-being-awared. Then some may come up with the notion that awareness is not other then what is being awared. That there is only awareness. And here, I guess, is where inherency comes in. Fundamentally, is there an awareness at all? Or such awareness was also jsut a skillful means, a pointer?
  If there is not such inherent awareness, then what is here? Is there any kind of measurable dimension that could be established? etc...
  · Reply
  · 21w
  • 
    
  • •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 15m
  • 
    
  Soh Wei Yu
  Admin
  
  John Tan
  André
  , what I m talking abt is the phenomelogy of day to day mumdane experiences, nothing transcendental.
  I'm merely looking at how mental constructs created by our language structures and social conventions define and shape our moment to moment of experiences.
  When we say our body is having such and such sensations, the mind really thinks in terms of containment. When we try to search for the referent we called "body", we realized there is no "body" apart from the dancing and fluxing sensations. So again, there r no two parts -- body and sensations; what we designate as "body" is just these sensations.
  Once the mind sees through this "body construct", the sense of "in-ness" also dissolves. Sensations r simply present, no where, zero dimension. Same for "self/Self" as a background.
  Just this experiential taste of thorough deconstruction is enough to take up my whole life.
  As a side note, in Taoism there is the art of "sit and forget" 坐忘. To sit and forget the "body" is difficult, to see through mental constructs is much easier once we get a hang of it and it is more penetrating and insightful.
  Ok André, been chatting too much. Thks for the exchanges.
  4
  · Reply
  · 21w · Edited
  John Tan
  Geovani Geo
  to me, to be without dual is not to subsume into one and although awareness is negated, it is not to say there is nothing.
  Negating the Awareness/Presence (Absolute) is to not let Awareness remain at the abstract level. When such transpersonal Awareness that exists only in wonderland is negated, the vivid radiance of presence are fully tasted as the transient appearances; zero gap and zero distance between presence and moment to moment of ordinary experiences and we realize that "presence" has always only been a convention for these vivid ordinary experiences.
  Then mundane activities -- hearing, sitting, standing, seeing and sensing, become pristine and vibrant, natural and free.
  3
  · Reply
  · 21w · Edited
  Geovani Geo
  John
  , yes. Any single atom is it. And even all atoms of all universes together are not it. Tx!!
  · Reply
  · 21w
  • 
    
  • •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 15m
  • 
    
  Soh Wei Yu
  Admin
  
  The Taoism video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V3FknauoYo
  
  YOUTUBE.COM
  TAOISM | The Philosophy of Flow and Wu Wei
  TAOISM | The Philosophy of Flow and Wu Wei
  • 
    
  • •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 
      Remove Preview
    •  · 6m
  • 
    
  Soh Wei Yu
  Admin
  
  Also related:
  [11:43 PM, 9/30/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Beyond subject-action-object
  [11:45 PM, 9/30/2020] Soh Wei Yu: The other day i just intuitively understood that tremendous merits and the perfections of paramitas comes from the actualization of anatta in practice and action.. like in generosity etc
  [11:45 PM, 9/30/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Beyond or empty of the three spheres
  [12:01 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Better, what else?
  [12:01 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: So what do u understand from it?
  [12:02 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Paramitas and fear....what have u understood and how is it different from just losing the background?
  [12:41 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: If for example one does an act of generosity with a self or giver in mind, a gift in mind and a receiver in mind, or the idea of a self creating merit in mind, then the merits accrued from such an act is very limited and the action can hardly be a perfection.
  When one is actualizing anatta in that action of giving with giver, gift and recipient, the action of generosity is naturally perfected and the merits accrued is immense.
  Also there is the actual mental qualities to be cultivated but the key is in the state of equipoise or actualization of anatta otherwise the quality cannot be perfected also. For example one can practice a kind of tolerance but this is different from completely dissolving the self in actualization and equipoise, then “patience” and “equanimity” arise untainted by self even when confronted with situations.
  Just losing the background can remain an inactive perceptual level but all the paramitas are qualities of mind that are perfected when anatta beyond three spheres are actualised when facing situations and people
  Likewise for fear
  [12:42 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: *without giver,...
  [12:46 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Like just chanting..
  [12:46 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Much better, but the relationship is still not clear. And it is not so correct to say that if anatta insight doesn't arise, u can't perfect paramitas. In fact it goes both ways.
  So the passive and active mode of anatta. How does the gap between the actor and action being eliminated to none in activity?
  [12:47 AM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: If one is in chanting samadhi no chanter or chanted.. not just samadhi but actualising one’s insight where self and objects are exhausted in equipoise, then that is most meritorious. Although one is not thinking of merits
  [12:47 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: No good.
  [12:47 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: This is not the key of anatta.
  [12:49 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: So do u have a better understanding of Wu Wei in Taoism? Effortless action, action without the sense of agent?
  [12:50 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Insight of anatta is not primary for them though it is the missing key....however still, one can enter in actionless action...by what way?
  [12:51 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: If u do not have insight of anatta, how r u to practice?
  [9:33 AM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: Yes André, I agree with most of what u said, just 3 points:
  1. Primordial state, original face.
  What does it mean to to be without the imagined and imputed? It is simply one's primordial state, always and already so despite non-recognition.
  So the path can be directly pointing to one's original face or to rid from all imputed imagined artificialities.
  But the direct leap out of the imputed layer is often not exhaustive and thorough, many blindspots and hindrances. Therefore a short cut can often turns out to be a longer cut.
  2. Unmade, natural and spontaneous
  I agree that without imputations, there is no boundaries. Therefore all experiences is open and spacious and without the layer of imagined, whatever appears is pristine and pellucid, transpar…
  [12:42 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
  [4:05 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Lol
  [4:08 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Like zuo wang.. forgetting and dissolve self into the experience and activity
  First time i had no mind in 2006 was when i was practicing mindfulness then i forgot self into tree
  In 2008 was pondering “how is it to die and fade out of existence” then it triggered intense nondual experience but only for a short while
  [4:12 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: That is one way, more on no mind.
  [4:12 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: This is not what I m looking at.
  [4:14 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: 坐忘 (zuo wang/sitting and forgetting [self]) will not b unfamiliar to u. It is the direct day to day, down to earth aspect u need to look into it. U should see in terms of the paramitas, what exactly is actionless action.
  [4:16 PM, 10/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
  [4:20 PM, 10/1/2020] John Tan: This is imp. But the other way is equally true. Look into that direction. What if u have totally no insight at all. Does that mean u wont be able to overcome agency-action issue?
  [8:56 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: I wrote to Andre:
  I think u have explored and r familiar with the different deconstruction methods and yes DO (dependent origination) is an excellent tool for deconstruction. It deconstructs without ignoring diversities. In DO, one feels the deep intimacy and connectedness with the diversities, yet everything dissolves into a seamless formation of a total situation. Everything includes the sense of self and others, hereness and nowness, time and space, mind and body, physical and materiality and so and and so forth.
  But I m not looking at DO. In the Taoism YouTube that Soh posted, Jason Gregory provides another perspective to look at the agency-action issue. The emphasis is more on habitual repetition into elimination of the agent from the action/activity.
  But I m not referring to that as well. I m looking more on the non-attachment aspect, the freedom from gain/loss, success/failure, pride and fear in any endeavour. Practicing that way, the gap between the agent and action will also be gradually reduced to none, into the flow of actionless action.
  As for falling into PCEs, there is nothing wrong falling into PCEs imo; just how uncontrived and effortless, how natural and spontaneous the PCEs are. More importantly, are the PCEs endow with deep wisdoms that sees through:
  1. self (anatta)
  2. phenomena (chariot analogy)
  3. characteristics (redness of a flower). The lurid redness that appears to stick to a red flower seems to b an inherent part of the flower. But is it? There is neither redness out there nor in here. at the flower, nor on the mind, nor...
  4. the sematics/meanings of conventionalities
  5. appearances (experienctial emptiness). Appears but not found.
  To me over-emphasis of non-conceptualities (too early) is an extreme and can be a great disservice as it "bypasses" those valuable insights that see through reifications and semantic/meaning of conventionalities.
  But seeing through "thingness" moderates this extremity, it is like the middle path between conceptual and non-conceptualities.
  Eventually and gradually, everything too will b de-constructed; no thoughts and concepts, calmly and evenly into transparent pristine appearances in natural spontaneity.
  [11:00 AM, 10/2/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
  [11:33 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: No. Magical is not empty illusory nature.
  [11:34 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: Magical because the radiance is unmade...not mechanical, not artificial.
  [11:36 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: U feel it is of a totally different dimension from the artificial. Intense radiance and wondrous manifestation r all parts of being magic.
  [11:37 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: Or magic by being empty and luminous.
  [11:40 AM, 10/2/2020] John Tan: His [Tinh Panh] description is quite good. Brahman or not doesn't matter as long Brahman is not any transpersonal being in a wonderland, but is the very relative phenomena that we misunderstood.
  • 
    
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 1m