Also see:

There's No Such Thing As Awareness / Redditors Who Realized Anatta
Three levels of understanding Non-Dual
No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness

Here is something I wrote today. Cut and pasted from another online discussion. Thought it would go nicely here as well.

No, I'm saying something completely different. I'm questioning your assertion that "at every moment, experience has two components -- (1) appearances (thoughts, perceptions, sensations) which come and go; and (2) awareness, which does not come and go." This, I maintain, is a misunderstanding.

I'm suggesting that there is no experience of awareness. Awareness is always inferred. The experiences you are calling "awareness," however subtle, exquisite, profound, and self-validating, are just experiences, with no more or less claim to Ultimate Reality than an itch, or a thought, or gas pain. I'm suggesting that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, past or present has ever perceived or apperceived, quasi-perceived, or otherwise-perceived awareness, either personally or impersonally. What people (understandably) mislabel "Awareness" is, in fact, a mental construct, a composite of physical and mental phenomena. I'm suggesting that the next step for you (and anyone who is talking about Awareness) is to grieve the death of your projection. With this understanding, this process of awakening takes a sharp turn into territory we never bargained for and couldn't have anticipated in advance. This is why it's hard, and rare. Most people will not take this step. They will park themselves in their mental constructs, surround themselves with people who believe the same thing, and fail to move beyond their current understanding.



Also elsewhere:

" Hi Pawel, here are brief answers to your questions: 1. Yes, on at least two occasions, for periods lasting several years at a time, I thought I'd found something static, constant, or perhaps abiding, within experience. The first was what seemed to be a kind of witnessing consciousness that could be found within any moment of experience irrespective of whatever else was going on. I was able to cultivate this into a recogizable and reproducible state that I thought of as the witness. I also believed that this witnessing consciousness was there in the background even when there was no conscious recognition of it. The witness, when cultivated as a state, was compelling because it felt like an upgrade from my default identity as Kenneth; from the point of view of the witness, there wasn't any concern for whether Kenneth lived or died. There was very little sense of time; it felt like riding the razor's edge of now, without reference to past or future. The second candidate for an abiding phenomenon was a subtle, exquisite, diffuse presence that seemed to underlie and pervade or contain all experience but had no location or individual identity. From this point of view, which I thought of as primordial awareness, "I" seemed to disappear and merge within the totality of experience. This was, subjectively speaking, the best of all; it felt wonderful to meld into the universal consciousness and cease to exist as a separate entity. In both cases, as I continued to cultivate, explore, and investigate the experiences, the orientation toward them changed. It became apparent that as wonderful and valuable as these experiences were, they were still experiences. For "experience," I'm using a simple, common-sense definition: if it can be remembered, it was an experience. If there was consciousness during it, it was an experience. Notice that this definition of experience doesn't posit an "I" to have the experience; that's a separate question. As the experiences of the witness and primordial awareness were integrated through the years, it became increasingly difficult to think of them as special, or to believe that they were more real, more valid, or more ontologically significant than an itch, a sound, or a thought. This was simultaneously devastating and liberating. I could no longer privilege even the loftiest of phenomena as the "right" way to be or the "truth." The common habit of spiritual teachers to speak of Reality as though it had a capital "R" no longer made sense to me. Here is my current working model: all experience has exactly the same ontological status as any other. In other words, there is no reason to believe that any experience, however subtle, exquisite, or profound, gives one special knowledge or insight into the ultimate nature of the universe. As humbling and discouraging as this may sound, it turns out to be a great relief, once integrated. It's terrible when Santa Claus dies, but at least you don't have to drag him around anymore. Now, having grieved extensively the death of my sacred states, I am much more likely to be delighted than discouraged upon noticing that there is nothing in this or any other world that we can be sure of. From this point of view, experiences of the "witness" or "merger with the cosmos" can still be valued as beautiful and enriching, and one can enjoy them for their own sake. 2. I'm hoping this is covered in my answer of question #1, but happy to clarify if you want to ask a followup question. " -- kenneth

Kyle Dixon wrote in Dharma Connection:

Elgins' understanding of dependent origination (or "interdependent co-origination" as he coins it) errs a bit on the substantial side.
His criticism of Wilber appears to be presented at the beginning of the piece, however further down the page when he begins to make his own clarifications he explores dependent origination and presents his understanding, for example he writes:


"Interdependent: Everything that exists is contingent upon everything else. The totality of the universe is one interacting system of mutual interrelations.

Co-Arising: Beyond horizontal interdependence is the vertical emergence or origination of the entire universe all-at-once. The continuous creation of the cosmos means that all is emerging as a unified whole at every moment.

Therefore, by combining these two words, we recognize the totality of existence is arising all-at-once as an interdependent whole—a fresh creation in its totality at every moment—where everything depends upon everything else. Reality then involves both cascading causality (or “karma”) through time and instantaneous causality in time."


He just seems to be interpreting dependent origination quite literally; as if things are actually originating in dependence upon one another. When in all actuality, dependent origination is a view that is applied to one's experience in order to reveal that origination in fact never truly occurs beyond the scope of conventionality. Elgin appears to be mistaking 'dependent existence' [parābhava] for dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda].

Although in Elgin's defense he also makes statements like "The Buddha awakened to interdependent co-arising and the insight that there is no solid and enduring reality."... so he seems to understand that dependent origination, in principle, implies a lack of substantiality. Whether that understood implication translates to an actual smooth understanding though, I'm not so sure.

"wow --- I have never had that insight before"

Yeah... the fact that dependent origination is meant to specifically reveal non-arising is often missed or overlooked, but that aspect is really the linchpin and salient point that drives the principle home:

"The perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, 'What is dependently created is uncreated.'"
- Candrakīrti

"Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise."
- Mañjuśrī

"What originates dependently is unoriginated!"
- Nāgārjuna
Looking at dependent origination as an alleged origination that occurs in dependence upon causes and conditions also helps. Because for something to actually, truly "exist" - it technically must do so separately and independently of causes and conditions. However since nothing can be found to exist separately of causes and conditions, nothing can be found to truly exist.

"That phenomena are born from causes can never be inconsistent [with facts]; since the cause is empty of cause, we understand it to be empty of origination. The non-origination of all phenomena is clearly taught to be emptiness."
- Nāgārjuna | Bodhicittavivaraṇa
This is a clarification to the previous post, Four Levels of Insight into Emptiness

David replied to me:

The singularity of seeing is self evident. The absence of a seer naturally gives rise to the absence of an object (of seeing), the knowing of which is clarity itself.
2 hrs · Like

I (Soh) replied:

David what you're writing is more about non-dual awareness. But there can be different phases in seeing the nature of non-dual awareness.

Non-dual awareness can reveal everything to be Mind as subject-object dichotomy is deconstructed, but this Mind may be seen to be changeless and inherently existing, which is the substantial nondualism of One Mind. Therefore it is said there is no objects, everything is Self/Awareness/etc. The reflection is none other than the mirror, yet the mirror is not its reflections. This is not yet understanding anatta.

Then it can be realized that 'awareness' is none other than the transience, the manifestation, that there is really no inherently existing/changeless Awareness containing, subsuming, or even 'being inseparable with' manifestation, just like the word 'weather' does not exist as something that contains or subsumes the rain and wind and clouds but is merely a convention collating them, empty of being something in itself.

That, is anatta, and any sense of self/Self behind manifestation is seen through. And this is case 1) -- the emptiness of a background. Then one can proceed on to 2), where by zooming into the impermanence and insubstantiality of pure clarity/manifestation, one tastes the shimmering appearance to be fluxing wave-like or cloud-like or water-painting-like patterns, or like what I scribbled down during a journey: "everything is so pure, clean, unfiltered, manifest, clear, just that sensation... consciousness forms/"modulates" (not exactly a good word) like cloud patterns, insubstantial... appears and disappears like a mist".

3) emptiness is directly realized to be the true nature of clarity/manifestation not by zooming into impermanence, but by contemplating Dependent Origination and suddenly it is realized how appearances, like mirror reflections that appear dependently, is really never there. (For example sometimes two of the same faces appear on the 'same mirror' at different locations depending on which eye you use to look at it, which again is due to dependent origination) And what dependently originates is fundamentally non-arising -- uncreated, unborn, never abiding and never ceasing. Zooming into impermanence is unable to remove the fundamental inherent view of seeing 'arising/abiding/ceasing', however it does lead to a taste of the whole field as being insubstantial.

This is where in my previous post it's stated, "But even when it is realized that there isn't any awareness/observer besides the sensations and manifestation and there is no more sense of
duality, one still has yet to penetrate 2 folds. The "absence/emptiness"
of appearance/sensations/dharma will still be understood as some
ultimate true existence (sensations) undergoing the phase of arising,
abiding and ceasing in a flickering instant. The depth of 2-fold
emptiness in terms of insights and actual taste will not be there.
Spaciousness and Illusion-like emptiness will not permeate one's entire
being in actual experience."

Now, in Phase 3, that instant of clarity is realized to be non-arising not by seeing how they momentarily manifests/shimmers for an instant and subsides, but the very presence itself is absence, non-arising, unborn, uncreated, like mirror reflection... the taste of illusory is present in the clarity/appearance without its disappearance, and the illusion of something going through arising/abiding/ceasing is seen through.

4) The realization of non-arising results in an actual taste of everything being illusory appearances, yet it is not like the sort of 'everything is just an illusion, the only reality is Mind/Brahman/Awareness' kind of substantialist view, rather, it is the very vivid non-dual presence itself that we're talking, the very non-dual and luminous display which in all its intense wonder and clarity, is empty and illusory. This is the 'yogic view' of the two truths as one, absence and presence.


David:  "The singularity of seeing is self evident" doesn't necessarily assume, Mind, background, or Awareness for that matter. The functioning itself doesn't necessarily lead to, arise in, or come from anything.
January 10 at 12:05pm · Unlike · 3
Soh: Yes.. of course you're not referring to Awareness as a background or one mind haha... that's very clear from your writings previously. But just shedding some clarity on the differences..
January 10 at 12:06pm · Edited · Like · 3
David:  Much appreciated too......
January 10 at 12:07pm · Like
David:  Only concepts appear and disappear, while the field is always packed and constantly 'modulating' (not exactly a bad word, Soh:)). It's never not packed, Empty yet full. How can emptiness feel full? How can it not? Thoughts stop in their tracks when it's seen there's nothing happening apart from what's happening. Questions? There's no room for them.
20 hrs · Like · 2
Neony: chaser
16 hrs · Like
Soh: Yet what's happening dependently is nothing happening... just like movie or mirror reflections
12 hrs · Edited · Like
Soh: Emptiness here is not about seeing 'nothing besides happening'... that is just anatta, the first aspect.
9 hrs · Like
Soh: For example, Phase 1 will not result in illusion-like spaciousness. More likely it will result in experiencing foreground as real and magnificent.
9 hrs · Edited · Like
Neony: Please tell me what you mean by 'foreground' and (I suppose) 'background' Soh . I think you did elsewhere, but I can't find it again. Thanks.
7 hrs · Like
Albert: in anatta the witness is seen through so you get foreground PCE as your experience. That could mean a sense of continual nowness as the very sound, smell, taste, thought, sensation, color.

so the collapse of the background leaves the foreground because we still reify a ground. or rather we reify the aliveness and brightness of the present arising.
7 hrs · Like
Albert: i suppose it doesn't even have to be a witness. it could be a sense of background or container. a sense of a reference point here relating to whats out there or even in here based on being another thing.

in an experiential sense it is the bounceback that occurs when we place attention on anything. for instance we hear a sound and instantly there is a bounce back to some vague background where we relate the sound from. and thus construct the hearer.
7 hrs · Like
Neony: PCE??? Albert
7 hrs · Like
Albert: in any case there has to be a union of seeing A+ (positive emptiness aka do) and A- (negative emptiness aka absence).

So that means the very appearance-presencing of say a red water bottle is due to causes and conditions in direct experience. Eye meeting form equals the very appearance.

Which is exactly the absence of presence.

OR one can go about it the other way in which one tries to find an abiding principle and finds a lack and thus concludes its dependent arisen.

Both are used until they are seen to be exactly the same thing
7 hrs · Like
Albert: a pce is a pure consciousness experience.

it is the non-conceptual experience of the immediacy of the present arising. THIS color. THIS sound. This sensation. Absolutely no witness or watcher.

but its a peak experience that people chase without any consideration of how it came about.

the insight into anatta makes the pce mode of experience natural.
7 hrs · Like
Albert: and what is meant by consciousness is appearance. just to be clear.
7 hrs · Like
Neony: Thanks. That's what I call 'Straight, no chaser'.
7 hrs · Edited · Like
Albert: Yes. I think its also called no mind in zen. It's quite easy to move into so to speak if we emphasize not knowing and stick with the bare attention towards appearance.

This would also be the peak of shamatha practice in which directness and simplicity is the goal.

What prevents the pce as a natural state is the self. So simply if we examine where the self is in relationship to say the act of seeing we find a lack and automatically it cuts into a pce.

its almost as if the energy is spent so much on maintaining a sense of self or witness that once that assumption is seen to be false the energy is freed. so in that sense there is no longer a filter with experience. but experience has always been bare, non-conceptual, and vividly present. we just never related to it in such directness. and in fact we couldn't.
7 hrs · Like · 2
David:  Maintaining self might as well be the definition of work. All other work doesn't compare once it's seen what it takes to maintain this fiction.
6 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
Albert: yes its a lot of work. self and suffering is something we do. it isn't something done to us. we are active agents in our hell making.

if we cannot see through the assumptions present then all we can do is study habit and create wholesome habits.

but fundamentally its all bullshit.
6 hrs · Like
David:  " Phase 1 will not result in illusion-like spaciousness. More likely it
will result in experiencing foreground as real and magnificent."....This was very true for me. It was as if the foreground had finally become real, so to speak, almost too real. There was this sense that the absence of a background had given life to the foreground.
6 hrs · Like
David:  Fluidity, Illusion-like spaciousness, follows the realization that only pure functioning is what's happening. Knowing this verbing without object or subject eliminates the tendency towards reification. Singular functioning without agent, when realized with absolute conviction, is literally mind blowing. There are no longer 'things' which last, no source, no background. The ground has literally dropped out along with any question of how this might be happening or not happening. The brilliance of suchness lies in the fact it doesn't last.
5 hrs · Like · 2
John Tan (Thusness): Hi David,

Not only that it does not last and is insubstantial but it is non-arisen.

Anatta sees through the self (background) and with that freedom from the layer that obscures, everything becomes magnificently clear and real.

However when we attempt to further deconstruct the foreground appearance, for example, looking clearly at a red flower, where is this "redness" of the flower?

Outside? Inside? My consciousness or Soh's consciousness or dog's consciousness?

So clear, vivid and undeniable yet was never truly there. How does what that was "never truly there" disappear?

Likewise for sound. Hit a bell - Tingsss..non-dually clear and undeniable. Where is this crystal clear sound? Outside? Inside? Soh's consciousness, Albert's consciousness, dog's consciousness? No one sentient being hears the same "tingsss"...

Look at everything vivid and lurid...touch solid and undeniable...when seen with DO, every intrinsic characteristic can never be found despite being fully present!

Same applies to sensations, colors, shapes, scent, sound, thoughts...all experiences r like that...empty and non-arising.

So when background self is negated, foreground appearances become magnificently real, it does not become illusion-like.

What is the actual taste of negating "A" from the "(inherent) existence" of A?

Only when foreground appearances r negated of it's existence, then experience becomes cannot be otherwise. For everything clearly appears but when seen with the eyes of dependent arising, it is never truly is just illusion-like (not that it wants to b named that way)

Seeing dependent arising is amazing!
Whatever appears is non-arisen; indestructible by being not real and phenomena links without being "connected".
Everything simply turns magic!

Good night!
4 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 4
David:  Beautifully said John. Thank you.
4 hrs · Like · 1
Also see: An Expansion on the Four Levels of Insight into Emptiness

Thusness had a casual discussion with me regarding the various phases of seeing through intrinsic-ness in experience:

Realizing the nature (i.e. non-arising, empty nature) of clarity is not the same as realizing clarity. Anatta can lead one to experience whatever arises/appearance as presence.

Presence is part of the journey. The practitioner goes through anatta and realizes what we called presence is just appearance. Then he must start
looking at absence. There are at least 4 levels of seeing through intrinsic-ness or the realizing of absence and anatta is just the beginning.

1. The emptiness (i.e. non-existence of a) background

2. Seeing foreground appearance as empty like mist or shimmering paint in
the pond but appearance is seen as arising, abiding and ceasing.

3. Seeing absence in vivid presence... means in clear vivid non-dual
appearance, realize it is never there at all. At this phase, there must
be complete conviction without the slightest doubt from logical
analysis in understanding why it is "never there". The article where I
asked you what is second fold... non-Arisen emptiness. (link:

4. Turn insight of non-arisen in 3 into a taste, otherwise the 2 mindstreams cannot become one... that is, mind stream of dependent arising and emptiness are like what Tsongkhapa said "mutually exclusive", no way to become one unless one reaches Buddhahood. This is because we do not know the key is in recognizing the taste of absence (i.e translate the logical and inferring consciousness into a taste).


It is fully and vividly present and in the midst of this clear presence/appearance, it is realized as absence. That is why there is no arising, abiding and ceasing - non-arisen.

When you hear music and just music, there is no hearer... no hearer is anatta (lvl 1), the beautiful music in clean transparency is non-dual appearance... when absence is seen only when music disappears like a disappearing mist then it is phase 2. If it is clearly heard in non-dual mode and simultaneously realized to be absence (without the music disappearing) then it is phase 3. Then entire being will be pervaded with deep sense of illusion-like spaciousness.

But all these are just -A. Next is to look at +A. It is exactly the same again but this round non-conceptual appearance and dependent arising is brought to be seen and understood at the conventional level.

So it is understanding the nature of experience...not just directly experiencing awareness.
After this practice is no practice... just complete non-dual releasing... natural and spontaneous. When essencelessness is thoroughly seen through, the way of practice can only be spontaneous presence and natural perfection. Essence/inherent is what that prevents one from being natural and spontaneous. But don't link it to Dzogchen... all these about spontaneous presence and natural perfection is simply thoroughness of knowing the habit and many faces of inherent tendencies... may be completely different from Dzogchen spontaneous presence.

So do you know why it must be in a state of non-dual presence...?

"Then at this moment of appreciating maha suchness of the breath, the sensations, the entire scenery, the entire world…

Understand that they are Empty!

Experience the magnificence then deeply understand that they are empty but this Emptiness has nothing to do with deconstruction nor reification nor do I mean they are simply impermanent. So what is this Emptiness I am referring to?"

It must be vividly present with all magnificence... why? Because if it is gone then it is not the phase 3 absence.
Wrote a reply to someone regarding experience, realization, actualization:

An experience is simply an experience but there is no lasting insight. There are many types of experience... non-doership, I AM, nondual, no mind, etc etc. They come and go. (And then there are corresponding insights and realizations at each of those level)

Realization on the other hand is not a glimpse. Say, the realization of anatta, when it happened for me the sense of an agent, background observer, or even 'awareness' is completely gone and in the whole of waking life is effortlessly and naturally pervaded with this luminous taste as it is seen that 'in hearing only sound, no hearer', there is no awareness/hearing besides the luminous sound, so there is just this pure unfiltered cognizance that is none other than sound presenting itself on its own in its complete directness, vivid, clear, incredible aliveness and luminous intensity, and likewise 'in seeing only scenery, no seer', ..... etc, which leads to an intimate.. no... gapless experience of everything which is simply happening and being aware where they are without a referencepoint, a vantagepoint, from which they are looked at. Everything is intensely 'aware' where they are without a center or agent. There is both intense luminosity and a sense of release.

In the whole of waking life, this has become a natural after realizing anatta. Even before realizing anatta there were glimpses of that, where by intently listening to a sound, or looking at a scenery, or dancing, to the vanishingpoint of subjectivity leaving only pure sensation, which often comes with a "Wow!" as if I have entered into another dimension or state but will eventually exit out of it, however, it was not the natural or effortless state as there is not yet there is still the obscuration of self-view which prevents the effortless and natural dissolution of self/Self, thus that dissolution remains a peak experience or fleeting glimpses. But when the mind realizes that there isn't an observer and the way things are, there is no effort, just in seeing, only forms and colors and in hearing, only sounds, all very natural and effortless. When the veil is gone, there is naturally no obstruction and everything becomes most direct and clear without gap. There is no issue of 'entering' or 'exiting' from a state, there is no entry or exit.

Even though after anatta it becomes effortless and natural and becomes sort of perpetual in the waking state, at the very initial phase one may still notice dulling after the initial 3 months of intense peak experience. By dulling I don't mean that the sense of an observer or self/Self has obviously returned, it just means the intensity apparently becomes less intense. That too will be overcome after some time especially with deepening insights and practice. Another issue is that it may still not enter into the sleep, but eventually one will start to experience that.

Regarding realization -- realization can never be lost once realized. But whether it is 'fully actualized' is another question. If you are fully actualizing that realization, then all traces of self/Self/inherency are completely released in actual taste... and as I said the taste is not simply of a freedom, but it is opening another mode of perception*. Usually in waking state it happens first then it enters into sleep states.

*(Somebody asked me about actualization again today, I referred to something Thusness wrote about actualizing anatta in real-time experience:

"Just like the case we talk abt designations come "live", u must know that in anatta, it is not just the freedom that comes from seeing through self -- the release; it is also not a mere dry mode of being non-conceptual but an insight that opens the floodgate that turns everything "alive". Sound is clean, clear, brilliance, transparent and it turns "alive". This new direct mode of perception enables us to touch the "heart" of whatever arises."

Living in this 'mode' of insight in real time experiences be it in sitting, walking, working, sleeping, is actualizing. Yes, even in sleep it can be actualized.

Then there is actualization of twofold emptiness, and the actualization of total exertion.)

But even when it is realized that there isn't any awareness/observer besides the sensations and manifestation and there is no more sense of duality, one still has yet to penetrate 2 folds. The "absence/emptiness" of appearance/sensations/dharma will still be understood as some ultimate true existence (sensations) undergoing the phase of arising, abiding and ceasing in a flickering instant. The depth of 2-fold emptiness in terms of insights and actual taste will not be there. Spaciousness and Illusion-like emptiness will not permeate one's entire being in actual experience.

And this is where realizing the non-arising nature of naked sensation is important, what I wrote:

"In deep contemplation, it can become apparent in direct experience and insight that all appearances are merely appearances, nothing arising or staying or ceasing... there is no actual birth of anything. Just like no matter what images appear on the movie or in a dream it will never amount to anything more than an appearance, without anything that truly come into existence. This is different from resolving non-arising through being-time. Lastly it is not that things are mental projections but that they are dependent arising.. what dependently originates is empty and nonarising appearance... momentary suchness, but still as vivid.

It is with some reluctance that I'm sharing this... I'm afraid that writing this might be a disservice to readers. I shall refrain from posting and discussing further about this. I do not wish this to become merely something to talk about, it has to be seen in direct taste and insight... so that one knows what the experience is like and what the realization is. Spouting big words or philosophizing about this do not mean anything."

Earlier today I discussed with Thusness... I'm writing based on the discussion.

When we think of a label or a designation, it is dead, fixed and static... how is this designation made "alive"?

Seeing "things as they are" is not seeing non-conceptually without adding and subtracting anything from isness.. rather it is seeing impermanence, dependent arising and non-arising of phenomena so that mind can be released from grasping. So how is consciousness-nama-rupa understood to see its dependent arising and non-arising in conventionality? How should designation be understood in a thoroughly fluid, inseparable, dependent arising and non-arisen way?

There is a term in Gelug Prasangika by Tsongkhapa, it is termed
"appropriation"... it is closely related to total exertion. Also to
understand deeply, apply the insight of "a dream in a dream" where
symbols and appearances are fully enacted as one, neither same nor

See through first how reifications arise and the deconstruction of these reifications in direct experience (anatta and 2 folds) and then how to correctly apply conventionality as a semblance to "what is".

19 hrs · Edited · Like · 4

John Ahn: Soh

    I wondered about this as well. There is a point in practice where the designations indeed do come alive (I'm not sure if Thusness means the same thing). There is a natural flow and interaction between the conventionality and direct non conceptual experience of passing sound. It's an emergence of a very flexible intelligence. One no longer holds a view of "how the world is." Labels arise in accordance with convenience and functionality and they are experienced with the same taste as the passing senses.

    Just as conventions, memories, projection, etc are seen as labels arising dependent on direct experience, previous knowledge, language, situation, etc. there is no difference in the nature of their arising than the direct feet-touch-ground. The direct feet-touch-ground is also no more "real" than the conventions either. The arising dependent on conditions has no more reality than the arising dependent on designations. The label "chair" is just as real and just as false as the experience of the form of "chair" dependent on eye and material causation. "What is" is effortless dependent arising, there is truly no other "what is."

    So how does reification arise...the main culprit IME is wrong view and identification. Both identification and reification are the same mistake of assuming inherent reality of a particular pattern of arising. For instance when we think that designations are more real than pure sensory data as most people do, we reify the mind. If we reify sensory data as more real than the designations that is what many physicalists do unknowingly.

    The moment we reify something as more real identification arises immediately. Even if we hold a certain view as more "real," identity hides behind the one holding that view, regardless whether that view is of selflessness or emptiness. So some people try to get rid of views, which is..unfortunately another view. A view must become experience that is authenticated in all moments, and that is the view of dependent arising.

    So which comes first..reification or identification..I'd say they are the same aspect: subject-action-object. A self perpetuating circle.
    11 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 3
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: A dead, fixed and static label or designation "comes alive" when... how to explain...

    Seeing impermanence, a through-and-through lack of 'staying'.

    Dependent arising means seeing the process of designation. It is *process* (dependent arising)—absence of substance (emptiness).

    Absence of substance means non-arising of phenomena. It means that whatever imputed is merely imputed—nothing real, not inherent.

    Seeing the inter-action and dependency between consciousness and nama-rupa demonstrates "live-ness"—meaning both "occurring right now, continually" and "dynamically expressive".

    That is the thoroughly fluid, inseparable, dependent, non-arisen nature.

    A dead, fixed and static label or designation "comes alive" when it is seen live—occurring right now, continually—that the designation is actualized or exerted by and through "a mesh/web/net of inter-relations/relativity": Air is air and nothing else, when it is experienced in relation to a breathing body.

    This vision has a sense of mere reflection, a hall of mirrors, like a kaleidoscope, clockwork, or a continually tilting holographic image. Nothing static is found, except, the essence is unmoved—like water poured into water: What alteration is there?
    4 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 1
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland It is a live seeing that air is air because it is being breathed.

    The profundity of just that... the dependence of this on that.

    Of course, saying "air is air because it is being breathed" is a drastic simplification of what is actually seen, but it would be rather useless to go on about it. That simplified sentence gives the gist, but the vision is all-'round, all-inclusive, limitless, undivided.
    10 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 2
    Ej Alex Reminds me of this:
    "Breathing in, sky becomes breath. Breathing out, breath becomes sky."
    Awakening to Reality: Breathing
    10 hrs · Unlike · 4 · Remove Preview
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: WWZC (White Wind Zen Community) has to be one of the most authentic Buddhist communities around today.
    10 hrs · Edited · Like
    Soh: Thusness wrote:

    Both of what John Ahn: and Stian expressed r very insightful. They bring more "life" to the designations.

    Stian is expressing it very well. When Dogen rows the boat, the rowing makes the boat a boat and makes the hand, the sea, wooden oars and the movement of the boat into the "rowing". The designations turns "alive" yet r like mere reflections.

    Why is it like water pouring in water? Because one tastes the hand, the sea, the wooden oars going beyond their designated boundaries into one seamless (like pour water in water) action of rowing. There is no self, only that action of rowing.

    With anatta and dependent arising, u will feel immense inter-relatedness yet empty like reflections even in the world of conceptualities.

    The father is dependent on the son and the son makes the father a father. Don't just look at the logic, see how much emotions and love are invested in them. There are no "things" and "world" other than that.

    So not just what that is direct, clean, brilliance, non-dual, non-conceptual and transparent is empty like space; u must re-enter the world, dirty ur hands and see conventionalities with this new found insights of selflessness and DO...see the whole chain of intricate yet empty like reflections.