I highly recommend all translations by Malcolm Smith (Loppon Malcolm Smith [Kunga Namdrol]). Thusness and I think that Malcolm is a very serious and responsible translator. Some translations of Buddhist texts we have seen are pretty bad quality or the translators have been slack, but it is certainly not the case for any translations by Malcolm.

Here's a video of Malcolm introducing his new translation: https://www.facebook.com/zangthal/videos/248338462688456/

Just bought the new release:



A complete translation of two of the eleventh-century Seventeen Tantras—texts that are among the most important in all of Tibetan Buddhism.

“If one knows the Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra, the Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra, and the Tantra Without Syllables, one will have command over the general meaning of the tantras, like a king who has command over his subjects.”—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle

The eleventh-century Seventeen Tantras are the most important texts in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition of the Great Perfection. This boxed set provides two luminous translations. The first is the only complete English translation of the Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra, which is the major commentary tantra on all aspects of the doctrine of the Great Perfection. The second, the Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra, outlines the structure of Dzogchen tantras in general and also provides a detailed outline of the Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra.

Malcolm Smith also offers a comprehensive introduction and two vital appendices: (1) a brief historical account and survey of the Seventeen Tantras and (2) an examination of the themes of the Seventeen Tantras, translated from the commentary to the String of Pearls Tantra. This is vital reading for any student of Dzogchen.

Editorial Reviews


"I sincerely rejoice that Acarya Malcolm Smith, a translator conversant in two languages, has now translated these two volumes directly from Tibetan into English with altruism, skill, and great diligence, and that Wisdom Publications, renowned throughout the world, has chosen to publish them." (from the foreword by Tulku Dakpa Rinpoche)

"Malcolm Smith's rendition of the original tantras included in the present collection are particularly faithful to the flavor of the original texts, using a precise English lexicon, which really helps readers generate a pertinent picture of what the originals actually state." (from the foreword by Jean-Luc Achard, author of The Six Lamps)

Acarya Malcolm Smith has certainly given the world a rare gift by presenting to English-reading Dzogchen practitioners this skilled translation of the first two volumes of the Seventeen Tantras, the Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and its accompanying commentarial tantra, the Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra.

The exceptional features of each of the seventeen tantras of Ati Yoga’s quintessential secret cycle of the upadesa class are described with metaphors. The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra is described with the metaphor of the ocean. The eighty-four chapters of this oceanic treatise detail the pinnacle view, meditation, conduct, and result of all paths of Buddhadharma presented in this world. As the destined Dharma of this time, this translation is extremely timely. I wish to express deep gratitude to Malcolm and the wonderful Zangthal team for their noble aspiration and qualified capacity to finally bring these most precious teachings that exist in our world into the English language.    (Sangye Khandro, Translator and Teacher, Light of Berotsana Translation Group)

“Malcolm Smith’s translation of these two tantras has opened a door to fundamental, previously inaccessible Nyingma teachings. With a comprehensive knowledge and experience of the subject, Smith has created an erudite translation that is not only accurate but also clear in meaning and beautiful to read. This work is an important milestone in the translation of Tibetan Buddhist texts.” (Peter Alan Roberts, translator of The Mind of Mahamudra)

“In 1975, when the magnificent Buddhist master Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche visited the West for the first time, an event comparable to the Indian adept Vimalamitra bringing Dzogchen from India to Tibet, among the very first transmissions he gave was the reading of the Rigpa Rangshar Tantra (Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra). Now this preeminent tantra has finally arrived in the English language to be taught and studied, read and re-read, contemplated, savored, and practiced by all fortunate people. This crown jewel of human civilization covers all the big questions in life and brings certainty about the deepest topics to interrupt, transform, and free the mind from confusion and ignorance. Even merely hearing its title forms a connection to realizing the innermost nature of reality. I deeply rejoice in this.”

  (Erik Pema Kunsang)

About the Author

Malcolm Smith is a graduate of the Shang Shung Institute’s School of Tibetan Medicine (2009) and has been a student of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu since 1992. He is a veteran of a traditional three-year solitary Tibetan Buddhist retreat, a published translator of Tibetan Buddhist texts (in Treasures of the Sakya Lineage, Shambhala, 2008), and was awarded the acarya degree by the Sakya Institute for Buddhist Studies in 2004. He has worked on translations for renowned lamas since 1992, including His Holiness Sakya Trizin, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, Lama Migmar Tseten, Khenpo Konchog Gyaltsen and many other lamas.

He’s the translator of Buddhahood in This Life.
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

Arising in dependence on mind means it does not arise independent of mind. This qualifies phenomena with “mindness”, which is very different from how we usually take it. This leads me to saying that depending on mind means it does not arise in reality, since reality is held to be mind-independence.

But arising in dependence, sheerly that, means there is no source or ground, and there is no giving rise. When we hear the sound of a chirping bird, does it arise from the bird? No. Does it arise from the ear? No. Does it arise from awareness? No.
There is no singular, final source or ariser, nothing at all gives rise to it, not even “the collection of conditions”, since a collection of non-arisers do not together make an ariser. It is difficult to understand that this means that the sound arises dependently.
I just had a conversation with someone. Let's call him JX.


I see now what you are saying... 😁

Possibly the best article I have ever read regarding Buddhism, Zen and Advaita.  Many, I believe confuse the message of Advaita with that of Dzogchen.  Dzogchen supports the view as Dogen presents, while often describing the “Base” (Zhi) much like the Self of Advaita.  This can create a bias towards emptiness over form, instead of seeing their non-dual identity.

Advaita fundamentally rejects form as being maya, or delusion, a false superimposition over the empty and attributeless Self of Brahma.

Dzogchen rather, sees form as the perfect and pure appearance of emptiness.

Dogen sees each moment of consciousness as a presentation of Buddha Nature appearing, while yet being empty.

We can discuss the article to clarify what’s being shared...


Me (Soh):

i like David Loy. his 2nd edition of the book Nonduality is coming out next year
Actually even nondual is not yet emptiness. It can be like Kashmir Shaivism and nondual teachers in Advaita advocating an inherently existing source and substratum being “inseparable” from changing phenomena. In this case the view of an independent changeless inherent existence is still strong even if subject object division may be dissolved in experience


I sense he influenced much of your languaging..

Me (Soh):

Emptiness means empty of fixed entity or true existence so awareness is seen like river flowing. Rather than a static ocean underlying waves

Yes, its adding attributes unique to the empty side instead of seeing all attributes as form, with no attributes hidden in reserve only to itself as emptiness.
What opened this up was David’s describing the fan and the wind koan. The master fanning, is the wind blowing as the master fanning.

Me (Soh):
Yes as “master” is merely labelled on the whole dynamic flow of activities just like “weather”, it is not a truly existing agent behind. The agent and action are dependently designated. There is no agent besides action. Any way of capturing that as something “behind them all” is simply mistaking convention to be real existence.

Even if senses dissolve and a mere formless Presence is experienced, it is always a foreground experience. There is nothing “background” at all besides a label mistaken as reality due to ignorance
Therefore Presence when freed from the constructs of self, duality, real existence, producer and produced, becomes dynamic, effortless and liberating. In all it is tasted and no traces remain
Then you will see how many masters even those well known ones have unfortunately mistaken a state of bondage, clarity reified into a background, as liberation. It is truly tragic and Buddhism has really deteriorated over the years
A major refutation in MMK is refuting an unmoved mover. An unmoved mover is a complete contradiction and impossibility like “triangular square”. There is no such thing as a runner that does not run.. the whole notion of agent and action, seer-seeing-seen, Presence/Awareness and appearance, is also to be seen in similar light. When insight dawns with clarity of view Presence becomes completely effortless and even begin to persists effortlessly into sleep at some point

Well, I would say rather, that sleep is how Presence is appearing. There is no persistence of Presence other than sleep itself persisting.

Me (Soh):
you can say so but what I mean is that even sleep becomes a blissful, nondual, fearless experience of Clear Light.. be it contentless or dream
any subject/object dissolves even in sleep as well

But isn’t that favoring a state of Clear Light over an equally empty moment of distraction? Both are equally Buddha Nature presenting as uji?

Me (Soh):
there is no need for favouring at all, in fact favouring ceases naturally once wisdom becomes actualized effortlessly. its not about favouring but about how deep wisdom is.. and how deep wisdom is, is naturally coincident with how much cognitive and emotional obscurations are released. when wisdom is very clear, when notions of self, duality, existence and non-existence, producer and production, arising and cessation are completely seen through, there is very little obscurations and so the liberating and nondual experience of clear light of empty-clarity becomes quite natural and effortless on its own. no amount of favouring can bring this about, its all a matter of deepening of insight and everything naturally falls into place on its own
if on the other hand, even the basic insight of anatta hasn't arisen and one mistakes awareness to be a background, how can there be anything besides effort and contrivance to maintain a fabricated state of "background awareness" in disguise of effortlessness?

It seems you are seeing a progression from a certain unsatisfactory state to a better one. This entails a self to reject one and to attempt to move things in the direction of the other. The dynamic of craving remains. Anatta is the self-arising prajna that is how each moment of consciousness presents itself. It’s always just “this flash of consciousness” followed by the next “flash of consciousness”, followed by this “moment of consciousness”, all equally empty, unique , and being all equally 100% Buddha Nature; empty/form/awareness; with no duration of any of it and no separation into subjects and objects.
Me (Soh):

its not about rejecting or accepting anything but clearly seeing an illusion to be an illusion. do you need to reject the monster in the closet? no, it's just seen as an illusion

an awareness existing as a background is such an illusion

What is seeing more clearly? You describe two parts; a seer of delusion or a believer of delusion, and a delusion believed in. Then there would be a “seer” but now free of delusion. Then your postulated “seer” sees or knows it’s nature as being Clear Light. That is the essential dualism of karmic mind. It’s seems the emptying out of the subject side hasn’t happened yet. Otherwise you couldn’t present such a story narrative. 😉
Me (Soh):

nope.. all conventions are completely okay here. seeing the emptiness of seer-seeing-seen does not mean i stop using convention or i no longer can use conventions like "buses", "car" and so on

all these conventions "buses" and "cars" are still completely valid on the conventional level but they do not actually coagulate into real entities in my perception

likewise it is completely ok to speak of realization and insights and delusion although none of these actually appear as real entities in actualization

Of course, no separate awareness lurks in the background. Appearances are awareness, Buddha Nature appearing AS appearances, with no parts as subjects and objects and nothing left over.

Me (Soh):

ok... but its not that buddha nature is a constant background thing which is then appearing "AS" appearances. like an unmoved mover that sometimes moves and sometimes doesn't move or a truly existing runner that sometimes runs and sometimes doesn't run

a runner that doesn't run is by definition not a runner... its completely dependently designated with no inherent existence or a 'runner' or a 'running' existing on its own side

likewise buddha nature does not truly exist as something on its own side that could manifest and remain unmanifest

its empty clarity and appearance inseparable but not like Shiva and Shakti, unmoved mover

You say “does not mean “I” stop using conventions” : your mind is still postulating an “I” that can or not use conventions. That “I” is an imaginary middle man that claims responsibility for a mere modulation or dynamic action of the Whole. It doesn’t exist more than Santa delivers the presents.

Me (Soh):

nope, there is no postulation of anything here at all, yet I am completely capable of using the conventions "I" just like I am completely capable of using the conventions "cars" and "buses". In fact "cars" and "buses" are as much empty and conventional like "I", there is no need to single out "I" and when one sees the dependent designation and emptiness of everything where "I", "awareness", "agent and action", "producer and production" are all included.. then all conventions can be used freely and yet no longer coagulate into real entities in experience

and likewise "awareness". the word "I" is not any more indicative of the delusion of substantiality than the word "awareness".

both labels can be mistaken as true existence under the influence of ignorance, or both are no longer seen as real and one is still free to use whatever conventions one wishes for communication purposes

the thing is when one sees all selves and phenomena and ways of framing reality, producer and production, existence and non-existence, this covers ALL phenomena and not just "I"... all ways of describing reality in terms of self and phenomena are completely conventional, valid on that level but not ultimately or inherently

even "action" or even "Whole" is likewise conventionally designated and not inherently existing

there is no inherently existing Oneness either

It’s not really about a grammatical “I” being used or not, but rather a sense of “causative functioning” such as “one is still free to use...”, implies an agent who is free to use or not use. It’s the selfing activity that prevents this being seen as when the selfing is absent. Then nothing is seen, because no one exists as someone with a capacity to see. Mental phenomena appear, but no one is experiencing anything.
Me (Soh):

it's completely ok to say "one is still free to use..." even though there is no truly existing agent besides action, as that statement is completely valid in denoting the sense of potentiality in conventional parlance even if the threefold structure of agent-action-act has collapsed

valid on the conventional level

im happy to use the threefold structure in conversation even though it is not how its experienced

the threefold structure has collapsed for 8 years and has stayed that way for 8 years. this has not changed for 8 years and is not a maintenance state... it just never arose again

just like santa claus when seen clearly to be a delusion never arose again

and this is why even in sleep, dream, contentless, this threefold structure collapses naturally into bliss, clarity and fearless nondual presence. its not that i was practicing anything before sleep. its just natural


That argument really is without merit. That conventional language should drop away, as shadows disappear in full noon sun. Your writing is full of agency implied or expressed. It’s sensed that “your” realization is profound but only intellectual. The selfing is more subtle but still generating these allusions of agency, and an agent having experiences.

Me (Soh):

your writing is also full of agency pretending to be free from the language of agency. you said "Your writing", LOL

buddha himself said he was always using "i me mine" parlance

he clearly didnt have any problems with it, and i gladly report to be the same

Greg Goode: "The Lucknow Disease Linguistic malady befalling seekers at neo-advaita satsangs, from a manner of speech first observed in Lucknow, India in the early 1990's. It is characterized by never using the word "I." Avoidance of the "I-word" is to demonstrate to one's self but mostly to others that there is no longer any ego or sense of self here. Instead of using the word "I" in sentences, Lucknow Disease sufferers say things like "This form is going to the bathroom." The irony of the Lucknow Disease is that it only strikes when the person's sense of self is present and poorly integrated. It has never been observed in those whose sense of self is well-integrated - or absent."


Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)


the lucknow disease is really ego trying to act smart and enlightened by using so called "more enlightened/holier than thou" language rather than just using the language of everyday parlance

i can gladly report that no amount of using conventional parlance or words that assume agency has ever established any sense of agency here for the past 8 years or sense of duality. once that collapses, its just gone for good.

anyway pointless continuing this conversation, you either believe what i report to be true or you don't, doesn't matter to me anyway. i don't have a guru agenda
I took refuge in the triple gems under Venerable Shen Kai at the age of 2, who is a lineage holder in the Linji Ch'an sect and dharma brother of Venerable Sheng Yen.

Here's a poem by Venerable Shen Kai:


修修修,持持持。 得到了寶藏,宇宙的富翁; 非空非有中,法性遍虛空; 還有什麼人我是非,還有什麼熱惱輪迴; 二六時中,光明覺照, 隨緣生死即了,無處不是圓通, 看破放下!自由自在, 粗衣淡食,茅屋蔽身, 白雪當陽,萬里長空, 晚上一輪明月,冬天處處和風, 四季百花開放,飄播萬年馨香, 醒吧! 聽吧! 聽吧! 醒吧! 高山的暮鼓, 遠處的晨鐘。 ― 聖開 ―

Göran Backlund: "Starting now, my book Refuting The External World is free in the kindle store for the next 5 days."



Enlightenment: What It Is And How To Get It

church_hillThe purpose of this essay is to get you to understand Enlightenment – what it is and how to attain it. To attain enlightenment is sometimes referred to as Waking up, which is a shorter way of saying Awakening to Enlightenment – but what that actually means requires some further explanation.

So what does ‘awakening’ mean?

In order to understand what Awakening to enlightenment really means, we need to first understand the nature of reality – and the short version goes something like this:
You’ve seen the movie The Matrix, right? If you haven’t, please go and do that now. But assuming you have, envision the matrix but without anything outside. No machines, no big computer running things, no space, no time; nothing at all – in fact, there isn’t even an outside. Are you imagining it? That’s our reality. Put differently, there is no material universe out there beyond our experience. There are no atoms. No planets. No stars. No space. There’s only subjectivity. There’s only this ever-changing field of experiencing otherwise known as consciousness or awareness.
That’s the short version. The long version—where I actually provide the proof for all this—is detailed in my book; and this essay is somewhat targeted to those of you who already read it but are now ready to step off that cliff and turn these truths into a living reality.
Anyway, the key point is:
  • There’s no objective reality – there’s only experiencing
But to the un-enlightened, things don’t seem that way. Rather, it seems as if we’re human beings walking around on planet earth; as if we exist as physical entities in a universe of time and space. It seems as if we experience an objectively existing world – as opposed to, let’s say, a field of subjectivity that’s perpetually transforming, morphing and modulating itself – which is how the awakened experiences life: as a mere flow of ever-changing phenomenality.
But why does it seem like we’re entities in a universe that exist independently of us? Why does it feel like there’s me on the one hand, and something else that’s not-me on the other? It’s because of the way in which we divide our experience.

Undivided experience

Now, here’s the thing. Our experience isn’t actually divided. There is no separation in the way we usually think about it – that is, the triad of seer, seeing and seen that we tacitly assume is present is never actually part of our direct experience. That division simply isn’t there. But let’s go through it in detail so you can see what I mean.
First we’ll investigate whether a seer, a subject, can be found in direct experience.
Go on. Find your self.
Have you looked yet? You can look all you want, but you won’t find anything. We can’t find a subject, because if we could, we would have to admit of a further subject, to which whatever we just found is known – making what we found an object, not a subject – And so, ad infinitum.
That’s one reason as to why we can never find a subject – we’re logically precluded from doing so.
The other reason would be: there simply is no subject. Remember, there is no objective reality. The presumed seer doesn’t exist – nothing does. There’s only this field of experiencing.
So the key insight here is:
  • No subject can be found in direct experience
Okay, now let’s turn to vision and see if we can find another element of that triad – the ‘object.’ In other words, let’s find out whether we can find something that is ‘seen.’ (I’m using vision in this example, but the same exact principle applies to all sense modalities.)
First, let’s state some self-evident facts.
  • The objects of our visual experience consist solely of colors.
  • That is, nothing is given in direct visual experience except colors.
  • In other words, we don’t see objects and their colors – we only see the colors.
  • Put differently, nothing is found in vision other than patterns of color.
Now, here’s the thing: While the presence of color is what we mean by the word ‘color,’ the presence of color is also what we mean by the word ‘seeing.’ (Now, think about that until you realize that I’m actually right – or read more about that here)
Therefore, we must concede that ‘seeing’ and ‘color’ are merely different words for the exact same thing, namely ‘seeing.’
In other words, colors aren’t ‘colors’ in the way we usually think about them – glued to objects, waiting to be seen – instead, what they are is nothing other than seeing itself.
And since the ‘objects’ of our experience consists solely of colors, we must now understand that they actually don’t – what they’re really made out of is ‘seeing.’
And finally, the last step in this reduction is to simply understand that ‘seeing’ is just another word for awareness. Awareness, or consciousness, doesn’t signify a thing – these words simply refer to the presence of seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, smelling and thinking.
To summarize:
  • There’s no subject given in experience.
  • There are no objects—or ‘colors’—given in experience.
  • There’s only ‘seeing’ or awareness.

Non-dual awareness

But although our analysis reveals that there’s only awareness—only seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, smelling and thinking actually going on—the unenlightened still feel like there’s a me—a subject—in here, behind the eyes; a seer that perceives a multitude of objects out there, in the world.
It’s because of a specific mode of perceiving that makes it seem as if experience is divided although it’s actually not. This affliction is known as samsara, or simply bondage. It’s our ordinary way of looking. It’s what makes it seem like there’s a seer, seeing and something seen.
But there’s another mode of perceiving possible – the undivided way.
Non-dual awareness.
The phrase ‘Awakening to enlightenment’ signifies the moment where we shift into that other mode of perceiving. It’s the moment of cessation of the division that makes it seem as if there’s a me, a subject of experience, and a not-me, the object of experience – leaving only pure seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking; simply non-dual beingness without any sense of being a subject that experiences objects. The sense of being an observer; a witness of experience; vanishes, and instead one’s sense of being shifts to encompass the entire field of experience. ‘Awakening’ denotes that actual shift – ‘Enlightenment’ is where we find ourselves afterwards.
But true enlightenment is more than a profound shift in perception. It’s a deep realization of the non-objective nature of reality; of the hollowness of one’s self – it’s a revelation of the fallacious nature of objectivity; which inevitably leads to a total rewrite of the way we think, act and feel.
Key insight:
  • Awakening to enlightenment means that we shift into another mode of perception wherein experiencing no longer seems divided into a me and a not-me.
Now that we know what we’re shooting for, let’s discuss how to actually get it.

The end of ignorance

If we are to cease dividing experience into me and not-me, it’s useful to understand why we perceive in this way in the first place.

Why do we perceive in terms of subject-object?

Due to our culturally imposed world view, the act of perceiving is interpreted in terms of what could best be described as something like a camera model. That is, we think of ourselves as cameras, moving around, looking at stuff. And the field of experience is our view, wherein the objects of experience briefly appear as we apprehend them with our sensory faculties. That’s the universe-model in a nutshell. Now, let’s break it down into detail.
When we encounter an object in direct experience, essentially the following happens (let’s pretend we see something – a box, for example):
  • A particular pattern of color is conceptualized as an ‘object,’ which has a wide range of connotations attached – such as, it’s a space-time entity; it has mass; it’s made of a material, etc. In other words, the concept that we have to represent this percept has attached to it a bunch of other concepts, all of which contribute to our idea of what it is – making us forget that it’s really nothing but patterns of color – which is nothing other than ‘seeing,’ or awareness itself.
  • Now, because it’s an ‘object,’ there’s another fundamental connotation involved – namely that of it being perceived by a subject. Which is us. In other words, according to our universe-model of reality, whenever an object is present in our experience, it is so because we as its subject has encountered it. That is, our field of view simply happened to slide past that object. Put differently, the very presence of an object implies us as its perceiving subject. It’s the camera model of perception. Just as the presence of images on a TV screen imply that they were apprehended by some camera, the presence of an object in experience implies that it’s being perceived by us as its subject.
  • So the very notion of an ‘object’ entails the presence of a subject that perceives it. It’s built in to the concept. We cannot help but see ourselves in this way under the universe-model, because every encounter with an object reaffirms and reminds us of our existence as its subject.
Now, if we were to abandon this model and instead adopt some other model, wherein we, let’s say, turn percepts into concepts with entirely different connotations than those that we currently have, our experience of the world would naturally start to shift.
But what if we had no model at all? Not because it would be a ‘better’ way to live life(it is), but because we have through careful inquiry realized that the very nature of models as such are based on a fundamental error of thought?
We would start to see reality as it is before any conceptual overlay. We would, in effect, be at a ‘ground zero’ state. No longer would it seem as if we’re a camera moving about in the world – instead, what we previously thought of as the world, we now abide in – finally – as the very flow of phenomenality itself. With no model laid out over experiencing there’s just pure non-dual beingness. And that’s the enlightened mode of perceiving. Ground Zero.
So, there are actually two steps to this process. The first step is to realize that the division that we think is there isn’t. The subject-object model that we have is not representative of what’s actually going on. If you look right now you’ll see that there’s never any subject nor any objects given in direct experience – which reveals that the subject-object model of experience is entirely a mental fabrication – it all hinges on our beliefs about reality.
The last step is to pick apart those beliefs. To refute objectivity. To disprove the external world – so that we can abandon the universe-model and instead shift our experiencing into non-dual awareness.


So stop fucking around. All of this deconstructing-your-ego business that everybody’s preaching these days is just a waste of time. Nothing dismantles an ego as effectively as pulling the rug out from underneath its existence as a space-time object.
Moreover, there’s certain movements on the internet that specialize in pointing out something that goes like this:
“Although there’s a body here, there’s no self in it. There’s just a brain doing the thinking and a body doing the walking, etc.”
That’s just pure nonsense. The idea of a self is the idea that there’s a space-time entity with perceptual capabilities – it’s as simple as that; and no amount of this kind of reasoning will ever ‘liberate’ you if you still believe that there are subjects that perceive objects.
In order to awaken, you must deconstruct the universe-model of reality – you must understand exactly how and why that model is false, so that you can begin to untangle the subject-object knot of perception that’s standing between you and reality in its infinite form.
Get real. Declare it with force and finality, and you’ll soon find yourself in full appreciation of the beauty and power of that which has always been staring you right in the face.


Also: http://www.uncoveringlife.com/shift-enlightenment/

A Shift Into Enlightenment

I think there were two factors that were paramount to my awakening. First, I spent a lot of time contemplating that color equals seeing, and that sound equals hearing; that thoughts equal thinking and smells equal smelling. I did that every spare moment – checking my experience, confirming that the apparent colors I saw, in fact, were nothing other than seeing, and that the body sensations I felt were nothing other than feeling.

I confirmed to myself over and over, not the inseparability of knowing and known, but the total lack of a ‘known’ altogether.

That’s worth saying again: Over and over, I confirmed to myself the total absence of a ‘known’ altogether.

You don’t see a dog. You’re seeing dogly. There’s no known – there’s just knowing.

I did that for months.

The second thing I did was to pierce through the veil of conceptualization. At least that’s how I like to think of it.

In attempting to induce an awakening, I think that it can be helpful to view ordinary experience in terms of two layers – namely, raw sensory data on top of which there’s another layer of conceptuality. Now, of course, such division is never actually present in our direct experience, but to artificially divide experience in this way can be useful in this kind of endeavor.

The key is to notice that you’re nearly always focused on merely the conceptual aspect of experience. That is, when looking at something, your perceptual focus is on what it is—conceptually—rather then the raw sensory data substratum upon which the concept is based. In other words, looking at a coffee cup, one is mostly focused on its coffee cup-ness (and thus its objectness), rather than the actual colors (which, again, are nothing but seeing) that make up one’s experience of it. Awakening happens when this veil of conceptuality is pierced. That’s when the shift occurs.

Again, I wanna emphasize that I don’t mean to say that there’s an actual veil over experience – just that I think it’s helpful to view experience in such a way in order to guide one’s attention to this raw aspect of experiencing, which I believe is what allows for a shift to occur.

I remember when I started experimenting with this. I used to take an ordinary object, such as a coffee cup, and just look at it very intently – trying to really see the colors that made up its existence in my field of view. And when I did this I would sometimes enter a kind of super-focused state wherein I suddenly could see the colors very, very clearly. And if I kept that kind of concentration for a few seconds I would sometimes experience a shift where the sense of being a subject that’s observing an object, suddenly would collapse into just pure seeing.

The first time that happened, I finally knew what everybody had been talking about – what phrases such as non-dual awareness, enlightenment and sat-chit-ananda actually meant. But then, after a few minutes, I reverted back to ordinary perception. But I could now pretty much enter this super-focused state at will, which would most often induce another shift. Eventually I started to spontaneously shift in and out of non-dual awareness during the day, and after about six months of shifting back and forth, it finally settled into an abiding non-dual awareness that hasn’t left since.

So, that’s what I suggest – to look at ordinary objects very intently, similarly to how one does when trying to read a license plate on a car from far away. In trying to read that license plate, one must concentrate and really try to see, which is very similar to the type of effort required in this excercise. You know you’re doing it right when you suddenly start to see the colors ‘clearly’ – at which point you just keep your attention there and keep your fingers crossed until you shift.