GG Interesting to note the importance given to "Unlimited Awareness" (which is experienced independently of the six sense media), in the last mentioned Sutta.


GG Though, it is understood that such "Unlimited Awareness" is used as a skillful means to point and not the affirmation of some standalone independent "thing".



Soh Wei Yu GG

The limitless awareness here is referring to the cultivation of the four brahma viharas, particularly the quality of equanimity. It does not mean an awareness independent of the six senses.


“Here a bhikkhu abides with a mind imbued with loving kindness ( metta) pervading one direction, likewise the second, likewise the third, and likewise the fourth direction, above, below , around, and everywhere, to all as to himself, he abides pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, abundant, expansive, boundless, without hostility and without ill will.
“ He abides with a mind imbued with compassion ( karuna)…..”
“ He abides with a mind imbued with altruistic joy ( karuna, sympathy in other’s welfare)…..”
“ He abides with a mind imbued with equanimity ( upekkha)pervading one direction, likewise the second, likewise the third, and likewise the fourth direction, above, below , around, and everywhere, to all as to himself, he abides pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind imbued with equanimity, abundant, expansive, boundless, without hostility and without ill will. This is called the limitless awareness-release.”


GG I just repeated "an awareness independent of the six senses" from some comments (or link) about the Sutta. It is not my interpretation. I cant find it now.


Soh Wei Yu Yes, and I made a comment about that comment below



Soh Wei Yu Also the term viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ is controversial. It appears something like once throughout the entire canon of thousands of suttas.

The commentary on that website states Ven. Thanissaro's view (which I feel has a more eternalistic interpretation).

level 1
5 points ·
3 years ago
· edited 3 years ago

Theravadins would not like your question[consider the question invalid]:

But if we carefully rephrase your question more colloquially to, say, "What is the experience of Nirvana?",

Thanissaro Bhikkhu might say viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ

while Bhikkhu Sujato might insist that viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ just refers to a formless attainment.

Either way, I think it's important to have a grasp of what is meant by viññāṇakkhandha in a Buddhist context before delving into the matter.

My grasp of it, for example, is that viññāṇa is a momentary1 phenomenon -- each instance to be considered as separate from another -- whereas the colloquial understanding of the English word "consciousness" or "awareness" might be that it's a single thing that exists behind the scenes that pops in and out here and there across the sense spheres.


1 Perhaps a more unambiguous/correct way to express what I'm trying to say here is "diachronic yet with discernible start and end"


Soh Wei Yu Theravada Buddhism has many meditation lineages in Thailand, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and so on.

I find that Thai Forest monks (of which Ven. Thanissaro is part of) have a tendency to reify an eternal awareness. It's a very strong tendency that has a long history in their lineage masters. The only exception I know is Ajahn Brahmavamso (who daringly criticised this tendency within his Thai forest lineage/tradition) and Ajahn Buddhadhasa

The Vipassana teachers of Myanmar and Sri Lanka are not so much affected by this tendency.


GG The problem with the statement "eternal awareness" is that it is timebound. I mean.... what could "eternal" mean in a timeless context? Also, that there is continuity or that there is not, are also timebound concepts that just dont apply to the non-temporal present.

What is there to reify or not-reify where there is neither otherness nor thisness?



GG Soh, when you say, "the limitless awareness here is referring to the cultivation of the four brahma viharas, particularly the quality of equanimity", you mean it is the same as saying "all is limitless mind"?



Soh Wei Yu GG

There is no timeless context besides impermanence and time. Each moment of impermanence and time is being-time, and thus in that sense, timelessness is experienced.

I like Dogen's teachings very much.

Thusness, 2007:

(11:11 AM) Thusness: Whenever we read the most basic teachings of Buddha, it is most profound.
(11:11 AM) Thusness: Don't ever say we understand it.
(11:11 AM) Thusness: Especially when it comes to DO (Dependent Origination).
(11:12 AM) Thusness: which is the most profound truth in buddhism.
(11:12 AM) AEN: icic..
(11:12 AM) Thusness: never say that we understand it or have experienced it.
(11:12 AM) AEN: oic
(11:12 AM) Thusness: even after few years of experience in non-duality, we can't understand it.
(11:13 AM) AEN: icic..
(11:14 AM) Thusness: The one great zen master that came closest to it is Dogen.
(11:14 AM) Thusness: that sees temporality as buddha nature.
(11:15 AM) Thusness: that see transients as living truth of dharma and the full manifestation of buddha nature.


Soh Wei Yu

August 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Time is just a construct like self. The notion that it takes time for me to walk from point A to B, which implies distance, space and time, deconstructs when we realize there is no atemporal abiding entity or self that is the traveller (this implies I am a truly existing atemporal self that is separate from time/the stream of transient phenomenality, which is not the case). In fact there is not even 'traveling' or 'movement' when Point A is only point A or being-time-A, point B is only point B being-time-B, each instant is whole and complete - there is nothing subjective or objective that is separate from each time-instant that abides and travels from A to B. Where time is being and being is time (things do not occur 'in' or 'pass through' time - they ARE time, as everything is irremediably temporal), there is Only being-time which is the sun and the moon and the stars, wherein there is neither an atemporal object passing through time nor an atemporal subject witnessing or passing through the passage of time and space from one point to another, and neither is it the case of one thing becoming another thing (winter is winter, spring is spring, winter does not turn into spring). Each instance of sight, sound, etc, is an entire and whole being-time independent of past and future (it occupies or IS a unique manifestation-position), yet inclusive of all causes and conditions spanning all time-space in a single moment that transcends the structures of time-object-self dichotomy. Each instant is a happening without movement. Time stops in the midst of temporality but Not by transcending to some unmoved backdrop.

Time is just a construct like self. The notion that it takes time for me to walk from point A to B, which implies distance, space and time, deconstructs when we realize there is no atemporal abiding entity or self that is the traveller (this implies I am a truly existing atemporal self that is separate from time/the stream of transient phenomenal...
See More


Soh Wei Yu Thusness, 2009:

I think realization and development will eventually reach the same destination.

A practitioner that experience the “Self” will initially treat
1.The “Source as the Light of Everything”.
2. He/she will eventually move to the experience that the “Light is really the Everything”.

In the first case, the Light will appear to be still and the transience appears to be moving. Collapsing of space and time will only be experienced when one resides in Self. However if the mind continues to see the 'Light' as separated from the 'Everything' , then realization will appear to be apart from development.

In the second case when we experience the “Light is really the Everything”, then Everything will be experienced as manifesting yet not moving. This is the experience of wholeness and completeness in an instantaneous moment or Eternity in a moment. When this experience becomes clear in practice, then witness is seen as the transience. Space and time will also collapse when we experience the completeness and wholeness of transience. An instantaneous moment of manifestation that is complete and whole in its own also does not involve movement and change (No changing thing, only change). Practicing being 'bare' in attention yet at the same time noticing the 3 characteristics will eventually bring us to this point.

However what has a yogi overcome when moving from case 1 to 2 and what exactly is the cause of separation in the first place? I think realizing this cause is of utmost importance for solving the paradox of realization and development.



Soh Wei Yu Also a few months into anatta, there was a further dissolving of the sense of 'Here-ness' and 'Now-ness' in my case by penetrating into the disjoint insubstantial nature, as I wrote in my e-book entry in 2011,

19th February 2011
There are two phases to Anatta in my experience which corresponds to the two stanzas of Anatta in Thusness's article On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection.
In the beginning... when I had the sudden realization by contemplating on Bahiya Sutta, there was a very clear realization of 'in the seeing just the seen' - the second stanza of Anatta in Thusness's article... seeing, hearing, is simply the scenery, the sound, it is so clear, vivid, without dualistic separation (of subject and object, perceived and perceived)... there never was, there is only the music playing and revealing itself. The scenery revealing itself...
It is very blissful, the luminosity is very clear and intensely felt. Yet it became a sort of object of attachment... somehow, even though luminosity is no longer seen as a Self or observer, there is still a sense of solidity that luminosity/presence is constantly Here and Now. A subtle tendency to sink back into substantialist non-dualism is still present.
Later on, I came to realize that luminosity, presence itself, is ungraspable without solidity. Much like the first stanza of Anatta in Thusness's article. There is no luminosity inherently existing as the 'here and now'... presence cannot be found, located, grasped! There is nothing solid here. There is no 'here and now' - as Diamond Sutra says, past mind is ungraspable, present mind is ungraspable, future mind is ungraspable. What there is, is unsupported, disjoint thoughts and phenomena... There is only the ungraspable experiencing of everything, which is bubble like. Everything just pops in and out. It's like a stream... cannot be grasped or pinned down... like a dream, yet totally vivid. Cannot be located as here or there.
Prior to this insight, there isn't the insight into phenomena as being 'scattered' without a linking basis (well there already was but it needs refinement)... the moment you say there is a Mind, an Awareness, a Presence that is constant throughout all experiences,
that pervades and arise as all appearances, you have failed to see the 'no-linking', 'disjointed', 'unsupported' nature of manifestation.
The luminosity and the emptiness are inseparable. They are both essential aspects of our experiential reality and must be seen in its seamlessness and unity. Realizing this, there is just disjoint thoughts and phenomena arising without support and liberating of their own accord. There is nothing solid acting as the basis of these experiences and linking them... there is just spontaneous and unsupported manifestations and self liberating experiences. Simpo_ described it well recently:
Will like to add that, in my experience, no-self is a more subtle insight than non-duality.
Usually, we see a continuity of mental formation... well... my experience is that it is not always so. The streams of thought seems to be linear but it is not.. To my experience, it is the fast movement of thoughts that give the impression of continuity of self.
Now... thoughts can appear and disappear and they do not have to be linear... 'Simpo' the name pop up and dissapear... another image appears and dissapears... all of them are not self... just appearance, sensations, etc... and we cannot say they arise from a base or sink into the base. There is no base (as far as I see it)... just this ungraspable appearing and dissappearing.
Without this realization, one can never hope to understand this phrase in Diamond Sutra:
Therefore then, Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great being, should produce an unsupported thought, i.e. a thought which is nowhere supported, a thought unsupported by sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or mind-objects.
This is the phrase that got 6th Ch'an Patriarch Hui-Neng his great enlightenment after the 5th Patriarch explained it to him.
A lot of people think they understood this, yet they are merely disassociating from phenomena and thoughts... this is not what is meant here. What Diamond Sutra described here requires the insight into emptiness... without which all are just contrived practice based on our paradigm of duality and inherency.
It is all just a matter of depth... one phrase... everyone claims to understand it, but do they truly penetrate its depth and essence? Non-enlightened people think they understood it, people at the I AM phase think they understood it, non dual people may think they understood it, etc... we all think we have grasped it, but true understanding comes via penetrating the twofold emptiness.

Soh Wei Yu <-- anatta="" but="" emptiness="" even="" expanding="" further.="" insight="" into="" is="" not="" on="" penetrating="" span="" that="" the="" twofold="" yet="">


GG Soh. It is amazing how mind has this drive to want to anchor in some "substance", even if unsubstantial. Now, something is not clear in the following sentence:

"It is amazing how 'inherent' view prevents us from seeing freedom as no-doership, interdependence and interconnectedness, luminosity and non-dual presence"

Inherency prevents us from seeing freedom as non-doership; alright. But then it goes on saying, "(prevents us from seeing) interdependence and interconnectedness". Does this not contradicts seeing phenomena as disjointed and unconnected - a fact so many times mentioned as a "quality" of true realization of anatta and sunatta?

An example of such mention taken from above: "(...)What there is, is unsupported, disjoint thoughts and phenomena... There is only the ungraspable experiencing of everything, which is bubble like".



Soh Wei Yu Disjoint and unconnected in the sense that there is no underlying substratum and linking agent that is carried on or persisting from from moment to moment. It is not disjoint and unconnected in the sense of negating interdependencies.

Like if you have a sense that "last thought came, this thought arrived, next thought arriving, but I AM constant throughout, or the NOW is unmoved throughout" that is not being 'disjoint and unsupported'.

But even though they are disjoint and unsupported and groundless by nature, unproduced by any linking agent, one must further penetrate into the total exertion of that disjointed thought/sensation/experience. Then furthermore, one may see the karmic conditions in play (this is completely missed out by the neo-Advaitin circles):

As Thusness wrote before,

This arising thought and previous thought, are they same or different?
This arising thought and previous thought, are they dependent or completely independent?

Beyond the extremes, see the middle path of dependent origination.


penetrate deeply into the following aspects:
1. The amazing power of the spell of an arising thought
Clearly understand the power and implications of this arising thought. It is the mystery of all mysteries. When this arising thought sees dualistically and inherent, everything appears infinitely separated and apart. That is all that matters.

2. Look deeply into the cause of suffering as a result of dualistic and inherent thought rather than thought self liberates, penetrate the ‘cause and conditions’ of suffering.

When an arising thought see dualistically, how the entire experience is shaped.

When an arising thought sees inherently, how the entire experience has changed.

With this as the cause, what happens, with the absence of that, what happens.

3. There is no willing off of dualistic and inherent thought, that would be self-view. If there is no doership, is overcoming possible?

From this understand, an arising thought is not just an arising thought, but the total exertion and entire chain of conditionality is in action. Clearly understand the difference between self-view and principle of conditionality with direct experience. The overcoming is not by way of self-view approach but by understanding the principle of conditionality.)


Soh Wei Yu As Thusness wrote in 2014: "If we continue to look for the carrying medium between 2 moment of thoughts, profound insight of anatta will not arise and non-locality will not dawn. Our mode of perception will be obscured by the inherent way of understanding things."

This also relates to many people asking the question of rebirth, since rebirth is taught by Buddha. In Hinduism the jivas (souls) are the medium which persists after death and reincarnates, until they are fully absorbed into and dissolved into Brahman through Self-Realization. But if in Buddhism there is no soul, no self/Self whatsoever, what is it that is reborn, if there is no 'carrying medium'?

Actually it's just action, tendencies, and the manifestation/reactions of these action (karma) and tendencies, both from moment to moment and life after life. It's no different from how rebirth is taking place moment by moment even in this lifetime.

Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.

Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.

Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.

One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…

Soh Wei Yu In the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena:

"What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"

"A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King."

"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical

combination as this present one?"

"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces

kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and

through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be


Visuddhimagga// :

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen."

Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple

sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the

concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the

volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no

recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is

well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language,

when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or

with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the


No doer of the deeds is found,

No one who ever reaps their fruits;

Empty phenomena roll on:

This only is the correct view.

And while the deeds and their results

Roll on and on, conditioned all,

There is no first beginning found,

Just as it is with seed and tree. ...

No god, no Brahma, can be called

The maker of this wheel of life:

Empty phenomena roll on,

Dependent on conditions all.



Soh Wei Yu There's a relevant post that Malcolm just wrote.

Seeker12 wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 14, 2018 3:54 am
Link Here :

In verse 6, he says,

"Then, as for extremely subtle entities,
Those who regard them with nihilism,
Lacking precise and thorough knowledge,
Will not see the actuality of conditioned arising."

Can anyone explain this a bit? What is being referred to as extremely subtle entities that may be regarded with nihilism, lacking precise and thorough knowledge?

Thank you for input.

Malcolm wrote:

The extremely subtle existents are particles, paramanus.

A more precise translation would be:

Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend nothing transfers.
Someone, having conceived of annihilation,
even in extremely subtle existents,
is not wise,
and will never see the meaning of ‘arisen from conditions’.

The auto commentary states with respect to this:

Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, perception, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle particle of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.

The purpose of this is to point out that even though nothing transfers from this life to the next, the assertion that even a subtle particle is annihilated is false. Why? Because in Madhyamaka causes and effects are neither the same nor different.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview1m

Soh Wei Yu Verses on the Heart of Dependent Origination

by Ārya Nāgārjuna

In the language of India: pratītyasamutpāda hṛdaya kārikā

In the language of Tibet: རྟེན་ཅིང་འབྲེལ་པར་འབྱུང་བའི་སྙིང་པོའི་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ།, (rten cing 'brel par 'byung ba'i snying po tshig le'ur byas pa)

Homage to Mañjuśrī, the Youthful!

These different links, twelve in number,
Which Buddha taught as dependent origination,
Can be summarized in three categories:
Mental afflictions, karma and suffering.

The first, eighth and ninth are afflictions,
The second and tenth are karma,
The remaining seven are suffering.
Thus the twelve links are grouped in three.

From the three the two originate,
And from the two the seven come,
From seven the three come once again—
Thus the wheel of existence turns and turns.

All beings consist of causes and effects,
In which there is no ‘sentient being’ at all.
From phenomena which are exclusively empty,
There arise only empty phenomena.
All things are devoid of any ‘I’ or ‘mine’.

Like a recitation, a candle, a mirror, a seal,
A magnifying glass, a seed, sourness, or a sound,
So also with the continuation of the aggregates—
The wise should know they are not transferred.

Then, as for extremely subtle entities,
Those who regard them with nihilism,
Lacking precise and thorough knowledge,
Will not see the actuality of conditioned arising.

In this, there is not a thing to be removed,
Nor the slightest thing to be added.
It is looking perfectly into reality itself,
And when reality is seen, complete liberation.

This concludes the verses on ‘The Heart of Dependent Origination’ composed by the teacher Ārya Nāgārjuna.

| Translated by Adam Pearcey, 2008.

LikeShow more reactions

GG Another question. Is there any concern whether disjointed phenomena are connected to "senses" (seeing, hearing, sensing... which, BTW, are just constructs dependent on name and form)? Or... the very freedom related to non-doership wipes away any such concerns(whether there are or not senses)?


Soh Wei Yu You should understand this in terms of equipoise (non conceptual meditative state actualizing the realization of anatta in living experience) and post-equipoise (in daily living not formally meditating, while engaging in concepts).

In equipoise, there is no concepts, no self/Self, no sense of seer-seeing-seen, hearer-hearing-heard. Just a seamless boundless field of vivid clear manifestation/luminosity, happening spontaneously and freely. We need to spend quality time in the state of equipoise after the realization of anatta.

In post-equipoise, when dealing with concepts and constructs, once seen in terms of dependent origination and dependent designation, they do not cause obscurations. You clearly see that the conceptual constructs of 'seer', 'seeing' and 'seen' or any other conceptual constructs are completely dependently designated and lacking of any intrinsic existence of any sort, are not referencing anything truly existing, and so you completely understand the conventional dependencies of all these elements yet do not fall into reification of these elements as truly existing and real, even while thinking and conversing in conventions for practical, pragmatic purposes in mundane living.

Then you will understand the problem lies not so much in 'thoughts' per se but in the delusion and framework of inherency (inherent existence) and duality (subject object duality). Otherwise, one will mistakenly think that 'thoughts' are the source of our confusion when actually it's the wrong view and paradigm that we hold ignorantly to be true that is the source of our confusion, clinging and suffering. Afterwards, non-conceptual experience is still natural (it's natural after anatta) but non-conceptuality no longer becomes the primary object of practice, (such as trying to maintain a state of 'no-thought' 24/7 which is impossible anyway, especially if we are not on retreats and are encountering people and work), rather it is to see clearly with wisdom to dissolve our delusions and clinging.

After anatta, although it's important to dedicate quality time to meditating and vipassana and non-conceptual direct mode of perception while practicing the Satipatthana (the four foundations of mindfulness) and Anapanasati (mindfulness of breathing), still, we should not be afraid of concepts, or of further understanding the view of dependent origination and emptiness as a raft, until they are fully realized and actualized. There must be a balance between nonconceptual experience and view. I've seen people who after some insights into I AM and nondual, become so afraid of concepts that they detest and have a kind of phobia towards any form of contemplation and further refining of view, and so are stuck at where they are for years and years, no progress. Even after anatta one should not fall into this 'disease of non-conceptuality' as Thusness puts it in

As Rob Burbea said, "In the Dzogchen tradition, there’s a very beautiful saying – very simple but very beautiful. And it says, “trust your experience, but keep refining your view.” Trust your experience, but keep refining your view - there’s a lot of wisdom in that, a lot of wisdom. "

This is related to what I wrote in

Also as Thusness wrote before,

"If asked what I am most drawn to (in Tsongkhapa's teachings), I am most drawn to Prasangika's "mere imputation". The quintessence of "mere imputation" is IMO the essence of Buddhism. It is the whole of 2 truths; the whole of 2 folds. How the masters present and how it is being taught is entirely another matter. It is because in non-conceptuality, the whole of the structure of "mere imputation" is totally exerted into an instantaneous appearance that we r unable to see the truth of it. In conceptuality, it is expanded and realized to be in that structure. A structure that awakens us the living truth of emptiness and dependent arising that is difficult to see in dimensionless appearance."
"In ultimate (empty dimensionless appearance), there is no trace of causes and conditions, just a single sphere of suchness. In relative, there is dependent arising. Therefore distinct in relative when expressed conventionally but seamlessly non-dual in ultimate."

"When suchness is expressed relatively, it is dependent arising. Dependent designation in addition to causal dependency is to bring out a deeper aspect when one sees thoroughly that if phenomena is profoundly without essence then it is always only dependent designations."

- Thusness, 2015

And more recently:

"When you are luminous and transparent, don't think of dependent origination or emptiness, that is post-equipoise. When hearing sound, like the sound of flowing water and chirping bird, it is as if you are there. It should be non-conceptual, no sense of body or me, transparent, as if the sensations stand out. You must always have some quality time into this state of anatta. Means you cannot keep losing yourself in verbal thoughts, you got to have quality hours dedicated to relaxation and experience fully without self, without reservation."

Soh Wei Yu John TanSunday, August 4, 2013 at 9:48pm UTC+10

Many see non-conceptuality as like phase 4 insight and freedom from conceptualities and views
John TanSunday, August 4, 2013 at 9:49pm UTC+10

To me it is a form of actualization of our view and insights so that view does not remain just conceptual and intellectual
John TanSunday, August 4, 2013 at 9:51pm UTC+10

When we embrace the view of emptiness, anatta, DO... We must experience the impact of these views in real-time.

John TanSunday, August 4, 2013 at 9:54pm UTC+10

Just like I kept why does duality seem so real, true and actual when the framework has invaded consciousness from top to bottom. So ask yourself why when u embraced a view of non-inherent, non-dual, non-arising, non-abiding ... It does not integrate seamlessly into our experience?
John TanSunday, August 4, 2013 at 9:57pm UTC+10

I hv told u when u experienced clean pure clarity, u must also understand how "view" affects us...but not to mistake that u should b free from view.

John TanSunday, August 4, 2013 at 10:03pm UTC+10

Emptiness is a view that de-neutralizes all inherent long as u understand what that means, it does not matter. Otherwise it just keep breaking down recursively.

John TanSunday, August 25, 2013 at 1:02pm UTC+10

These r 2 different practices u must know. One is being bare and the other integrating view and experience. The former is purely and attempting to b non-conceptual and freedom from view. The later is not letting the "view" being simply resting at the conceptual level but having real-time actualization of the view in experience (non-conceptual). U must understand the 2. This is what I hv been telling u abt maha and requires the view much like how dualistic and inherent view invaded consciousness. U must understand and correctly discern the 2.


Soh Wei Yu Also you need to actualize the view of Dependent Origination to experience the Maha of Total Exertion. This is different from merely anatta non-conceptual experience of luminosity.

6/11/2012 9:28 AM: John: Nobody mind self can still remain at pure awareness lvl
6/11/2012 9:30 AM: John: The measurement is to total giving up so that the experience of how immensely is this web of interpenetration is experienced as this moment of arising is important
6/11/2012 9:31 AM: John: U need to practice with the view in mind to see the interconnection, not non-conceptuality of whatever arises
6/11/2012 9:34 AM: John: There r two practices, one is feel the intensity of this moment of arising till there is no mind, body, self..directly right into the place where there is no heat or cold
6/11/2012 9:34 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Maha is like seeing all causes and conditions being seamlessly connected in one suchness but not in terms of interaction of entity right
6/11/2012 9:34 AM: John: The intensity of our luminous essence
6/11/2012 9:36 AM: John: The other is holding the view in mind till body, mind, self, universe is being deconstructed in this immerse interconnectedness
6/11/2012 9:36 AM: John: They r different
6/11/2012 9:36 AM: John: Yet both practices r equally important
6/11/2012 9:38 AM: John: One is total non conceptuality, one is full integration of the view of interconnectedness
6/11/2012 9:39 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
6/11/2012 9:43 AM: John: In non conceptuality of in hearing, just sound...there is no mind, no self, no hearer, just this sound. This universe is fill with the arising sound... Clear vivid and non-dual...u practice the intensity of luminous essence
6/11/2012 9:45 AM: John: But hearing sound, deep in u, u see the empty nature of arising, u see the stick, the drum, the ear drums, the sound ... This requires view... And not non conceptuality
6/11/2012 9:47 AM: John: If u continue to see this perpetually, then the mind, body, universe construct will also be dissolved and experience turn maha and dimensionless...get it
6/11/2012 9:49 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I think so
6/11/2012 9:49 AM: Soh Wei Yu: When I contemplated on d.o. There was a glimpse like all the entities deconstructed into a seamless activity. I'm not sure if this is related to maha.
6/11/2012 9:50 AM: John: Yes
6/11/2012 9:51 AM: John: But this is different from anatta
6/11/2012 9:51 AM: John: And the practice is different
6/11/2012 9:52 AM: John: U may not even experience non dual
6/11/2012 9:52 AM: John: But the practice must be integrated into the luminous essence
6/11/2012 9:54 AM: John: Becoz u cannot correctly discern the two that is why I m pointing out to u. But ultimately all must be integrated, the view, the experience and realization



GG Soh. It became clear now that it is important to regard the present "as-if-ruling" view, to bring it up into clarity and integrate it consciously into pure presence. Am I expressing it correctly?


Soh Wei Yu What do you mean by as if ruling view?

By integrating Thusness means integrating the view of d.o. And non arising into pure presence/all experience so that it is vividly realized, experienced and actualized rather than remain intellectual

And there are two aspects, the +A and -A, which can realised and tasted. Not sure if you read that article


GG I am expressing now a somewhat personal opinion.

It seems to me that the view has a relevant importance in the nature of experience, it functions almost as if a limiting trail. This is what I meant by "as-if-ruling-view".

So, what I am saying is that such prevailing view must be taken in consideration and somehow accommodated into experience of anatta and sunatta. This is quite unrelated to what has been written above - something more generic.



Soh Wei Yu One must have direct insight into how prevailing view shapes and is exerted as this very experience. Our karmic propensities and conditioning is vividly present and manifesting, nothing hidden. Just like the anatta of a sound, one has to directly realize the views and karmic propensities face to face like how we taste a sound, otherwise we are seeing karmic propensities as hidden ghosts and entities as if they are some hidden subcoscious hiding somewhere, in the same way we reify awareness into some invisible entity hiding somewhere prior to anatta insight that penetrates that image and tastes directly in all vivid manifestation

Action, conditioning, views, clinging... there is no actor, doer behind but the full exertion of conditioning

The seemingly complete realness or solidity of sense of self, or Witness, or Unchanging Awareness, or world, and all manners of grasping are all the conditionings and karmic activity at play


GG Soh, you wrote this 6 years ago. Would you still fully resonate with it today?

"You are not trying to get to a state... But to realize what you already are. So inquiry is not about a particular passing state but realizing the source. Whatever method you use must only direct you to the source. Who or what is aware of clear mind? What is undeniably present and existing in the gap of no-thought? That is what you must discover, the source of mind. It is a kind of effortless effort, it is not exactly very effortful. It simply requires genuine investigative curiorisity to know the truth of your intimate being. In the end it is something even more intimate and closer than your breathe, it is just You all along."

"The notion that You are distant is making things appear difficult or effortful. It creates the appearance of a distance or gap. But this imaginary gap is entirely conceptual.

Drop your concepts, You are what remains, only pure presence-existence-consciousness-being-bliss."


GG Not sure whether such "source" would still hold water these days for Soh. :)



Soh Wei Yu GG

I was in the I AM-realization stage when I wrote that. I progressed to anatta within the same year.

Self-inquiry no longer suits me. After Self-Realization, there is a doubtless certainty of Being that was never lost, so I no longer needed to do self inquiry. I had a certainty that Awareness is what I am, and it is not a maintenance state, not something I can 'gain' and 'lose'.

But more than that, after anatta, self inquiry becomes irrelevant for reasons spoken here:

But I usually recommend self inquiry to get to I AM first.

As for the practice after non-dual and anatta (or even before), Four Foundations of Mindfulness, and Anapanasati (Mindfulness of Breathing) which is part of it, is more suitable.

Having quality time each day to formal meditation is important for progress. And even if one has completely freed oneself from all obscurations/defilements and 'done what is to be done' and attained the state of an Arahant or Buddha, they still continued to practice the four foundations of mindfulness, and the mindfulness of breathing, they still go for retreats and so on, according to the suttas, as these practices lead to a 'pleasant abiding'. This is the means to develop both insight and tranquility/samadhi, both of which are necessary for liberation.

In fact after anatta, 'vipassana' and 'mindfulness' will become quite natural and effortless, and one will 'want' to do that naturally. The tendency to feel, sense, everything vividly and directly will automatically arise.

You will understand after anatta why mindfulness and vipassana is peculiar to and emphasized by Buddha (rather than self-inquiry) and how vipassana, mindfulness, anatta, impermanence, etc are all related. The view, the realization, the experience, the path of practice are all very coherent and in sync.


(5:04 PM) John: when u r mindful, u r mindful of what?
(5:04 PM) AEN: everything?
(5:04 PM) John: yes
(5:05 PM) John: not mindful of an invisible like substance
(5:05 PM) AEN: icic
(5:05 PM) AEN: ya
(5:05 PM) John: has Buddha ever taught us about mindfulness of an invisible observer?
(5:05 PM) John: watch ur breath
(5:06 PM) John: feel the sensation when the feet touches the floor
(5:06 PM) John: hear the sound
(5:06 PM) John: notice every moment
(5:06 PM) John: so that u know what awareness is all about in emptiness
(5:06 PM) AEN: icic..
(5:07 PM) John: experience thoroughly until u become mr. nobody
(5:07 PM) John: u will know.
(5:07 PM) John: just the taking place, just the happening, that is dharmakaya



Soh Wei Yu In the Anatta phase, the pure sense of Existence/I AM even without concepts is not denied but seen in its proper perspective -- as simply another aggregate or pure consciousness experience in an aggregate. Presence is experienced as all aggregates, Buddha-nature is seen as transience, not just the formless Mind aspect and furthermore not reified into an unchanging Mind of any kind. The formless Mind is not treated as something ultimate, special, changeless, independent or a Background behind all stuff.

As Thusness wrote in 2011:

(1:01 AM) Thusness: pce (pure consciousness experience) is about direct and pure experience of whatever we encounter in sight, sound, taste...
the quality and depth of experience in sound
in contacts
in taste
in scenery
has he truly experience the immense luminous clarity in the senses?
if so, what about 'thought'?
when all senses are shut
the pure sense of existence as it is when the senses are shut.
then with senses open
have a clear understanding
do not compare irrationally without clear understanding

(5:08 PM) Thusness: what is "I AM"
is it a pce?
is there emotion
is there feeling
is there thought
is there divison or complete stillness?
in hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound!
so what is "I AM"?
(5:10 PM) Soh Wei Yu: it is the same
just that pure non conceptual thought
(5:10 PM) Thusness: is there 'being'?
(5:11 PM) Soh Wei Yu: no, an ultimate identity is created as an after thought
(5:11 PM) Thusness: indeed
it is the mis-interpretation after that experience that is causing the confusion
that experience itself is pure conscious experience
there is nothing that is impure
that is why it is a sense of pure existence
it is only mistaken due to the 'wrong view'
so it is a pure conscious experience in thought.
(5:13 PM) Soh Wei Yu: oic..
(5:13 PM) Thusness: not sound, taste, touch...etc


Soh Wei Yu


When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replace it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. There isn't a state that is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.



To someone else:

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Zazen is good and important but if you can, do self inquiry in your sitting as well, as it can easily lead to unshakeable self realization quickly.

Just Who Am I?

After self realization bring the taste to all sense doors through vipassana and Bahiya Sutta/anatta contemplations

Four Foundations of Mindfulness: The Direct Path to Liberation
· Reply · Remove Preview · 1d
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Many progress into I AM realization after they had insights into nondoership, like Elena of the liberation unleashed group
· Reply · 1d
Geovani Geo
Geovani Geo "Presence" is one of the most elusive concepts/realizations. At the same time it is and it is not. It is the most obvious, the closest, but it is non liable to be pinpointed. It is all, nonetheless it is in each single also.
· Reply · 22h · Edited
PG Soh Wei Yu I am having many realization of no doer. In zazen I learn to relinquish all control and all grasping. If grasping happens, it happnes by itself and is inmediately let go of because of the seeing that it happened by itself. So it wil be. I feel like doing zen now again for 1 , 5 hours. I feel like nothing satisfied me. I feel like going deeper into zen now. I will read that link you posted and implement self inquiry. Is it good to ask myself ' who is doing zen?' in zazen?
· Reply · 17h · Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Just ask yourself "Who am I?"

Your experience of non doership is good but what's also very important is to directly realize your Luminous Essence.

This is why people like Elena Nezhinsky progressed into realizing the I AM through self-inquiry after they have realised nondoership, because they still lack the realization of Presence, so that realization of Pure Presence is their next stage.

Also you can read the book 'True Meditation' by Adyashanti, it also teaches the letting go of all control and doership as part of its method, yet also includes Self-Inquiry in order to realize Being/Presence-Awareness


I like Seung Sahn too, and have read thousands of pages of his works.

The reason why I read so many of his writings is because I found it resonating, direct, and similar to my anatta experience, however, the only problem I have is his somewhat substantialist view, as in this article which is reifying a changeless mind or universal source and substance. (i.e. ) This is like having one mind view but having no mind experience. Therefore realization of anatta is not just no mind experience, no mind is an experience but insight of anatta must arise then refine one’s view. The problem with most Zen (and other) teachings is lack of right view, and yet Right View is deemed so important that Buddha placed it as the First factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. Non-conceptual experience and realization of nondual without right view will at most lead to Thusness Stage 4. Nowadays I prefer the teachings of Zen Master Hong Wen Liang (but he's in Chinese so I don't think you will understand) and some other Soto Zen masters (as Dogen is very clear), their clarity and depth of realization and view is there.

By the way I am not saying this to discourage you from learning from Seung Sahn, in fact, they have a lot to offer to your development. They also happen to teach Self-Inquiry - asking yourself Who am I? Self inquiry and koan training can lead to direct facets of realization, and the different classes of koans can lead to different realizations. In fact if you do self inquiry I will also recommend you the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, even though it is not exactly Buddhist but Hindu. Although at some further stages I no longer hold the view of an eternal Self, but the teachings was helpful in pointing out and leading to my initial realization of my luminous essence.

In my experience, one should not get too attached to any teacher, but still it is important to seek to learn whatever we can from any teacher. Some day we may outgrow them in wisdom, who knows. But having blind faith in one teacher or seeing that teacher as fully enlightened such that we cannot surpass that teacher one day, is not so healthy IMO. All teachers, like all teachings, should be seen as rafts, not clung to.

This is also why I am not too keen on the Vajrayana form of guru devotion, as it can easily lead to a form of attachment and even obstruct one's progress eventually, along with some other issues with the guru model in general (as you know, many cases of abuse, and so on). I prefer the style of spiritual friendship as Greg Goode wrote - . But that's just me, I like to think of myself as somewhat anti-authoritarian or iconoclastic by personality (the likes of U.G Krishnamurti and J Krishnamurti), but I'm sure many may prefer and benefit from the Vajrayana style of practice.


LikeShow more reactions

Soh Wei Yu Just out of curiosity, may I know where do you live? Are there any dharma centers around you?

LikeShow more reactions
A B wrote:

 Soh Wei Yu hi, can you please elaborate on the difference between eternal self and illuminous nature views? Maharshi talked about sahaja samadhi, is it not luminous nature/rigpa? Thanks.

LikeShow more reactions

Soh Wei Yu Hi AB: Maybe you can refer to


Now I am no authority of Dzogchen (in which Lineage and authorized teachers are important) - which the word Rigpa comes from, so I can only report to you what Lopon Malcolm - who was authorised by his guru Kunzang Dechen Lingpa to teach Dzogchen, said.

According to Lopon Malcolm, one only truly 'begins' Dzogchen practice when one has the direct recognition of the clarity radiance of Rigpa. If you have not recognised that clarity radiance of rigpa, there are methods like Rushan and Semdzins to help you recognise. However this in itself is not the realization of Emptiness, and the view of emptiness at this stage can still remain inferential. The realization of emptiness happens at the Third Vision of the Four Visions in Thodgal practice. The fourth vision (a.k.a. the attainment of 'Rainbow Body') is the exhaustion of all phenomena into the five lights where all traces of reification dissolves completely, where everything dissolves into the colors, sounds and rays as one's own state of empty-clarity.

In my opinion - please don't quote me as I do not represent Dzogchen lineage, the initial recognition of the clarity radiance of rigpa in Dzogchen or the unfabricated Presence-Awareness is in fact similar to the Thusness Stage 1. It is the begininng of one's path but not yet the realization of emptiness, which only occurs later on.

Maharshi is talking about the clarity radiance, except it is seen as an eternal Self. But in further phases of practice one refines the view and realizes that there is no self/Self/agent, in hearing only sound without hearer, in seeing just colors without seer, etc.

In this page, Lopon Malcolm clarifies the difference between Advaita realization and Dzogchen realization, and you can see that the Dzogchen's final stage is more like the realization and complete actualization of anatta and emptiness -


P wrote:
I have read this very interesting link:…/mistaken-reality-…
So what I got from it is that the conceptual I or thinking is standing in the way of seeing that awareness is illusory and only the seen and the heard and the flower exists. There is no seperate flower in existence made ouf of objective matter or quality. There is no flower moving by the wind on the land. There is no bird flying in the sky from left to right. There is no shapes. Only shaping of color. NO movement.
My question is if dropping all control and craving and just surrendering your will be enough to see this what I said above. Is the 'I don't know-mind' method of Master Zen Seung Sahn enough to see it. Do I need to find out that I am awareness first in order to drop if afterwards and realize that there is only the seen? I don't see that I am the awareness yet. Perhaps it is not a necessary step.
Edit: What I start to realize about awareness is that it is an object appearing, like a sudden awakefullness in the body of realizing that something just showed up like a thought. THen attention goes to the thought or sound or sensation and that whole movement (which is something that shows up, an appearnce) is what I call awareness. I doubt.
(Article last updated: 29th October 2009) (Much of the following are a compilation of what Thusness/PasserBy wrote from a few sources ...


Soh Wei Yu Depends on teacher. But generally in Zen school you should go through the I AM first.

Years ago I attended the dharma talk of the ex-Abbot's of Kwan Um School, Zen Master Dae Kwang. He asked about the source, where does thoughts come from, where does cause and effect come from, who am I? He rejected people hitting the floor for that question. He said you came from hitting the floor?

He was pointing out the I AM insight, the formless Self.

With that as basis one expands upon that insight into nondual.

The realization of Presence is important for Zen, Dzogchen, etc. In Theravada like Daniel Ingram, the Luminosity/Presence only becomes clearer at later phases. But in Advaita or Zen or Dzogchen it is pointed out from the start and with that taste one expands upon it, bring it to all manifestations and realise its nondual, anatta and empty nature.


So in stages after I AM, it is not so much that I AM disappears but rather the taste of Presence in I AM is expanded and found in all dynamic and myriad manifestations, centerless, as there no 'The Center' anymore as each manifestation is 'a center' -- Presence has ten thousand faces rather than one face to cling to. What disappears is not Presence but the image of one face of Presence reified into a ghostly image of a changeless, special, independent entity behind all things -- this mental image is not the true face of Presence and is completely delusional although seems to be completely real prior to anatta insight.

And as I wrote before,"

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

I replied:

Hi ____

Thanks for the sharing.

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

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

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

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

Thusness also wrote:

The anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of no-self. But it must have first have an intuitive insight of Presence. Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights

Soh Wei Yu "Don't know mind" is just referring to non-conceptuality. Prior to conceptual knowledge. Prior to concepts. What are you? Only don't know means don't have concepts. Before concepts, what are you? Then one day don't know mind becomes clear (non-conceptuality clears away concepts that blocks direct realization) and one directly realizes and tastes one's luminous Essence.

But the "don't know mind" can often lead to another extreme at later phases, the disease of non-conceptuality ( ). But as a skillful means to bring about an initial direct non-conceptual realization of one's luminous essence, it's necessary. It should not be seen as a finality or main object of practice or go into the extreme.


Soh Wei Yu The emphasis of Seung Sahn teaching is using non-conceptuality to have direct no-mind experience (of mere colors, sounds, etc) by dissolving concepts and subject-object division in living experience so that the luminosity is tasted as the foreground without leaving a trace of a background self. Also dissolving the gap between actor and action into just action, or "Just do it".

But the lack of realization of right view means one is not able to overcome self-view at a fundamental level. A True Self that is not the aggregates, changeless, lies behind the aggregates and yet becomes one with the aggregates, a desync of view and experience. This is no different from the Atman-Brahman view, the ultimate Controller, Self.

This is why Seung Sahn wrote in The Compass of Zen,

"The most important thing is, Who is the driver of this car? You must answer that. When it is time for you to get a new car, what kind of car you will get? This is what the second gate asks. Someday you will have to answer this question with your own life.
But this car‘s appearing and disappearing doesn‘t matter. What is your driver? Does everybody understand their driver? [Hits the table.] That is your driver. The universe and you become one point—your true nature driver appears very clearly.
When we die, where do we return to? We have already seen how the body has life and death, but our true self has no life and no death, no coming or going. So our body is composed of four elements: earth, air fire, and water. When our body dies, these for elements are all dispersed. Then your master—this things that controlled your body—goes where? Remember, there is no coming, no going, and no staying. Universal substance and your substance
always become one. [Hits.] Speech"


Soh Wei Yu By the way just dropping control and surrendering will lead to the experience of nondoership and being lived but not necessarily I AM realization Nor nondual insights. For that you need self inquiry and other nondual contemplations and koans. But all these insights should be complemented.


Soh Wei Yu You asked if "don't know mind" alone is enough to lead to nondual realization.

Zen Master Seung Sahn leads to an important insight, in his own words:

"Your true self has no outside, no inside
Sound is clear mind, clear mind is sound
Sound and hearing are not separate, there is only sound"

It is similar to Thusness's second stanza of anatta -

I do not see any mention by Seung Sahn on the first stanza or no agent, and unlike your emphasis on non-doership and surrendering which is a more passive form of practice, Seung Sahn emphasize more on the experience of active non-dual action in full exertion. (Also, non-doership is not the realization of first stanza or no agent -- non-doership is just an aspect of it, and one can still experience the sense of an agent, watcher, and subject/object duality even while phenomena are experienced to be happening spontaneously by itself in nondoership - that is, an agent/watcher/etc exists but does not control what happens)

To realize that non-dual in the Kwan Um Zen school, keeping don't know mind is not enough, you need a koan. But don't know mind (free your mind from concepts) is important while doing any koan, as the answer can only be found through direct non-conceptual realization, so any concepts are wrong. There is no "correct" conceptual answer, the only correct answer is an expression that arises from fresh and non-conceptual experiential realization and taste of that moment.

What koans? You will have to ask a Zen master for that. Zen Master Seung Sahn emphasizes koan training for realization.

For me, just the two stanzas of anatta and Bahiya Sutta are enough. But there are many Zen koans that also lead to nondual and anatta realization and other facets of realization.

"Before birth, Who am I?" will lead to I AM realization. The following koans lead to nondual, along with "What is the sound of one hand clapping?":

"How Can I Speak?

T'aego was one of the great masters of the Korean Zen tradition. His wisdom was such that he was able to unify the Nine Mountains schools of Korean Zen into a single order (the Chogye Order, still the largest order of Korean Zen).

He was a prolific writer of essays, talks, and poetry. Here's a poem for your consideration:
How Can I Speak
All phenomena are beyond names and forms
The sounds of the streams and the colors of the mountains are closest
What is closest?
You can only please yourself: how can I speak?

T'aego's poem has a teaching direction, with each line functioning as a koan (Korean: kong-an). Here are questions that might arise from this poem:
1. What does "all phenomena are beyond names and forms" mean?
2. What does "the sounds of the streams and the colors of the mountains are closest" mean?
3. What is closest?
4. How can you speak?

In the Korean Zen tradition, students are often asked to respond to specific questions about a case or story. Some of the questions have a "wide gate," through which several types of answers might pass. Others have a "narrow gate," which would permit only a very precise answer. You might consider each line of T'aego's poem from this perspective.

You can learn more about T'aego in A Buddha from Korea: The Zen Teachings of T'aego, by J.C. Cleary."

This one is taught by Zen Master Seung Sahn:

"The mouse eats cat-food, but the cat-bowl is broken. What does this mean?"

"original face is clear,
manifest in the green pine
as well as in the white rocks.
if you wish to understand
the meaning of,
the mouse eats cat food,
and the cat’s bowl is broken;
you must attain
that a quarter is also
twenty five cents."

Don't ask me for an answer because I'm not a Zen master, and koan answers are not meant to be discussed publicly. Even if you realize the answer you should not post it online, because it will cause concepts for other people so it becomes more of a harm and hindrance than help. You have to find a qualified Zen master to do koan training if you are interested.

It is quite impossible to practice koan training without access to a qualified Zen teacher as a Zen teacher is required to converse back and forth with you while training in koan, to confirm your insights, or repudiate, or give you a new koan, or guide you. That is, if you are interested in pursuing this path.

0 Responses