Also see: Two Types of Nondual Contemplation after I AM
Exertion that is neither self-imposed nor imposed by others

Geovani Geo All is mind. There can no be doubts about that. And if searched no mind can be found. No mind can be pointed to, which is different from stating that there is no original mind nature, which is no determinable nature at all.

All being mind and all being indeterminate one can not positively point to some ground, some non-moving "thing" or parameter. So, talking of unmoving-ground or stating positively the lack of ground equally does not apply.

"It is like empty space; it cannot be held nor dropped." - Bodhidharma-


Soh Wei Yu All is mind must also go along with the realization that there is no mind.


Soh Wei Yu 2014:

John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 8:26pm UTC+08
When we see things as separate then u need a mirror and its reflections. When the whole of conditions r realized to b not separated then there is no need for this to interact with that.

Soh Wei YuSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 9:58pm UTC+08
Engrossed with the perculiar smells... taste.. touch.. colours of everything... this is vital and yet to realize its essence that is D.O is even more so

Soh Wei YuSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:18pm UTC+08
Now I know what you meant non local... looking at a picture on my phone of a grassland with children I feel like im in that world. Looking out the window I can zoom into another room and feel its environment and consciousness is just that. Condition is, manifestationawareness is

John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:24pm UTC+08
The purpose of anatta is to hv full blown experience of the heart -- boundlessly, completely, non-dually and non-locally. Re-read what I wrote to jax.
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:26pm UTC+08
In every situations, in all conditions, in all events. It is to eliminate unnecessarily contrievity so that our essence can b expressed without obscuration.
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:26pm UTC+08

John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:28pm UTC+08
Jax wants to point to the heart but is unable to express in a non-dual way...for in duality, the essence cannot be realized. All dualistic interpretation r mind made.
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:29pm UTC+08
U know the smile of Mahākāśyapa?
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:30pm UTC+08
Can u touch the heart of that smile even 2500 yrs later?
Soh Wei YuSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:30pm UTC+08
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:35pm UTC+08
One must lose all mind and body by feeling with entire mind and body this essence which is 心 (Mind). Yet 心 (Mind) too is 不可得 (ungraspable/unobtainable).. The purpose is not to deny 心 (Mind) but rather not to place any limitations or duality so that 心 (Mind) can fully manifest.
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:36pm UTC+08
Therefore without understanding 缘 (conditions),is to limit 心 (Mind). without understanding 缘 (conditions),is to place limitation in its manifestations.

John TanSunday, October 19, 2014 at 12:37am UTC+08
U must fully experience 心 (Mind) by realizing 无心 (No-Mind) and fully embrace the wisdom of 不可得 (ungraspable/unobtainable).

Soh Wei YuSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:28pm UTC+08
just now i shout PHAT! to snap back to instant presence.. seems like a good method to use sometimes
John TanSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:45pm UTC+08 fact as an immediate face to face encounter of the essence is good...
John TanSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:47pm UTC+08
Just the phat! That brings one into the immediate thoughtless encounter. Think u hv that instance of being blank out into Presence.
Soh Wei YuSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:48pm UTC+08
ic.. yeah..
John TanSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:49pm UTC+08
What abt the sound of silence?
Soh Wei YuSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:50pm UTC+08
still so
John TanSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:52pm UTC+08
Whatever encounters, just differing conditions...nvr the same, neither is it different.
Soh Wei YuSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:53pm UTC+08
ic.. yeah its perculiar according to conditions and yet same taste..


Soh Wei Yu Not only anatta, but one must realize Dependent Origination. Means from the direct taste of Heart/Mind in whatever manifestation, one also intuits the chain of dependencies involved in the total exertion of a given manifestation. The green is the pure visual-consciousness is not 'there' or 'here' or 'anywhere', is not produced by self, not produced by other, but appears due to conditions. Also it is not that everything is 'one awareness' - pure-visual-consciousness/green-display is perculiar-consciousness-instance according to a given condition, the experience of music, the sensation of hand pressing against an object, are all perculiar displays/consciousness-instances. And just like 'weather' is merely a name when certain patterns are appearing which we then call 'rain, cloud, wind, sunshine' (these too are mere labels), 'consciousness' is not one single unchanging static entity nor even one entity 'transforming into many' (as if weather is some pre-existing or self-existing 'entity' that morphs into various forms, rather than simply a label denoting the entire flow of aggregates and formations) but simply a label denoting the whole bundle or aggregate or composite or collection or heap of self-luminous aggregates/display/manifestation. Mere-name does not mean nothing at all exist but that the various appearances which is the vivid displays of luminosity do not amount to a substantially existing [existing by its own side, having its own essence, independent of conditions, or changeless] entity either in terms of subject or object, which is why the emptying of both leads to the actualization of suchness in the way described in Kalaka Sutta.

Suffering, afflictions, likewise manifest by dependencies. Some practitioners like AF think that when self is there, afflictions arise, as if the 'feeler' causes the 'feeling' but anatta and D.O. reveals that afflictions/sense-of-self/suffering manifest via dependencies and is nowhere located or stored anywhere nor is it produced by a feeler (there never was a feeler/agent/self/Self), the chain of dependencies is what is always involved in a given experience which is always empty of self/Self/agency. Likewise, 'Awareness'/'colors'/'taste'/'sounds'/'thoughts', etc never resided anywhere just like the reflection of moon on water never resided 'inside' the water but merely manifests in an illusory way due to dependencies -- when condition is, manifestation is, consciousness is - condition, manifestation and consciousness are one and inseparable, never separated and neither are they 'interacting' with each other in the case of a mirror reflecting (stage 4). It is revealed that all phenomena are neither produced by an agent, nor by another, are not existing by its own side, and in fact is unproduced, unoriginated, non-arising, due to merely appearing via conditionality.

All the terms that sounded ultimate, metaphysical and ontological now applies to Mind/Appearance but in a non-inherent, non-metaphysical, non-ontological manner. The sense of quiescence, unmoving, non-arising that once applied to an inherent Awareness now applies to Mind/Manifestation in a non-inherent manner. For as Nagarjuna said and I reiterate, if the conditioned/arising of phenomena cannot be established, how can the unconditioned be established [in contrast to so called conditionally arising/abiding/subsiding phenomena]? So as Thusness wrote many years ago, 'The next understanding u must have after anatta and emptiness is to know that all qualities similar to those that are described and sounded ontological are always manifesting presently, spontaneously and effortlessly after the purification of anatta and emptiness insights.'

All displays are 'illusory' not because it is 'mentally projected' nor due to being subsumed to be 'mere modulations of consciousness' (like one mind) but because whatever appears is nothing there or here or anywhere but appearing via dependencies in total exertion. The taste of illusoriness and indestructible non-arising of a given self-luminous Mind/Heart display which is the total exertion of D.O. must be complemented, -A and +A:

And as Thusness wrote in 2014,

John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:42am UTC+08
Actually if u do not see DO [dependent origination], u do not see Buddhism. Anatta is just the beginning.

John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:46am UTC+08
Be it Buddha himself, Nagarjuna or Tsongkhapa none never got overwhelmed and amazed with the profundity of dependent origination. It is just that we do not hv the wisdom to penetrate enough depth of it.

John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:54am UTC+08
If u see dependent origination and emptiness then Advaita is world apart from Buddhism, if u actualized ur view into non-dual experience, then it is different from top to bottom. Simply looking at Awareness and no-self, besides non-dual empty clarity and substantial non-duality clarity, u will not b able to distinguish much.

John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:56am UTC+08
So answer Mike Scarf from DO and emptiness perspective.

John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 9:07am UTC+08
Just bring out the importance of DO. But what written is NOT the essence. The essence is the freedom from extremes of DO, the "nature" of mind and phenomena is realized to b dependent arising and empty. Dependent arising is exactly non-arising be it whether one sees dependencies from production, designation, relations or imputing consciousness. Conceptual or non-conceptual experiences, permanent or impermanent phenomena, conditioned or unconditioned phenomena, all dependently originates, empty and non-arising. If one sees this, how could it b Advaita....


Soh Wei Yu Also I wrote in

Nothing other than the sun, the moon, and the stars

“Buddha - mind - *is* (not, ‘is like’) mountains, rivers, and the earth, the sun, moon, and stars. Mind *is* houses and streets, animals, guns, plants, thoughts, bombs, corpses, laughter, and cancers. Mind *is* all particular dharmas as they are; *particular* dharmas. All particular dharmas *are* this mind *as it is; this* mind. This tree *is* the mind *as it is*, the mind *as it is*, is all dharmas, hence *is* this tree. That this tree is mind ‘as it is,’ means mind only exists *as mind* by virtue of this tree existing *as this tree*. Because this tree *is* mind ‘as it is,’ it actually goes too far to say ‘is mind,’ and is more accurate to simply say ‘this tree.’

As Dogen puts it:

‘Mind as mountains, rivers, and the earth is nothing other than mountains, rivers, and the earth. There are no additional waves or surf, no wind or smoke. Mind as the sun, the moon, and the stars is nothing other than the sun, the moon, and the stars.’

Shobogenzo, Soku-shin-ze-butsu”

From Zen Cosmology: Dogen’s Contribution to the Search for a New Worldview by Ted Biringer



Mind is skin, flesh, bones and marrow. Mind is taking up a flower and smiling. There is having mind and having no mind... Blue, yellow, red, and white are mind. Long, short, square, and round are mind. The coming and going of birth and death are mind. Year, month, day, and hour are mind. The coming and going of birth and death are mind. Water, foam, splash, and flame are mind. Spring flowers and autumn moon are mind. All things that arise and fall away are mind.


The quote above from Zen Cosmology is useful for those who are stuck in 'One Mind'. The urge to retain an image of the luminescence of mind is dissolved by realizing that mind is none other than the self-luminosity of the ten thousand things. Therefore "Mind as mountains, rivers, and the earth is nothing other than mountains, rivers, and the earth." -- no more subsuming everything to be "contained by Mind" despite experiencing Mind as being nondual with everything (a subtle referencing back of non-dual experience to the source and substance underlying all), only ongoing actualization of myriad phenomena 'advancing into novelty'.

Before birth, I AM - mere conscious-existence-bliss. Before ten thousand things, I AM, but that too is later seen to be simply one aspect of the ten thousand things. If one holds onto one 'face of Presence' (the formless, shining void aspect of mind) you fail to see the manifold textures, forms and colors are simply different faces of Presence.

Zen is about directly touching one's heart and mind, and that begins with the I AM realization. But soon it becomes a dead image of some static background. If instead we can penetrate by insight into anatta and forego all dead or 'ghostly' images and directly taste the Heart in every manifestation and exertion, everything reveals itself to be one seamless aliveness and intelligence.

Soh Wei Yu Geovani Geo: I am unable to find these quotes in any books:

"(...) the empty expanse of the ground of all phenomena"

"As the final stage of the gradual way, the practitioner unites with the Way by seeing the emptiness of Self and all phenomena and by recognizing the empty expanse of the ground of all phenomena."

Seems to be from Wayofbodhi site. Can you provide the book reference and which quote you are referring to?

LikeShow more reactions

Geovani Geo Soh, I cant find the source from where I copied that quote either(???)

But I found this one:

"A Tathagata’s forms are endless. And so is his awareness." The endless variety of forms is due to the mind. Its ability to distinguish things, whatever their movement or state, is the mind’s awareness. But the mind has no form and its awareness no limit. Hence it’s said, "A Tathagata’s forms are endless. And so is his awareness." A material body of the four elements" is trouble. A material body is subject to birth and death. But the real body exists without existing, because a Tathagata’s real body never changes. (Bloodstream Sermon - translated by red pine)

"(...)because a Tathagata’s real body never changes"

LikeShow more reactions

Soh Wei Yu 故云如来色无尽,智慧亦复然。色无尽是自心,心识善能分别一切,乃至施为运用,皆是智慧。心无形相,智慧亦无尽。故云如来色无尽,智慧亦复然。四大色身,即是烦恼,色身即有生灭,法身常住无所住,如来法身常不变异故。

Most English translations are not precise.

Here's my translation, as precise and word-for-word as possible:

"The sutras say, Tathagata's forms are limitless, wisdom is likewise. The limitless forms are one's mind, mind-consciousness is able to distinguish everything, and even actions and functions are all wisdom. Mind is without form, wisdom is limitless, [and hence] the sutras say that that Tathagata's forms are limitless, wisdom is likewise. The form-body of the four great elements are suffering, form-body has birth and death, dharma-body [dharmakaya] eternally abides without abiding anywhere, as the Tathagata's dharmakaya never alters."

It is misleading to translate dharmakaya (the body of phenomena) as 'real body'. For in truth dharmakaya refers to the nature of phenomena, empty and having never arisen. The nature of phenomena being non-arisen, how can there be abiding, change, and cessation? In direct taste it's just lucid appearance, but nothing there, nothing undergoing birth, abiding/change nor cessation, all phenomena are complete quiescence and illusory yet simultaneously a vivid brilliant luminosity. But the word 'real' often connotes something like substantial reality, so it is misleading. I do not like translations that change words at the whims and fancies of the translator.

Even to speak of the nature of phenomena is also conventional. Dharmakaya is also unreal (the emptiness aspect), the sambhogakaya is also unreal (the luminous clarity aspect), the nirmanakaya is also unreal (the energetic manifestation aspect), and the three bodies are inseparable or three aspects of our experiential 'reality'.

Thusness wrote in 2013:

John Tan Haha Jackson, u never give up.

This heart is the "space" of where, the "time" of when and the "I" of who.

In hearing, it's that "sound".

In seeing, it's that "scenery".

In thinking, it is that "eureka"!

In snapping a finger, it is seizing the whole entire moment of that instantaneous "snapping".

Just marvelous such as it is on the fly.

So no "it" but thoroughly empty.

To u this "heart" is most real, to dzogchen it is illusory. Though illusory, it is fully vivid and brilliance. Since it is illusory, it nvr really truly arise. There is genuine "treasure" in the illusory.

I think Kyle has a lot points to share. Do unblock him.

Nice chat And happy journey jax!

December 12, 2013 at 8:24am · Unlike · 10


Also Thusness wrote way back:

John Tan Hi Kyle, Actually I am saying instead of attempting to deconstruct endlessly, why not resolved that that pure experience itself is empty and non-arising. In hearing, there is only sound. This clear clean and pure sound, treat and see it as the X (treat and see it like an imputation/conventional designation as u explained), empty and non-arising. In seeing, just scenery, just this clear clean and lurid scenery. Where is this scenery? Inside, outside, other’s mind or our mind? Unfindable but nonetheless appears vibrantly. This arising thought, this dancing sensation, this passing scent, all share the same taste. All experiences are like that -- like mirages and rainbows, illusory and non-arising, they are free from the 4 extremes. Resolved that all experiences are non-arising then pure sensory experiences and conventional constructs will be of equal taste. Realize this to be the nature of experience and illusory appearances will taste magic and vajra (indestructible)! Groundless and naturally releasing! Just my 2 cents of blah blah blah in new year. Happy New Year Kyle. 2 minutes ago • Unlike • 1 February 6 at 1:50am · Edited · Like"

LikeShow more reactions

Soh Wei Yu When Bodhidharma came to China, he brought with him Lankavatara Sutra to China, and that is the only sutra he asked his followers to study.

The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on (and he equates the tathagatagarbha with ‘emptiness,’ ‘formlessness,’ or ‘intentionlessness,’ or ‘realm of reality,’ ‘dharma nature,’ or ‘dharma body,’ or ‘nirvana,’ ‘what is devoid of self-existence,’ or ‘what neither arises nor ceases,’ or ‘original quiescence,’ or ‘intrinsic nirvana,’ or similar expressions.299), and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:

Mahamati Bodhisattva then asked the Buddha, “In the sutras, the Bhagavan says that the tathagata-garbha295 is intrinsically pure, endowed with thirty-two attributes296 and present in the bodies of all beings, and that, like a priceless jewel wrapped in soiled clothing,297 the ever-present, unchanging tathagata-garbha is likewise wrapped in the soiled clothing of the skandhas, dhatus, and ayatanas and stained with the stain of the erroneous projections of greed, anger, and delusion,298 and that this is what all buddhas teach. How is it that what the Bhagavan says about the tathagata-garbha is the same as what followers of other paths say about a self? Bhagavan, followers of other paths also speak of an immortal creator without attributes, omnipresent and indestructible. And they say this, Bhagavan, is the self.”

The Buddha replied, “Mahamati, the tathagata-garba of which I speak is not the same as the self mentioned by followers of other paths. Mahamati, when I speak about the tathagata-garbha, sometimes I call it ‘emptiness,’ ‘formlessness,’ or ‘intentionlessness,’ or ‘realm of reality,’ ‘dharma nature,’ or ‘dharma body,’ or ‘nirvana,’ ‘what is devoid of self-existence,’ or ‘what neither arises nor ceases,’ or ‘original quiescence,’ or ‘intrinsic nirvana,’ or similar expressions.299 “It is to put an end to the fear foolish beings have about the expression ‘no self’ that the tathagatas, the arhats, the fully enlightened ones proclaim the teaching of the tathagata-garbha as a projectionless realm devoid of fabrications. Mahamati, bodhisattvas of the present and the future should not become attached to any view of a self. “Take for example a potter who applies such things as manual labor, water, a stick, a wheel, and a string to a lump of clay to make different kinds of vessels. The Tathagata is also like this, applying wisdom and a variety of skillful means to what has no self and is free from projection. Sometimes I speak about the tathagatagarbha and sometimes no self. Thus, the tathagata-garbha of which I speak is not the same as the self spoken of by followers of other paths. This is what is meant by the teaching of the tathagata-garbha. The tathagata-garbha is taught to attract those members of other paths who are attached to a self so that they will give up their projection of an unreal self and will enter the threefold gate of liberation300 and aspire to attain unexcelled, complete enlightenment forthwith. This is why the tathagatas, the arhats, the fully enlightened ones speak in this manner about the tathagata-garbha. To speak otherwise would be to agree with the followers of other paths. Therefore, Mahamati, in order to avoid the views of followers of other paths, you should rely on the selfless tathagata-garbha.”


LikeShow more reactions

Soh Wei Yu <-- a="" attributeless="" brahman="" clear="" nirguna="" of="" or="" qualities="" rahman="" refutation="" self="" span="" the="" vedantic="" without="">

When studying Lankavatara Sutra, refer to the Red Pine translations. Older translations like those from D T Suzuki are not accurate.

LikeShow more reactions

Soh Wei Yu I have personally read Lankavatara Sutra and many other scriptures. In Lankavatara Sutra there is not even one verse that supports the substantialistic notion of Mind or an unchanging awareness of the Vedanta kind.

LikeShow more reactions

Soh Wei Yu Bodhidharma is very clear in the 达摩祖师悟性论 (Patriarch Bodhidharma's Treatise of Realizing Nature aka The Wakeup Sermon - ) that 色不自色,由心故色;心不自心,由色故心 - form is not form in and of itself, form is due to mind; mind is not mind in and of itself, mind is due to form. This is the two-way dependency as discussed by Greg Goode -

Other verses in the same treatise:


If one knows that Mind is [merely] a false name [conventional designation], without a substantial existence, is to know that one's own mind is neither existent, nor [is it] non-existent.


If within there does not arise Mind, then outside there will not arise environment, environment and mind both purified [emptied], this is called true seeing.


Knowing Mind is empty, this is called seeing Buddha.

LikeShow more reactions

Soh Wei Yu Seeing Mind as mere name/designation is similar to what Nagarjuna has taught:

Nāgārjuna's Bodhicittavivaraṇa


The cognizer perceives the cognizable;
Without the cognizable there is no cognition;
Therefore why do you not admit
That neither object nor subject exists [at all]?
The mind is but a mere name;
Apart from its name it exists as nothing;
So view consciousness as a mere name;
Name too has no intrinsic nature.
Either within or likewise without,
Or somewhere in between the two,
The conquerors have never found the mind;
So the mind has the nature of an illusion.
The distinctions of colors and shapes,
Or that of object and subject,
Of male, female and the neuter –
The mind has no such fixed forms.
In brief the Buddhas have never seen
Nor will they ever see [such a mind];
So how can they see it as intrinsic nature
That which is devoid of intrinsic nature?
“Entity” is a conceptualization;
Absence of conceptualization is emptiness;
Where conceptualization occurs,
How can there be emptiness?
The mind in terms of the perceived and perceiver,
This the Tathagatas have never seen;
Where there is the perceived and perceiver,
There is no enlightenment.
Devoid of characteristics and origination,
Devoid of substantive reality and transcending speech,
Space, awakening mind and enlightenment
Possess the characteristics of non-duality.
Those abiding in the heart of enlightenment,
Such as the Buddhas, the great beings,
And all the great compassionate ones
Always understand emptiness to be like space.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview13h

Geovani Geo Soh Wei Yu, yes, there is no mind. Fwiw, I never suggested there is one.

Re Thusness post above, coincidentally, I was thinking in the same lines, just a few minutes ago. He said, "Resolved that all experiences are non-arising then pure sensory experiences and conventional constructs will be of equal taste". I would say that the "same taste" is the "realness" of whatever is constructed or sensed - it does not matter. There is no need to posit some ground, (aka Awreness) to realize this taste of "realness". Whatever is appearing (or not appearing, for the matter) denotes what i will now call "on". Anything appearing, sensed, imputed, constructed, attributed, in any whatsoever way is what is "on", and this "on"-ness is the one taste of what IS. Now an analogy: its like someone born blind, submitted to some special treatment, suddenly sees. He needs not understand whether what he sees has substance or not, where it came from, how did it appear, conventional or divine, pure or impure, no. Seeing became "on".

LikeShow more reactions

Geovani Geo Obviously, differently from the blind man simile, nothing "became" on, for nothing could ever be "off". No real or un-real may lack the on-ness I am talking about. The falseness of the false is just as real as truth.

LikeShow more reactions

Soh Wei Yu After anatta there is a sense of incredible vividness and aliveness (or some may say realness or some say actuality or actualness) of every sensate phenomena. But some then fall into another extreme of reification (previously subjective pole but now swSee More

LikeShow more reactions

Soh Wei Yu Geovani Geo

"Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion."400 A Bodhisattva is a mere dream. Even the Buddha is only a name. Even the Perfect Wisdom itself is a mere name. Dreams, echoes, reflections, images, mirage, illusion, magic, void—such are all objects of intellect.401 The Śatasāhasrikā Prajñā-pāramitā (八 千 頌 般 惹 經) also condemns all dharmas as illusory. They have neither origination nor decay, they neither increase nor decrease, they are neither suffering nor its cessation, they are neither affirmation nor negation, neither eternal nor momentary, neither Śūnyatā nor aśūnyatā.402 They are mere names and forms. They are Māyā (夢 幻). And Māyā is declared to be an inconsistent category which cannot resist dialectical scrutiny and which is ultimately found to neither existent nor non-existent.403 All phenomena arc mere names; they are only a convention, a usage, a practical compromise.404 The Laṇkāvatāra (楞 伽 經) condemns them to be like an illusion, a dream, a mirage, a hare’s horn, a barren woman’s son, a magic city, the double moon, a moving fire-brand presenting an appearance of a circle, a hair seen floating in the atmosphere by defective vision, an empty space, a sky-flower, a mere echo, a reflection, a painting, a puppet like mechanism, which can be called neither existent nor non-existent.405

Many Mahāyāna sūtras such as the Lalitavistara (神 通 遊 戲 經),406 the Samādhirāja (三 妹 王 經)407 and the Suvarṇaprabhāsa (金 光 明 經) 408... also join in such descriptions.


LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview44m

Soh Wei Yu Geovani Geo Thusness Stage 6 commentary:

Here practice is clearly understood as neither going after the mirror nor escaping from the maya reflection; it is to thoroughly 'see' the 'nature' of reflection. To see that there is really no mirror other than the on-going reflection due to our emptiness nature. Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background reality nor a maya to escape from. Beyond these two extreme lies the middle path -- the prajna wisdom of seeing that the maya is our Buddha nature.”

LikeShow more reactions
0 Responses