No Awareness Does Not Mean the Denial of Awareness or Luminosity

John Tan: Why is he talking about 靈妙覺體 [spiritual and marvellous body of awareness]

Soh Wei Yu: It's just the luminosity? What do you mean

John Tan: There is no denial of clarity or luminosity, it is the singling out of luminosity that is the problem. Why is luminosity luminous? It is an irrelevant question. There is no such [inherently existing] clarity Because of inherent thought, we understand 靈妙覺體 [spiritual and marvellous body of awareness] as standalone, singled out from DO (Dependent Origination) or otherwise we are understanding it as "interaction". Or if conceptuality is a problem then non-conceptuality must be the solution. Or subsuming object into subject or subject into object… It is addressing this way of thinking, of understanding is a misperception. It is not to imply that there is no clarity… but what is clarity when it is not understood using this flawed mode of perception. In Buddhism, it is not how. It's always under what conditions such phenomena arises. So when this cause & condition persists, the phenomena will arise. First is to bring out the point to ask why appearances "arises" in Awareness is the same as asking why is awareness aware in awareness teaching. Why so? For the convention we call awareness is only ever appearances. Then address what is flawed mode of perception… As I have given above. So why does appearances appear to arise in Awareness? Because of ignorance

John Tan: If Buddha asks Ananda, where is mind… if mind is not outside, not inside, not in the middle, not within the body… then is he Ananda going to think that Buddha doesn't dare to affirm where is the mind? Then Ananda will never know the meaning of DO. And the problem of how inherent thought blinds one from seeing and having direct experiential insight of what is meant by freedom from extreme.

John Tan: When you present to 不思, you must not deny 觉 (awareness). But emphasized how 覺 (awareness) is effortlessly and marvelously manifests without the slightest sense of referencing and point of centricity and duality and subsuming… be it here, now, in, out… this can only come from realization of anatta, DO and emptiness so that the spontaneity of 相 (appearance) is realized to one's radiance clarity.

Thusness: Buddhism stresses more on direct experience. There is no-self apart from the arising and ceasing

AEN: I see…

Thusness: And from arising and ceasing one sees the emptiness nature of 'Self' There is Witnessing. Witnessing is the manifestation. There is no witness witnessing manifestation. That is Buddhism. I have always said it is not the denial of eternal witness. But what exactly is that eternal witness? It is the real understanding of eternal witness.

AEN: Yes I thought so So it's something like David Carse right

Thusness: Without the 'seeing' and 'veil' of momentum, of reacting to propensities.

AEN: Emptiness, yet luminous I see.

Thusness: However when one quote what buddha said, does he understand first of all. Is he seeing eternal witness as in the advaita?

AEN: He's probably confused

Thusness: Or is he seeing free from propensities.

AEN: He never explicitly mention but I believe his understanding is something like that

Thusness: So there is no point quoting if it is not seen.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Otherwise it is just saying the atman view again. So you should be very clear by now… and not to be confused.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: What have I told you? You have also written in your blog. What is eternal witness? It is the manifestation… moment to moment of arising Does one see with the propensities and what is really it? That is more important. I have said so many times that the experience is correct but the understanding is wrong. Wrong view. And how perception influence experience and wrong understanding. So don't quote here and there with just a snap shot… Be very very clear and know with wisdom so that you will know what is right and wrong view. Otherwise you will be reading this and get confused with that. It is not to deny the existence of the luminosity The knowingness. But rather to have the correct view of what consciousness is. Like non-dual, I said there is no witness apart from the manifestation, the witness is really the manifestation This is the first part Since the witness is the manifestation, how is it so? How is the one is really the many?

AEN: Conditions?

Thusness: Saying that the one is the many is already wrong. This is using conventional way of expression. For in reality, there is no such thing of the 'one' And the many There is only arising and ceasing due to emptiness nature And the arising and ceasing itself is the clarity. There is no clarity apart from the phenomena If we experience non-dual like Ken Wilber and talk about the atman. Though the experience is true, the understanding is wrong. This is similar to "I AM". Except that it is higher form of experience. It is non-dual.

Thusness: Yes Actually practice is not to deny this 'Jue' (awareness) The way you explained as if 'there is no Awareness'. People at times mistaken what you are trying to convey, but to correctly understand this 'jue' so that it can be experienced from all moments effortlessly. But when a practitioner heard that it is not 'IT', they immediately began to worry because it is their most precious state. All the phases written is about this 'Jue' or Awareness. However what Awareness really is isn't correctly experienced. Because it isn't correctly experienced, we say that 'Awareness that you try to keep' does not exist in such a way. It does not mean there is no Awareness.

Thusness: It is not that there is no awareness. It is understanding awareness not from a subject/object view Not from an inherent view. That is dissolving subject/object understanding into events, action, karma Then we gradually understand that the 'feeling' of someone there is really just a 'sensation' of an inherent view Means a 'sensation', a 'thought' of an inherent view:P How this lead to liberation requires the direct experience So liberation it is not freedom from 'self' but freedom from 'inherent view'

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Get it? But it is important to experience luminosity

Thusness: Not bad for self-enquiry

AEN: I see… By the way what do you think Lucky and Chandrakirti is trying to convey

Thusness: Those quotes weren't really well translated in my opinion. What needs be understood is 'No I' is not to deny Witnessing consciousness. And 'No Phenomena' is not to deny Phenomena It is just for the purpose of 'de-constructing' the mental constructs.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: When you hear sound, you cannot deny it… can you?

AEN: Yes

Thusness: So what are you denying? When you experience the Witness as you described in your thread 'certainty of being', how can you deny this realization? So what is does 'no I' and 'no phenomena' mean?

AEN: Like you said it's only mental constructs that are false… But consciousness can't be denied?

Thusness: No… I am not saying that Buddha never denied the aggregates Just the selfhood The problem is what is meant by 'non-inherent', empty nature, of phenomena and 'I'

Thusness: But understanding it wrongly is another matter can you deny Witnessing? Can you deny that certainty of being?

AEN: No

Thusness: Then there is nothing wrong with it how could you deny your very own existence? How could you deny existence at all There is nothing wrong experiencing directly without intermediary the pure sense of existence After this direct experience, you should refine your understanding, your view, your insights Not after the experience, deviate from the right view, re-enforce your wrong view You do not deny the witness, you refine your insight of it what is meant by non-dual What is meant by non-conceptual what is being spontaneous what is the 'impersonality' aspect What is luminosity. You never experience anything unchanging In later phase, when you experience non-dual, there is still this tendency to focus on a background… And that will prevent your progress into the direct insight into the TATA as described in the tata article. And there are still different degree of intensity even you realized to that level.

AEN: Non-dual?

Thusness: tada (an article) is more than non-dual… it is phase 5-7

AEN: I see…

Thusness: It is all about the integration of the insight of anatta and emptiness Vividness into transience, feeling what I called 'the texture and fabric' of Awareness as forms is very important then come emptiness The integration of luminosity and emptiness Do not deny that Witnessing but refine the view, that is very important So far, you have correctly emphasized the importance of witnessing Unlike in the past, you gave people the impression that you are denying this witnessing presence You merely deny the personification, reification and objectification So that you can progress further and realize our empty nature. But don't always post what I told you in MSN In no time, I will become sort of cult leader

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Anatta is no ordinary insight. When we can reach the level of thorough transparency, you will realize the benefits Non-conceptuality, clarity, luminosity, transparency, openness, spaciousness, thoughtlessness, non-locality… all these descriptions become quite meaningless.

Thusness: It is always witnessing… don't get it wrong just whether one understands its emptiness nature or not. There is always luminosity since when there is no witnessing? It is just luminosity and emptiness nature not luminosity alone There is always this witnessing… it is the divided sense that you have to get rid That is why I never deny the witness experience and realization, just the right understanding

Thusness: There is no problem being the witness, the problem is only wrong understanding of what witness is. That is seeing duality in Witnessing. Or seeing 'Self' and other, subject-object division. That is the problem. You can call it Witnessing or Awareness, there must be no sense of self. Yes witnessing not witness In witnessing, it is always non-dual When in witness, it is always a witness and object being witness when there is an observer, there is no such thing as no observed When you realised that there is only witnessing, there is no observer and observed it is always non-dual That is why when genpo something said there is no witness only witnessing, yet taught the staying back and observed I commented the path deviates from the view

AEN: I see…

Thusness: When you teach experience the witness, you teach that that is not about no subject-object split you are teaching one to experience that witness First stage of insight of the "I AM" Are you denying the "I AMness" experience?

AEN: You mean in the post? No It's more like the nature of 'I am' right

Thusness: What is being denied?

AEN: The dualistic understanding?

Thusness: Yes it is the wrong understanding of that experience. Just like 'redness' of a flower.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Vivid and seems real and belongs to the flower. It only appears so, it is not so. When we see in terms of subject/object dichotomy, it appears puzzling that there is thoughts, no thinker. There is sound, no hearer and there is rebirth, but no permanent soul being reborn. It is puzzling because of our deeply held view of seeing things inherently where dualism is a subset of this 'inherent' seeing. So what is the problem?

AEN: I see… The deeply held views?

Thusness: Yes What is the problem?

AEN: Back

Thusness: The problem is the root cause of suffering lies in this deeply held view. We search and are attached because these views. This is the relationship between 'view' and 'consciousness'. There is no escape. With inherent view, there is always 'I' and 'Mine'. There is always 'belongs' like the 'redness' belongs to the flower. Therefore despite all transcendental experiences, there is no liberation without right understanding.

Thusness: By the way, you should not tell people about there is no such witness exist.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: It is right understanding of what witness is all about.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: “Today I noticed that trying to remove perceived unclear thoughts and confusion has nothing to do with the unstained awareness that is already so.” what have you understood?

AEN: Awareness is not affected by any particular thoughts?

Thusness: Meaning? There is awareness and there is thoughts? And awareness is not affected by thoughts? By the way what is meant by affected?

AEN: Means it's still present regardless what is arising

Thusness: Means you are referring to the state of presence?

AEN: Yes.. Presence and knowingness

Thusness: What is inseparability to you? Do you understand "inseparable" only at the conceptual level and stop at just the "meaning" of it? Just simply knowing by definition? Or at the non-conceptual level? Is your understanding at the level of direct experience which is non-conceptual or conceptual?

AEN: Think still more towards conceptual

Thusness: Presence and arising are not separated

AEN: I see.

Thusness: What is 'inseparable' here? At the non-dual level, at the anatta level or DO level?

AEN: Nondual?

Thusness: You must observe and directly experience every arising in bare, raw and free from labelling first. Then upon analysis, there is still an observer and the observed

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Until you are so clear in real time experience that the observer and the observed are one. Then you further investigate this experience if they are always one, why is there any separation in the first place? Why experience occasionally appears split?

AEN: Propensities?

Thusness: Continue this investigation and experience the split as well as the non-dual. Till you are thoroughly clear that observer and observed is merely an assumption. There is always only observation. Just one pure witnessing.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: This is the non-dual experience that you must have in order to understand the Advaita witnessing. One whole Experience. You do not say it is flowing through the Eye, there is absolutely no difference between the light and everything. The light is the everything. You must have this experience first.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: After this do not extrapolate, do not reify, do not abstract anything further. Any urge to go beyond, see with clarity it is the tendency… until you are able to rest completely first.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Until you are able to rest completely first. => I mean you must be able to rest deeply in this non-dual experience first then understand anatta and DO from there. There is no denial of this non-dual Witnessing. It is only right understanding of this experience.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Because of the inability of going beyond the dualistic framework, there is such "You are me" and "I am you" such erroneous concept by extrapolating an ultimate essence that all shares. This is what I do not want you to get into. But the dissolution of the split is most precious and important.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: I have to go makan

AEN: Ok.. See you

Thusness: It is most important to realize that this Witnessing is by nature non-dual and has always been so but that has nothing to do with an ultimate nature. Having this non-dual experience has nothing to do with an ultimate nature.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: So not to extrapolate, reify, abstract anything further but rather allow complete resting in this non-dual state first and allow the tendency to extrapolate to settle. Because if we extrapolate and entertain this tendency, it blinds us further. In fact that is the cause of suffering. Despite this non-dual non-conceptual experience of the witnessing itself, we are still not free the tendency to reify.

AEN: I see… Extrapolate means think conceptually?

Thusness: Many misunderstood that DO denies freedom as it is 'dependent'. This is attempting to understanding DO through a dualistic framework. In actual experience, DO leads to liberation whereas attachment to an ultimate essence is the cause of suffering despite having clear and direct experience of the non-dual non-conceptual aspect of Awareness. Extrapolate means deducing further than what is being actually experienced. I have always told you that "I AM" is a direct experience of Awareness. But you are telling people it does not exist I am saying it is not the experience of our Buddha nature. I said that this experience is misunderstood

AEN: I see…

Thusness: I told you many times that nothing is more precious than a direct touch of this luminous nature but no experience is more dangerous than misinterpreting this experience, this direct touch.

John Tan: “In zen though they say there is no mind, they in fact embrace mind more fully than all is mind, until no trace of mind can be detected. Yet [Ven.] Sheng Yen said this is just the entry point of zen because originally there is no mind and this is clearly realized in anatta. So post anatta, mind and phenomena are completely indistinguishable. If both mind and phenomena are completely indistinguishable in experience, then distinctions are nothing more than conventional designation of empty luminous display.

Soh Wei Yu: I see… By the way did Sheng Yen realise anatta?

John Tan: So you must know when we say no awareness, no self, no I, it doesn't mean nothing. It is seeing through the background construct and open the gate to directly taste, experience and effortlessly authenticate clarity. I believe so but he did not talk about his experience except the stanza before his death that is beautiful. “无事忙中老，空里有哭笑，本来没有我，生死皆可抛” 台湾高僧圣严法师圆寂 (Busy with nothing till old. (无事忙中老) In emptiness, there is weeping and laughing. (空里有哭笑) Originally there never was any 'I'. (本来没有我) Thus life and death can be cast aside. (生死皆可抛)) - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/…/differentiate…

Interviewer: "And not only awareness…"

Daniel: "Intelligence. Right, and I also reject from an experiential point of view the people who would make this permanent, something separate from, something different from just the manifestation itself. I don't like the permanence aspect because from a Buddhist technical point of view I do not find anything that stands up as permanent in experience. I find that quality always there *while there is experience.* Because it's something in the nature of experience. But it's not quite the same thing as permanence, if that makes sense. So while there is experience, there is experience. So that means there is awareness, from a certain point of view, manifestation - awareness being intrinsically the same thing, intrinsic to each other. So while there is experience, I would claim that element (awareness) is there - it has to be for there to be experience. And I would claim that the system seems to function very lawfully and it's very easy to feel that there's a sort of intelligence, ok, cool… the feeling of profundity, the feeling of miraculousness, the wondrous component. So as the Tibetans would say, amazing! It all happens by itself! So, there is intrinsically amazing about this. It's very refreshingly amazing that the thing happens, and that things cognize themselves or are aware where they are, manifestation is truly amazing and tuning into that amazingness has something valuable about it from a pragmatic point of view."

John: But experientially same but just the degree of right understanding Not exactly one mind Do you feel everything as Self now? As in that experience of I M powerfully present at this moment

Soh Wei Yu: Yes presence, but as change

John: As if like Awareness clear and open like space, without meditation yet powerfully present and non-dual Where the 4 Aspects of I M are fully experienced in this moment

Soh Wei Yu: Yes I think the four aspects is only fully experienced after nondual and anatta, especially effortlessness and no need to abide

John: This experience will become more and more powerful later yet effortless and uncontrived How so? If it is not correct insights and practice, how is it possible for such complete and total experience of effortless and uncontrived Presence be possible?

Soh Wei Yu: I do not see it is possible without the proper insights and practice In anatta every activity is it, is buddha nature, so no contrivance at all No need to meditate to get anywhere But meditation is still important to cultivate certain aspects like tranquility

John: Indeed and this is being authenticated by the immediate moment of experience. How could there be doubt about it. The last trace of Presence must be released with seeing through the emptiness nature of whatever arises.

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

John: After maturing and integrating your insights into practice, there must be no effort and action… The entire whole is doing the work and arises as this vivid moment of shimmering appearance, this has always been what we always called Presence.

John Tan: By the way, are experiences (appearances), immensely crystal, brilliance and sharp..without any background… so crystal that a sense of transparency arises? It must be a natural and effortless In normal circumstances, having enough rest and relax… without need to meditate… natural and relax Not when you are busy So crystal that there is always this sense of absorption Openness like space, clear and boundless In later phase, it must be even stronger than the initial phase (Soh: of anatta) You need to have enough rest and if possible take more vegetables

Soh Wei Yu: I'm eating durian chendol in malacca Famous shop here very nice The shop is playing jing kong fa shi vcd He talks about an unborn undying ling xing - spirit That which reborns in six realms he says is not the body but the ling xing spirit It is that which goes to pure land Haha

John Tan: His view is more substantial view. Buddhism does not deny luminous clarity, in fact, it is to have total, uncontrived, direct non-referential of clarity in all moments… therefore no-self apart from manifestation. Otherwise one is only holding ghost images. So understanding a spirit traveling in the 6 realms is different from recognizing these realms are nothing more than one's radiance clarity.

John Tan: “The Absolute as separated from the transience is what I have indicated as the 'Background' in my 2 posts to theprisonergreco. 84. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4] Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT Hi theprisonergreco, First is what exactly is the ‘background’? Actually it doesn’t exist. It is only an image of a ‘non-dual’ experience that is already gone. The dualistic mind fabricates a ‘background’ due to the poverty of its dualistic and inherent thinking mechanism. It ‘cannot’ understand or function without something to hold on to. That experience of the ‘I’ is a complete, non-dual foreground experience. When the background subject is understood as an illusion, all transience phenomena reveal themselves as Presence. It is like naturally 'vipassanic' throughout. From the hissing sound of PC, to the vibration of the moving MRT train, to the sensation when the feet touches the ground, all these experiences are crystal clear, no less “I AM” than “I AM”. The Presence is still fully present, nothing is denied. -:) So the “I AM” is just like any other experiences when the subject-object split is gone. No different from an arising sound. It only becomes a static background as an afterthought when our dualistic and inherent tendencies are in action. The first 'I-ness' stage of experiencing awareness face to face is like a point on a sphere which you called it the center. You marked it. Then later you realized that when you marked other points on the surface of a sphere, they have the same characteristics. This is the initial experience of non-dual. Once the insight of No-Self is stabilized, you just freely point to any point on the surface of the sphere -- all points are a center, hence there is no 'the' center. 'The' center does not exist: all points are a center. After then practice move from 'concentrative' to 'effortlessness'. That said, after this initial non-dual insight, 'background' will still surface occasionally for another few years due to latent tendencies… 86. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4] To be more exact, the so called 'background' consciousness is that pristine happening. There is no a 'background' and a 'pristine happening'. During the initial phase of non-dual, there is still habitual attempt to 'fix' this imaginary split that does not exist. It matures when we realized that anatta is a seal, not a stage; in hearing, always only sounds; in seeing always only colors, shapes and forms; in thinking, always only thoughts. Always and already so. -:) Many non-dualists after the intuitive insight of the Absolute hold tightly to the Absolute. This is like attaching to a point on the surface of a sphere and calling it 'the one and only center'. Even for those Advaitins that have clear experiential insight of no-self (no object-subject split), an experience similar to that of anatta (First emptying of subject) are not spared from these tendencies. They continue to sink back to a Source. It is natural to reference back to the Source when we have not sufficiently dissolved the latent disposition but it must be correctly understood for what it is. Is this necessary and how could we rest in the Source when we cannot even locate its whereabout? Where is that resting place? Why sink back? Isn't that another illusion of the mind? The 'Background' is just a thought moment to recall or an attempt to reconfirm the Source. How is this necessary? Can we even be a thought moment apart? The tendency to grasp, to solidify experience into a 'center' is a habitual tendency of the mind at work. It is just a karmic tendency. Realize It! This is what I meant to Adam the difference between One-Mind and No-Mind.” - John Tan, 2009, excerpt from Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience

John: What is "I AM"? Is it a PCE? (Soh: PCE = pure consciousness experience, see glossary at the bottom of this document.) Is there emotion? Is there feeling? Is there thought? Is there division or complete stillness? In hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound! So what is "I AM"?

Soh Wei Yu: It is the same just that pure non-conceptual thought

John: Is there 'being'?

Soh Wei Yu: No, an ultimate identity is created as an afterthought

John: 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. Not sound, taste, touch… etc 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 experienced 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.

Thusness: You don't think that "I AMness" is low stage of enlightenment The experience is the same. It is just the clarity. In terms of insight. Not experience.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: So a person that has experience "I AMness" and non-dual is the same. Except the insight is different.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Non-dual is every moment there is the experience of presence. Or the insight into the every moment experience of presence. Because what prevents that experience is the illusion of self and "I AM" is that distorted view. The experience is the same. Didn’t you see I always say there is nothing wrong with that experience to longchen, jonls… I only say it is skewed towards the thought realm. So don't differentiate but know what is the problem. I always say it is misinterpretation of the experience of presence. Not the experience itself. But "I AMness" prevents us from seeing.

Thusness: By the way, do you know about Hokai's description and "I AM" being the same experience?

AEN: The watcher right

Thusness: No. I mean the Shingon practice of the body, mind, speech into one.

AEN: Oh that's I am experience?

Thusness: Yes, except that the object of practice is not based on consciousness. What is meant by foreground? It is the disappearance of the background and what's left is it. Similarly the "I AM" is the experience of no background and experiencing consciousness directly. That is why it is just simply "I-I" or "I AM"

AEN: I've heard of the way people describe consciousness as the background consciousness becoming the foreground… So there's only consciousness aware of itself and that's still like I AM experience

Thusness: That is why it is described that way, awareness aware of itself and as itself.

AEN: But you also said I AM people sink to a background?

Thusness: Yes

AEN: Sinking to background = background becoming foreground?

Thusness: That is why I said it is misunderstood. And we treat that as ultimate.

AEN: I see. But what hokai described is also nondual experience right

Thusness: I have told you many times that the experience is right but the understanding is wrong. That is why it is an insight and opening of the wisdom eyes. There is nothing wrong with the experience of I AM". Did I say that there is anything wrong with it?

AEN: Nope

Thusness: Even in stage 4 what did I say?

AEN: It's the same experience except in sound, sight, etc

Thusness: Sound as the exact same experience as "I AM"… As presence.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Yes.