Anurag Jain "I
Am", if you mean it to be Self can never be an object of any perception
so it's strange how you see it as 'one of the ten thousand things'.
Self I that which witnesses the ten thousand things' including your
thought which says I Am is one of the ten thousand things. Hide 178 Replies
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain only after anatta it is realised to be another condition
Even consciousness without object, pure subjectivity is no longer seen as pure subjectivity
But at the I AM level it is indeed seen as pure subject that cannot be made an object of observation.
Pure I, not even am
Soh Wei Yu In I, there is only I. No subject or object. Soh Wei Yu After
anatta that too is another pure nondual condition. No different from in
hearing just sound. So there is no reifying pure subjectivity. Soh Wei Yu self enquiry is only for leading to self realization
Further realization requires other kinds of inquiry Anurag Jain All realizations of every kind are object to Self. There are infinite realizations possible but all are objects to Self. 
Soh Wei Yu
Nov
18
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 first have an intuitive insight of Presence.
Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights
Labels: Anatta, Luminosity | Anurag Jain What you call anatta is nothing but avyakta Prakriti in Advaita. Soh Wei Yu No, what i call anatta is totally unknown in advaita Soh Wei Yu And
also 98% or more of buddhist “realised” masters and teachers do not
realise what I call anatta. They too do not go beyond I AM and one mind Soh Wei Yu In the whole of china and taiwan, only two teachers I can find have realised what i realised -
Zen Master Hui Lu and Zen Master Hong Wen Liang.
You can see how rare it is.
(Update by Soh: please do not mistaken this to be condescending to Advaita and other Buddhist teachers who do not speak from the insight of anatta. I do not intend to promote one-upmanship based on certain insights. I have great respect, and in fact gratitude, for Advaita and other Awareness teachings as they have helped me much in the past, and I continue to recommend these teachings to others depending on conditions. I see the value and preciousness of these teachings, even if certain aspects of them may not agree with my current view. Furthermore, I maintain as Ratnashree said, "I must reiterate that this difference in both the system is very
important to fully understand both the systems properly and is not
meant to demean either system." - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche
My reason for posting this is:
1) Anurag posted something by a Buddhist master earlier that day, which sounded like Advaita, so I wanted to confirm with him that indeed, many Buddhist teachers fall into the category of Advaita view, it is not surprising to me. 2) To create discernment on the diversity of views even among a specific religion or tradition 3) I want others to take the teachings of Zen Master Hui Lu and Zen Master Hong Wen Liang seriously if they want to study anatta, total exertion and emptiness teachings from a realised master, and discern the essence of Buddha's intent, and happen to be Chinese.)
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu you will have to do more than assertions :-) There is nothing unknown to Advaita because Self is beyond space and time. Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu
omniscience is a duality. In Self, which is partless, there is nothing
apart from itself to be known. Self is knolwedge itself.
Buddhism, by the way has come from the Vedas. It has commonalities with Sankhya. Soh Wei Yu Buddha
was a refuter of Samkhya, although he learnt from and attained what the
two Samkhya teachers he had taught him, he left them in pursuit of
further realisation.
See the commentary and discourse at:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN1.html
Also:
"What
you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty
four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well
known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is
pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel?
They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of
dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self
is just collateral damage." - Lopon Malcolm
“The
Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially
difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept
'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time
when you will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of
Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience
until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The
Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it
a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness
nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to
stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies'
of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies. If one wants to know about the
experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. We will not
know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in
words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be
confused.
When you have experienced the 'Self' and
know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of
a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True
Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so
called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness.” - John Tan,
2005 Anurag Jain And neither can the Self be known, because You Are Self. Anurag Jain Buddha gives a view of dependent origination which is different from Sankhya but like Sankhya he gives a reality to Prakriti. Mr. RD Anurag Jain
you should read Boddhisattvacharyavatara chapter on Prajna. Samkhya
view is completely obliberated there. I reccomend "Nectar of Manjushri's
Speech" for easier read. Anurag Jain Robert, please answer me whether Buddhism denies reality to the world of phenomena. Mr. RD In essence Buddhadharma has no view. The tathagata has done away with views. Mr. RD Oneness is just another view on the absolute. Mr. RD There
are languages which don't have distinction between plural and singular
with regards to many phenomena. Clinging to one is just yet another form
of clinging to a concept - in this case a number. Anurag Jain Robert, to the Self all languages are objects. All views are objects, right view, wrong view or no view. Mr. RD Also
Buddha calls teaching that all pertains to one self or all is one self
"completely" "a fool's teaching" in the Pali Canon. So even though
Buddhadharma arose in a Vedic world - it doesn't buy into central
ontological premise of the Vedas. Anurag Jain Robert, it is talking of emptiness which is very much part of the "fools teaching" Buddha was referring to :-) Please read Katha Upanishad. The Self is beyond emptiness, beyond being and non-being. Mr. RD So how about you read what I reccomended you and then I read that Upanishad? Then we can discuss, deal? Anurag Jain The Anatta experience is an experience located in space and time. It did not exist at one time and then the insight arises. Mr. RD Anatta is a seal - not an experience. Mr. RD You don't know what Anatta is, do you? :P Anurag Jain Robert, call it a seal. It does not exist at some time and then it comes to be known. Anurag Jain Robert, I know that Anatta is known at one point and then it becomes known. I know that this knowing is an occurrence in time. Mr. RD Anurag Jain haha the same could be said about the Self. It does not exist at some time and then it comes to be known xD Mr. RD So
claiming that about Anatta is as stupid as claiming that about the
Self. It's just a misunderstanding on the nature of these realisations. Mr. RD And Anatta is always already so. Mr. RD Same with Anatta. So you have failed to prove your point. In the meantime I've gotta go so have a good day :) Mr. RD Anurag Jain as a PS: Anatta is revealed when the illusion of the self - including the knower - is extinguished ;) Mr. RD Anurag Jain doesn't apply. This question is based on an assumption which is baseless. Sorry. Ok really gotta go. All the best <3
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain
Robert is very clear. Anatta is a realisation of what is always already the case. Anyone who speaks of anatta as a stage or experience is deluded.
Like
· Reply · 4h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu my question was, who knows anatta? Clear and simple 🙂
Like
· Reply · 4h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain
That is a wrong question to ask for anatta as it has hidden assumptions.
We discussed before.
https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/10/flawed-mode-of-enquiry_12.htmlFlawed Mode of Enquiry
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
Flawed Mode of Enquiry
Flawed Mode of Enquiry
Like
· Reply · Remove Preview · 4h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan did you not go through the thread? Convey that Self cannot be experienced.
Like
· Reply · 2h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I am not going to teach concepts. I am going to teach elimination of all falsity (which includes all concepts)
Like
· Reply · 2h
John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain, u cannot experience Self.
Like
· Reply · 2h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan , absolutely. Soh shared some dialogue in which he talks about you talking of experience of Self. Please scroll up.
Like
· Reply · 2h
John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain, knowing is relative. To know is to measure and compare. Knowingness is beyond knowing. Knowingness is realized not by the relativity of a conditioned mind. U need to leap out of the conditioned.
I-I or I M is a direct and gapless authentication.
2
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan absolutely agreed.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Im speaking relatively.
If you prefer I will use words "there is no assumption of who in the absolute truth"
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Obviously the language is based on words like who or selves.
Like
· Reply · 1h
John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain an experience is an after thought.
1
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD So with your attachement to "who" you are showing you do not go beyond linguistically enforced concepts.
Like
· Reply · 1h · Edited
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I can always ask the same question. "Who says that there is no assumption of who in the absolute truth"?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan absolutely.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Anurag Jain but thats just hammering your assumption based question like a broken record.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I said we shall go into infinite regress 🙂
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Why are you walking naked on the street?
Like
· Reply · 1h
John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain to realize the I-I, a koan will b more appropriate to leap one out of the relative. As for Soh Wei Yu, yes. He knows what he is talking about...lol
1
Like
· Reply · 1h · Edited
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Yes the regress is caused by that concept of who. When you let go of it there is no regress.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John, I understand and agree to all that you are saying 🙂
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I can really imagine you with a hammer ready to strike me now. But "Who let's go off the concept of who". Sorry 🙂
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Anurag Jain the concept relaxes and unties on its own.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Like drawing on water.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Nobody has to make it so.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain And who knows that the concept is untied and has relaxed?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD And why you assume there is someone who knows?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, are you talking without knowing you are realized??!!
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Without what?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Whats that?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, without having realized anatta. You just said that
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Whats knowing?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Good question. Have you realized anatta Robert?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Relatively or absolutely speaking?
Like
· Reply · 1h · Edited
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, say both the ways. You know the relative and absolute levels. Right?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Relatively - I realised Anatta.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, ok. So who knows that he has realized anatta?
............................... [lengthy conversation cut]
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu After anatta, even the I-I is not seen as a “who”. It is not the subject behind all objects. It is realised that there never was a subject. I-I is just I-I, but not reified into a background. It is just another foreground manifestation, another “occurrence”. Likewise in hearing, only sound, no subject or object, knower or known. Seeing is only colors without seer-seeing-seen. And so on. Direct authentication in all and everything
Like
· Reply · 1h · Edited
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, do you like John Tan?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Doing this mantra over and over until they are programmed with the concepts of "who" and "knowing"?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Anurag Jain thats beside the point.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I am not teaching you Advaita. You did not give me the permission 🙂
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Anurag Jain but self enquiry doesn not lead to Total Release
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Neti neti also
Like
· Reply · 1h
John Tan
John Tan Anurag, the Self cannot b the perceiver nor can the Self b the percieved. Why then do u still ask "Who"?
Though u may have the eureka authentication, If post authentication one is still within the who, what, where, when and why mode of enquiry, he will forever be playing hide and seek.
Anatta as Robert said, relook the entire matter in another way so happy exploring.
1
Like
· Reply · 1h · Edited
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Neti assumes that you will be left with that which cannot be negated. So starting the search you already reinforce false assumption.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu John Tan nice just as i was posting at the same time 😂
Like
· Reply · 1h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain
Robert realised anatta
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John, the Self never asks questions 🙂
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Self enquiry assumes "I". The version with asking "who knows" assumes who and knowing.
1
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD Questions based on assumption do not lead to truth. They only reinforce another false assumption.
1
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John, you are assuming that I am inquiring. I am not. I am asking questions to others.
Like
· Reply · 1h
......
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu did you read the thread completely and my responses?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert,ha, ha that is not talking of Self as experience dear !
Like
· Reply · 1h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain
In anatta, one realises that the experiencer-experiencing-experience paradigm to be fundamentally flawed. This applies to everything, not only I-I. Then in hearing, hearing is only sound without hearer, and so on, is the same luminous taste as I-I
Like
· Reply · 1h · Edited
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu, did you go through this thread?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Mr. RDActive Now
Mr. RD You werent clear on that. In any case what a "self" or "Self" is?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, in Advaita they are different from an unenlightened view and same from an enlightened view.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain
Yes, why?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain But we will have to cover a lot of ground to understand this
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu because, I do not deviate an inch from what he said.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain And he did not speak of anatta. He was speaking of Self in that thread.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu You mean you agree with John?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu that means you did not go through the thread 🙂
Like
· Reply · 1h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu I agree with John too. But you fail to see that John agrees with Robert too, on anatta.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu You fail to understand anatta just like when you said anatta is an experience. It is not.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu talk about what John Tan wrote in this thread. Exactly the same words.
Like
· Reply · 1h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain ?
Like
· Reply · 1h
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu I meant quote his words again.
Like
.........
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anyway its not surprising at all. John Tan and I have gone through self realization.
The I-I is not itself the issue, the issue we and Robert are debating and John Tan is pointing out is that you are caging the I-I into a dualistic paradigm of knower-known and asking a question of who/etc based on dualistic assumptions.
All these do not apply at all after anatta is realised.
Like
· Reply · 1h · Edited
......
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu John tan wrote:
Anurag Jain, knowing is relative. To know is to measure and compare. Knowingness is beyond knowing. Knowingness is realized not by the relativity of a conditioned mind. U need to leap out of the conditioned.
I-I or I M is a direct and gapless authentication.
...
Anurag Jain to realize the I-I, a koan will b more appropriate to leap one out of the relative. As for Soh Wei Yu, yes. He knows what he is talking about...lol
...
Anurag, the Self cannot b the perceiver nor can the Self b the percieved. Why then do u still ask "Who"?
Though u may have the eureka authentication, If post authentication one is still within the who, what, where, when and why mode of enquiry, he will forever be playing hide and seek.
Anatta as Robert said, relook the entire matter in another way so happy exploring.
Like
· Reply · 1h
...
Soh Wei Yu
· Reply · Remove Preview · 29m
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu knowingness is Self.
Like
· Reply · 27m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain You are talking about I-I. I am not denying, I am saying that this taste is found as all manifestation after anatta. Plus caging it in who/what/where/when/why enquiry and dualistic paradigm simply puts a limit to the boundless and limitless unfolding of this taste.
Like
· Reply · 21m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Right now this same I-I taste is always unfolding in its intensity, naturally, effortlessly throughout day and night not just as a formless Presence but also as the very vivid foreground manifestation that we normally call sky, trees, and birds chirping. Even before these labels. Everything is brilliant radiating presence, knowingness, aliveness, intelligence. If we cage this taste into a ghostly entity hiding behind everything else, this is merely imposing artificial boundaries and limitations. Falling into the framework of experiencer-experiencing-experience instead of the direct authentication of this
Like
· Reply · 17m · Edited
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu I was asking who/what/why to others....not for myself. I cleared that in my comments above. Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain
The
same taste is in all states and manifestation and is none other than
manifestation. But in terms of view your view is different because I do
not posit a changeless background Soh Wei Yu 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 Soh Wei Yu Of course the above talks about “experience” but actually both I AM and anatta is a realization, not a passing experience
The point is rather about no background and presence as manifestation Mr. RD "The
same taste is in all states and manifestation and is none other than
manifestation. But in terms of view your view is different because I do
not posit a changeless background" <- it matches what Malcolm Smith
says that the experience, the taste of
nonconceptual Samadhi can be the same and equally strong in both Hindu
and Buddhadarma traditions but the view is different and is the crucial,
key factor of liberative power. So the usual problem is that people -
and in some way they're right - that the experience is the same in all
traditions. But that misses the point as Buddhadharma stresses the right
view. That's why there is distinction between Shamatha and Vipassana. Mr. RD So
three experiences of "non-thought", "clarity" and "bliss" are
accessible to everyone on all the paths. However the unique import of
Buddhadharma is that contextualising experience with wrong view leads to
involuntary rebirth in the three realms of formless, form and desire
while experiences in the absence of wrong views are a Path to final
release. Soh Wei Yu Mr. RD
The
meditative experience of nonthought, clarity or bliss is not the
realization of I AMness. This is where john tan and I agree with anurag.
It is a realization Soh Wei Yu http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../realization...
1. On Experience and Realization
Comments by Soh: Also see related article - I AM Experience/Glimpse/Recognition vs I AM Realization (Certainty of Being)
One
of the direct and immediate response I get after reading the articles
by Rob Burbea and Rupert is that they missed one very and most important
point when talking about the Eternal Witness Experience -- The
Realization. They focus too much on the experience but overlook the
realization. Honestly I do not like to make this distinction as I see
realization also as a form of experience. However in this particular
case, it seems appropriate as it could better illustrate what I am
trying to convey. It also relates to the few occasions where you
described to me your space-like experiences of Awareness and asked
whether they correspond to the phase one insight of Eternal Witness.
While your experiences are there, I told you ‘not exactly’ even though
you told me you clearly experienced a pure sense of presence.
So
what is lacking? You do not lack the experience, you lack the
realization. You may have the blissful sensation or feeling of vast and
open spaciousness; you may experience a non-conceptual and objectless
state; you may experience the mirror like clarity but all these
experiences are not Realization. There is no ‘eureka’, no ‘aha’, no
moment of immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood
something undeniable and unshakable -- a conviction so powerful that no
one, not even Buddha can sway you from this realization because the
practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. It is the direct and
unshakable insight of ‘You’. This is the realization that a practitioner
must have in order to realize the Zen satori. You will understand
clearly why it is so difficult for those practitioners to forgo this ‘I
AMness’ and accept the doctrine of anatta. Actually there is no forgoing
of this ‘Witness’, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the
non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature.
Like what Rob said, "keep the experience but refine the views".
Lastly
this realization is not an end by itself, it is the beginning. If we
are truthful and not over exaggerate and get carried away by this
initial glimpse, we will realize that we do not gain liberation from
this realization; contrary we suffer more after this realization.
However it is a powerful condition that motivates a practitioner to
embark on a spiritual journey in search of true freedom. 🙂 Mr. RD Soh Wei Yu
sure. I wasn't clear on that - what I was trying to underline is that
there is difference with regards to the view while some "qualities"
might appear to be the same. Soh Wei Yu I underwent I AM realization less than a year after John Tan wrote that to me in september 2009. Before that i had glimpses Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu in Advaita, as indicated in Mandukya, Self is beyond Form and Formless.
Also, after Self is known, all forms are also seen as Self only. Mr. RD For more you can read the screens I've posted below. Anurag Jain Robert, I know that. In Advaita we say all views are mind, thoughts and concepts which aee objects to Self. Mr. RD The Self posited above doesn't stand analysis posited below which reveals it's a mistaken way of cognizing. Mr. RD No
philosopher or mystic of Advaita has never made any point that couldn't
stand the Madhyamaka analysis presented there and never will. Mr. RD So they avoid confronting with it - rightly sensing it is so. Anurag Jain Robert, Self is that which witnesses the one making positions and negations. Mr. RD As it is revelead when one goes through contemplations provided there. Mr. RD Also one stops asking questions based on "who" after going through these contemplations. Anurag Jain Robert, Self is one that witnesses the questioner and the questions and the answers. Mr. RD Anurag Jain so read these screens for yourself and see whether that Self of yours can stand that analysis? Mr. RD I dare you it is not so. Anurag Jain Mr. RD the Self is that which witnesses reading this screen and thinking and daring. Mr. RD which is witnessed by another self Mr. RD which is even witnessed by a SupersuperSelf even beyond that self xD Mr. RD Until you get to a fractal in 1000dimension which is seen by Paramatmabhramaextrasupersayanself :D Mr. RD I
respect for you it is ultimate truth and I can see honest conviction in
you that I too shared when I was at the level of Advaita. I just say
what you propose is seen as empty and shallow when you have the
Buddhadharma realisation. Anurag Jain Robert, Self is the one who witnesses all this history :-)
My wife has come back home. Having some tea with her. Take care Roberts. Hope we shall have tea together some day too :-) Mr. RD The thing is both Soh Wei Yu and John Tan
had the realisation of Self you speak of but they went deeper. Like
many seekers you got stuck on something that seems ultimate to you.
However what you say is pointless because unless you check for yourself
and honestly and humbly follow pointers
Soh and John give then your position has no value. As they have checked
both your Self and Emptiness of Buddhadharma and you only checked the
Self. Sorry but this is simply how it is and no amount of repeating
Advaita claims will change it. Mr. RD If
you were interested in truth and actual dialogue then you would suspend
your arrogance and spend time earnestly contemplating what Buddhadharma
says to verify for yourself. For now you are trying to convince people
who have seen the larger perspective to cling to your narrow
perspective. Mr. RD Anurag Jain
for people who have realised both the "Self witnesses all of it" of
Advaita and Emptiness of Buddhadharma - the Self is not liberation.
There is also a master Ratnashree whos realisation of Self was confirmed
by great Hindu sages. However he then
met Buddhadharma and studied it until realising its teachings. According
to him the teachings you advocate are mundane compared to the
liberative insight of the Buddhadharma. So you can write "but the Self
is witnessing all of it" or asking "who is witnessing all of this" like
an Advaitron 9000 robot but this doesn't change anything and makes you
seem ignorant in your being so sure in promoting your view even though
you only see one side of this debate and not both sides like the people
I've mentioned. Mr. RD Anurag Jain so the debate is meaningless as we could go on until the end of time saying: Mr. RD Self is empty - the Self sees that - Self is empty - the Self sees that Mr. RD It's
completely pointless as in myself the mistake cognition of "witnessing"
and "self" can arise never again - it's impossible. And as long as you
will reject all possibility of investigating what Buddhadharma is about
but will just promote "Self" view then
it's going to be just going back and forth between me saying "Self you
speak of is illusory" and you saying "Self is witnessing that" and so on
and so on and so on Mr. RD So
if you are unwilling or unable verify my points without rejecting them
with your assumption then we're wasting our time here and it's better to
drop the subject alltogether and just drink tea instead. Anurag Jain Robert, I was just going to say that. Thank you so much for accepting my invitation for tea brother :-)
Posts
