Tyler Jones said: My Daoism teacher mentioned recently that according to his teachers, who have very highly developed divine eye siddhi, what is missing from contemporary teachers who focus on nondual awakening is that, even the ones who understand the need for some physical and psychological purification work, don't work with inner spiritual light, as though nondual awakening renders this superfluous. Dzogchen, of course, very much does work with light.

Soh agrees and replied: [The Taoist text] secret of the golden flower also talks about that.. and yes dzogchen, etc.

Tyler Jones said: Far as I can tell, internal alchemy in Daoism plays the same role as practice with channels and drops plays ... [snipped] ... golden flower practice plays the role of [snipped] (information removed after discussing with Tyler, not so important)
You and John talk about how going deep into the experience of luminosity actually makes things appear brighter, this seems related to practice with spiritual light.
Just heard Lisa Cairns mention that when she really lets go into non-identification she sees a really bright white light.
These kinds of things are seeming interesting to me rn, light as a bridge to pure consciousness.
Soh replied:
There is something i added to atr recently
Four Aspects of I AM
Eckhart Tolle describing the intensity of luminosity in the body in The Power of Now: “Connecting With The Inner Body
Please try it now. You may find it helpful to close your eyes for this practice. Later on, when "being in the body' has become natural and easy, this will no longer be necessary. Direct your attention into the body. Feel it from within. Is it alive? Is there life in your hands, arms, legs, and feet - in your abdomen, your chest? Can you feel the subtle energy field that pervades the entire body and gives vibrant life to every organ and every cell? Can you feel it simultaneously in all parts of the body as a single field of energy? Keep focusing on the feeling of your inner body for a few moments. Do not start to think about it. Feel it. The more attention you give it, the clearer and stronger this feeling will become. It will feel as if every cell is becoming more alive, and if you have a strong visual sense, you may get an image of your body becoming luminous. Although such an image can help you temporarily, pay more attention to the feeling than to any image that may arise. An image, no matter how beautiful or powerful, is already defined in form, so there is less scope for penetrating more deeply.
The feeling of your inner body is formless, limitless, and unfathomable. You can always go into it more deeply. If you cannot feel very much at this stage, pay attention to whatever you can feel. Perhaps there is just a slight tingling in your hands or feet. That's good enough for the moment. Just focus on the feeling. Your body is coming alive. Later, we will practice some more. Please open your eyes now, but keep some attention in the inner energy field of the body even as you look around the room. The inner body lies at the threshold between your form identity and your essence identity, your true nature. Never lose touch with it.”
John Tan replied in 2006, “The experience comes when the 'self' subsides and awareness is experienced as a vibrantly luminous bright clarity. The radiance of pure awareness creates a powerful sense of Presence that is experienced in the form of aliveness and clarity in all parts of the body. If you were to visualize it, it is like a very power inner light radiating out from nowhere to everywhere making everything that comes into contact alive.”
John Tan, early August 2010:
(12:49 AM) Thusness: do you feel like a luminous light?
(12:50 AM) AEN: yes, awareness is radiant and present
(12:50 AM) Thusness: u need to lose that sense of self first. you will not feel like radiance light with your current realization [Soh: that was spoken during my I AM phase of realization], only when you mature impersonality and non-dual. how did dharma dan describe pce?
(1:32 AM) AEN: i think he said something like pure delight in the senses, the physical, etc. i think he also talked about no sense of movement or fluxing?
(1:33 AM) Thusness: he said radiance, brilliance and luminous. the senses and physical. when the background and foreground are both experienced as so. there will be radiance throughout, then it is possible to talk about luminous radiance. otherwise what you experience is still far from it. there must be total transparency, and there be the experience of purity, primordial, radiance in whatever arises. you may also visualize radiance light vitalizing all your cells like what eckhart tolle said.
(1:37 AM) AEN: oic.. what eckhart tolle said is like non dual?
(1:37 AM) Thusness: yes. but he isn't clear about that, though the experience is there
[Comments by Soh: Eckhart Tolle's insight is more into I AM, Thusness Stage 1 and 2]
John TanThursday, May 30, 2013 at 10:21pm UTC+10
do you have the experience of a transparent inner emanation?
Soh Wei YuThursday, May 30, 2013 at 10:21pm UTC+10
do you mean outwards emanation? or something else
John TanThursday, May 30, 2013 at 10:22pm UTC+10
yeah, like a transparent energetic glowing light emanating outward?
Soh Wei YuThursday, May 30, 2013 at 10:29pm UTC+10
transparent luminosity yeah
John TanThursday, May 30, 2013 at 10:29pm UTC+10
actually you don't need to meditate...just mature your insights and experience in daily activities [Soh: important - this comment was made 2+ years after my anatta realization, so do note that the I AM realization is insufficient to experience nondual luminosity in all manifestations in an effortless manner]
if it becomes stable...visualize light and experience that taste as a skillful practice
Soh Wei YuThursday, May 30, 2013 at 10:30pm UTC+10
how to visualize light
John TanThursday, May 30, 2013 at 10:31pm UTC+10
not how...you must have that taste...like inner light emanating out... like a form of radiance...then visualize that as if it is healing your entire being and body, into boundlessness as a skillful way of practice
Visualising light from brow was also taught by my mahayana teacher and it is also taught by chnn [Dzogchen teacher Chogyal Namkhai Norbu - I believe it was this book https://www.amazon.com/Cycle-Day-Night-Namkhai-Norbu/dp/0882680404]
Very good! JT is so clear about all these subtleties, different aspects of the path. It's really incredible.

 Someone posted to me,

"In our practice the most important thing is to realize that we have buddhanature. Intellectually we may know this, but it is rather difficult to accept. Our everyday life is in the realm of good and bad, the realm of duality, while buddhanature is found in the realm of the absolute where there is no good and no bad. There is a twofold reality. Our practice is to go beyond the realm of good and bad and to realize the absolute. It may be rather difficult to understand."

~ Shunryu Suzuki


I said,


badge icon
Yes. I don't think Shunryu Suzuki is reifying some monistic oneness as Absolute. His views are pretty in line with anatta and impermanence.
"Each existence depends on something else. Strictly speak-ing, there are no separate individual existences. There are just many names for one existence. Sometimes people put stress on oneness, but this is not our understanding. We do not emphasize any point in particular, even oneness. One-ness is valuable, but variety is also wonderful. Ignoring variety, people emphasize the one absolute existence, but this is a one-sided understanding. In this understanding there is a gap between variety and oneness. But oneness and variety are the same thing, so oneness should be appreciated in each existence. That is why we emphasize everyday life rather than some particular state of mind. We should find the reality in each moment, and in each phenomenon. This is a very important point" - Shunryu Suzuki
"The basic teaching of Buddhism is the teaching of transiency, or change. That everything changes is the basic truth for each existence. No one can deny this truth, and all the teach-ing of Buddhism is condensed within it. This is the teaching for all of us. Wherever we go this teaching is true. This teaching is also understood as the teaching of selflessness. Because each existence is in constant change, there is no abiding self. In fact, the self-nature of each existence is noth-ing but change itself, the self-nature of all existence. There is no special, separate self-nature for each existence. This is also called the teaching of Nirvana. When we realize the 102 RIGHT UNDERSTANDING everlasting truth of "everything changes" and find our com-posure in it, we find ourselves in Nirvana. "
“When we practice zazen our mind always follows our breathing. When we inhale, the air comes into the inner world. When we exhale, the air goes out to the outer world. The inner world is limitless, and the outer world is also limitless. We say “inner world” or “outer world,” but actually there is just one whole world. In this limitless world, our throat is like a swinging door. The air comes in and goes out like someone passing through a swinging door. If you think, “I breathe,” the “I” is extra. There is no you to say “I.” What we call “I” is just a swinging door which moves when we inhale and when we exhale. It just moves; that is all. When your mind is pure and calm enough to follow this movement, there is nothing: no “I,” no world, no mind nor body; just a swinging door.”
“Wherever you are, you are one with clouds
and one with sun and the stars you see.
You are one with everything.
This is more true than I can say,
and more true than you can hear.”
“When you bow, you should just bow; when you sit, you should just sit; when you eat, you should just eat. If you do this, the universal nature is there. In Japanese we call it ichigyo-zammai, or ‘one act samadhi.’ Zammai (or samadhi) is ‘concentration.’ Ichigyo is ‘one practice.’ ”
“Doing something is expressing our own nature.”
“There are, strictly speaking, no enlightened people, there is only enlightened activity.”
“When you do something,
you should burn yourself up completely,
like a good bonfire,
leaving no trace of yourself.”
“When you listen to someone, you should give up all your preconceived ideas and your subjective opinions; you should just listen to him, just observe what his way is. We put very little emphasis on right and wrong or good and bad. We just see things as they are with him, and accept them. This is how we communicate with each other. Usually when you listen to some statement, you hear it as a kind of echo of yourself. You are actually listening to your own opinion. If it agrees with your opinion you may accept it, but if it does not, you will reject it or you may not even really hear it.”
“If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything,
it is open to everything.
In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities,
but in the experts mind there are few.”
“There is also the real secret of the arts:
always be a beginner.”
“The world is its own magic.”
“Zen is not some fancy, special art of living.
Our teaching is just to live, always in reality,
in its exact sense.
To make our effort, moment after moment, is our way.”
Source: Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind


You can get the book from here: https://www.amazon.com/.../ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi...

What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula

This book is a must read for those seeking to have a foundational understanding of the core teachings of Buddha.

In terms of insight it is more towards anatta. (Comments by John Tan below). I personally think the author should have realised anatta.

Sent John Tan quotations:

It must be repeated here that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered ‘Self’, or ‘Soul’, or ‘Ego’, as opposed to matter, and that consciousness (viññāṇa) should not be taken as ‘spirit’ in opposition to matter. This point has to be particularly emphasized, because a wrong notion that consciousness is a sort of Self or Soul that continues as a permanent substance through life, has persisted from the earliest time to the present day.
One of the Buddha’s own disciples, Sāti by name, held that the Master taught: ‘It is the same consciousness that transmigrates and wanders about.’ The Buddha asked him what he meant by ‘consciousness’. Sāti reply is classical: ‘It is that which expresses, which feels, which experiences the results of good and bad deeds here and there’.
‘To whomever, you stupid one’, remonstrated the Master, ‘have you heard me expounding the doctrines in this manner? Haven’t I in many ways explained consciousness as arising out of conditions: that there is no arising of consciousness without conditions’. Then the Buddha went on to explain consciousness in detail: ‘Consciousness is named according to whatever condition through which it arises: on account of the eye and visible forms arises a consciousness, and it is called visual consciousness; on account of the ear and sounds arises a consciousness, and it is called auditory consciousness; on account of the nose and odours arises consciousness, and it is called olfactory consciousness; on account of the tongue and tastes arises a consciousness, and it is called gustatory consciousness; on account of the body and tangible objects arises a consciousness, and it is called tactile consciousness; on account of the mind and mind-objects (ideas and thoughts) arises a consciousness, and it is called mental consciousness.’
Then the Buddha explained it further by an illustration: A fire is named according to the material on account of which it burns. A fire may burn on account of wood, add it is called wood-fire. It may burn on account of straw, and then it is called straw-fire. So consciousness is named account to the condition through which it arises.[57]
Dwelling on this point, Buddhaghosa, the great commentator, explains: ‘… a fire that burns on account of wood burns only when there is a supply, but dies down in that very place when it (the supply) is no longer there, because then the condition has changed, but (the fire) does not cross over to splinters, etc., and become a splinter-fire and so on; even so the consciousness that arises on account of the eye and visible forms arises in that gate of sense organ (i.e., in the eye), only when there is the condition of the eye, visible forms, light and attention, but ceases then and there when it (the condition) is no more there, because then the condition has changed, but (the consciousness) does not cross over to the ear, etc., and become auditory consciousness and so on…’[58]
The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations and that it cannot exist independently of them. He says:
‘Consciousness may exist having matter as its means (rūpupāyaṃ), matter as its object (rūpārammaṇaṃ), matter as its support (rūpa-patiṭṭham), and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop; or consciousness may exist having sensation as its means… or perception as its means… or mental formations as its means, mental formations as its objects, mental formations as its support, and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop.
‘Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist.’[59]
Very briefly these are the five Aggregates. What we call a ‘being’, or an ‘individual’, or, ‘I’, is only a convenient name or a label given to the combination of these five groups. They are all impermanent, all constantly changing. ‘Whatever is impermanent is dukkha’ (Yad aniccaṃ tam dukkhaṃ). This is the true meaning of the Buddha’s words: ‘In brief the five Aggregates of Attachment are dukkha’. They are not the same for two consecutive moments. Here A is not equal to A. They are in a flux of momentary arising and disappearing.
‘O Brāhmaṇa, it is just like a mountain river, flowing far and swift, taking everything along with it; there is no moment, no instant, no second when it stops flowing, but it goes on flowing and continuing. So Brāhmaṇa, is human life, like a mountain river.’[60] As the Buddha told Raṭṭhapāla: ‘The world is in continuous flux and is impermanent.’
One thing disappears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging substance in them. There is nothing behind them that can be called a permanent Self (Ātman), individuality, or anything that can in reality be called ‘I’. Every one will agree that neither matter, nor sensation, nor perception, nor any one of those mental activities, nor consciousness can really be called ‘I’.[61] But when these five physical and mental aggregates which are interdependent are working together in combination as a physio-psychological machine,[62] we get the idea of ‘I’. But this is only a false idea, a mental formation, which is nothing but one of those 52 mental formations of the fourth Aggregate which we have just discussed, namely, it is the idea of self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).
These five Aggregate together, which we popularly call a ‘being’ are dukkha itself (saṃkhāra-dukkha). There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’, standing behind these five aggregates, who experiences dukkha. As Buddhaghosa says:
‘Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found; 
The deeds are, but no doer is found.’[63]
There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no thinker to be found. Here we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view is diametrically opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’


Sometimes you see a man in a restaurant reading while eating – a very common sight. He gives you the impression of being a very busy man, with no time even for eating. You wonder whether he eats or reads. One may say that he does both. In fact, he does neither, he enjoys neither. He is strained, and disturbed in mind, and he does not enjoy what he does at the moment, does not live his life in the present moment, but unconsciously and foolishly tries to escape from life. (This does not mean, however, that one should not talk with a friend while having lunch or dinner.)
You cannot escape life however you may try. As long as you live, whether in a town or in a cave, you have to face it and live it. Real life is the present moment – not the memories of the past which is dead and gone, nor the dreams of the future which is not yet born. One who lives in the present moment lives in the real life, and he is happiest.
When asked why his disciples, who lived a simple and quiet life with only one meal a day, were so radiant, the Buddha replied: ‘They do not repent the past, nor do they brood over the future. They live in the present. Therefore they are radiant. By brooding over the future and repenting the past, fools dry up like green reeds cut down (in the sun).’[164]
Mindfulness, or awareness, does not mean that you should think and be conscious ‘I am doing this’ or ‘I am doing that’. No. Just the contrary. The moment you think ‘I am doing this’ you become self-conscious, and then you do not live in the action, but you live in the idea ‘I am’, and consequently your work too is spoilt. You should forget yourself completely, and lose yourself in what you do. The moment a speaker becomes self-conscious and thinks ‘I am addressing an audience’, his speech is disturbed and his trend of thought broken. But when he forgets himself in his speech, in his subject, then he is at his best, he speaks well and explains things clearly. All great work – artistic, poetic, intellectual or spiritual – is produced at those moments when its creators are lost completely in their actions, when they forget themselves altogether, and are free from self-consciousness.
This mindfulness or awareness with regard to our activities, taught by the Buddha, is to live in the present moment, to live in the present action. (This is also the Zen way which is based primarily on this teaching.) Here in this form of meditation, you haven’t got to perform any particular action in order to develop mindfulness, but you have only to be mindful and aware of whatever you may do. You haven’t got to spend one second of your precious time on this particular ‘meditation’: you have only to cultivate mindfulness and awareness always, day and night, with regard to all activities in your usual daily life. These two forms of ‘meditation’ discussed above are connected with our body.
Then there is a way of practising mental development (‘meditation’) with regard to all our sensations or feelings, whether happy, unhappy or neutral. Let us take only one example. You experience an unhappy, sorrowful sensation. In this state your mind is cloudy, hazy, not clear, it is depressed. In some cases, you do not even see clearly why you have that unhappy feeling. First of all, you should learn not to be unhappy about your unhappy feeling, not to be worried about your worries. But try to see clearly why there is a sensation or a feeling of unhappiness, or worry, or sorrow. Try to examine how it arises, its cause, how it disappears, its cessation. Try to examine it as if you are observing it from outside, without any subjective reaction, as a scientist observes some object. Here, too, you should not look at it as ‘my feeling’ or ‘my sensation’ subjectively, but only look at it as ‘a feeling’ or ‘a sensation’ objectively. You should forget again the false idea of ‘I’. When you see its nature, how it arises and disappears, your mind grows dispassionate towards that sensation, and becomes detached and free. It is the same with regard to all sensations or feelings.
Now let us discuss the form of ‘meditation’ with regard to our minds. You should be fully aware of the fact whenever your mind is passionate or detached, whenever it is overpowered by hatred, ill-will, jealousy, or is full of love, compassion, whenever it is deluded or has a clear and right understanding, and so on and so forth. We must admit that very often we are afraid or ashamed to look at our own minds. So we prefer to avoid it. One should be bold and sincere and look at one’s own mind as one looks at one’s face in a mirror.[165]
Here is no attitude of criticizing or judging, or discriminating between right and wrong, or good and bad. It is simply observing, watching, examining. You are not a judge, but a scientist. When you observe your mind, and see its true nature clearly, you become dispassionate with regard to its emotions, sentiments and states. Thus you become detached and free, so that you may see things as they are.

[10:23 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: This book is nice
[10:23 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: I didnt see the buddhaghosa quote in the first two pages above before
[10:23 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: I think its clear and good
[10:23 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: The fire and wood
[10:29 PM, 1/23/2021] John Tan: Yes
[11:20 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: I think the only point missing is what dependently originates does not truly originate
[11:20 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: But that would be the unique point of mahayana and this book is theravadin
[11:43 PM, 1/23/2021] John Tan: What does they mean in this context? The subjectively is "gone" and everything turns "objective". How this notion "objectively" arise? Because of this, there is "existence". These notions "objectively", "existence" r what "inherentness" mean. If nothing is "inherently" there, then it is neither subjective nor objective but merely designated as objective or subjective, this is the "conceptual level" of release I m talking abt. Then there is the level of taste i told u.
[11:44 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: oic..
[11:44 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: so the book is more like anatta but turn into objectivity
[11:47 PM, 1/23/2021] John Tan: It is anatta, otherwise path towards emptiness will be clear.
[11:48 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: ic..
[11:48 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: yeah i think the author realised anatta
[11:49 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: i told anurag to get this book, he got it yesterday 

[11:58 PM, 1/23/2021] John Tan: I heard many said it is a good book
[11:58 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: yeah.. i think its the best introduction to buddha's teachings

  • I was contemplating and marinating in the "not found" essence I posted about a few days ago here when there was a marked changed in perception. I had been seeing the "not here, not anywhere, non-local" taste of everything that was coming up on the cushion and off. At one point I started to feel the whole phenomenal field as flux, then it spread to this body-mind. Everything felt like transient presence that is not found. The mind "interacting" with things was seen to have always been various clusters of conditions exerting themselves as the sense field. It was seen that it has always been this way, no center to anything at all. I sat there with my jaw hanging open for 5 minutes, such a giant sense of relief and gratitude washed over me. It felt like I had been involved somehow with keeping up the radiance of the transient field and I had just dropped that. The whole thing is doing itself, what I think of as me interacting with the world is just scattered transience, not found, not linked. My mind blew up and didn't come back together and it's so much better this way. Empty, Luminous, Not here, Not anywhere, Just flux with no boundaries, all boundaries were strictly conceptual. Fluxing gonna flux. 🙏 🙏 🙏


    I forgot to mention right before this in my practice I was starting to intuit the nature of grasping and how emptiness directly counteracts that. The feeling of "being involved" was grasping and then the whole field was realized to be always already empty. No more conditions for grasping the field itself, so that let go and caused the feeling of everything doing itself

    • Reply
    • 20h
    • Edited

  • badge icon
    Nice 🙂

    Jayson MPaul
    shared a link.

    I was reading this post about total exertion last night from the blog and it had this video attached: https://vimeo.com/36466564. While watching it I remembered of a mystical experience I had many years back during a psychedelic trip of seeing everything like this video. Seeing everything linking up with everything else in real time in my visual field. I remember at that moment I felt like I was the life force of the universe, the connection between all things. That seemed to be a peak experience of total exertion.
    This morning while sitting, I got settled in the not foundness of the field and started to question time as well. The not foundness of time is also quite releasing. An insight I had the other day popped up: in direct experience there is no dividing line between sound/silence, vision/darkness, etc. Bringing in dependent origination of the vivid colors and shapes, I could see that there was no dividing line between the eye, light, the objects being reflected off, and the visual field. These vivid colors ARE the expression of the eye, the sun, the brain, the body, the room, the breath, everything. All phenomena are the full expression of the totality and at the same time are completely not found, weightless, nowhere at all. All hope of grasping something fell away. It is all just this.

 I have added a new blogger tag . Click on that link to view past writings by John Tan.




Alessandro Socio Migliori

What is a good commentary of mmk?


André A. Pais

I like Garfield's.



Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

I’ve read almost all of them, and the one by Mark Siderits & Shoryu Katsura is the most balanced and unbiased by far: https://www.amazon.com/Nagarjunas-Middle.../dp/1614290504

That isn’t always what you want though. Sometimes you want the author to weight in more heavily, and for that nothing beats Mervyn Sprung’s Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way.



Nagarjuna's Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika (Classics of Indian Buddhism)

Nagarjuna's Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika (Classics of Indian Buddhism)



Alessandro Socio Migliori



André A. Pais

I've actually just started rereading the MMK with Garfield's commentary along with Siderits/Katsura. I find the latter very "lofty", going into little detail, although helpful at times. I'm only 2 chapters in though.



Tyler Jones

André, I would distinguish between a commentary and an explanation. A commentary need only clarify what the root text is actually saying, because it was often cryptic to save words and fit the meter. For instance Candrakirti wrote a commentary on MMK, and also his own text explaining Madhyamaka. I think Siderits is an exemplary commentary, and for an explanation I go to Westerhoff.


4 · 1d


Soh Wei Yu


John tan said "In terms of ranking, I prefer Jan Westerhoff, Garfield then Siderits. Like what Tyler said Siderits is more of clarifying what the root text is saying, his presentation is quite structured in point forms and the settings behind the text and opponent views help readers understand the root text better. Westerhoff went far beyond and many points are related to anatta insight but more from the philosophical angle. But what all these books lack is how it can help one breakthrough conceptualities, what exactly is mmk trying to arrive at. After studying mmk, how does it help in freeing our mind?”



Tyler Jones

There are a couple of things I really like about Westerhoff. The first is that his "Western philosophy" style exposition makes it easier for me to grasp the subtle points than the explanations by shedra trained khenpos/geshes that I have seen. I have the same praise for Garfield. The second is that he incorporates Tsongkhapa's illuminating philosophical insights on various points without being a fully Gelug presentation, which is what Garfield gives. 



  • Soh
    , loved the quote by Tsong-Kha-Pa! By the way just to let you know I have started my study of Nagarjuna. Using the book by Mark Siderits. Have you got any other suggestion?

    • Reply
    • 53m

  • badge icon
    And for a basic introductory book on emptiness, can also check out “how to see yourself as you really are” by dalai lama, which greg goode has also written a commentary (findable on his website) based on that text

    • Reply
    • 33m
    • Edited

  • badge icon
    [11:32 PM, 8/20/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Ok
    [11:34 PM, 8/20/2018] John Tan: How u see yourself as u really r is a good read too
    [11:34 PM, 8/20/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Dalai Lama?
    [11:34 PM, 8/20/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Ya I read before. It’s good
    [11:34 PM, 8/20/2018] John Tan: Yes
    [11:35 PM, 8/20/2018] Soh Wei Yu: TOP recommendation by Greg lol
    [11:35 PM, 8/20/2018] Soh Wei Yu: He also made a commentary on that text
    [11:35 PM, 8/20/2018] John Tan: Is it?
    [11:35 PM, 8/20/2018] John Tan: Lol
    [10:25 AM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: After mmk, I realized it is all just anatta...lol although going in-depth on mmk helps to provide deeper understanding.
    [10:25 AM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: 🤣
    [11:36 AM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: What do u mean
    [11:37 AM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: The way Hong wen Liang explain mmk also like Anaya
    [11:37 AM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Anatta
    [11:38 AM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: It is anatta but don't want to say to much lah
    [11:38 AM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: Lol
    [11:41 AM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: It however provides us deeper insights and can clear those tendencies that relates to mind obscuration to a great extend especially on the issue of production and existence.
    [11:45 AM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
    [11:47 AM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: Anatta is experiential insight but certain mind obscurstion tendencies are difficult to see and r brought to light through ultimate analysis. This helps a lot.
    [11:48 AM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..
    [6:28 PM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Btw
    [6:28 PM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: U remember what Greg Goode wrote about his experience with madhyamika
    [6:29 PM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: No
    [6:29 PM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: It led to anatta sort of insight and experience
    [6:29 PM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: His contemplation on prior entity
    [6:29 PM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: Can't remember
    [6:30 PM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: "It
    looks your Bahiya Sutta experience helped you see awareness in a
    different way, more .... empty. You had a background in a view that saw
    awareness as more inherent or essential or substantive?
    had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's
    treatise about the "prior entity," and I had been meditating on
    "emptiness is form" intensely for a year. These two threads came
    together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of
    awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from
    the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the
    "ten-thousand things" in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic,
    playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back.
    No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy " - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../greg-goode...
    [6:31 PM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: Ic
    [6:33 PM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: Mmk helps me a lot on clear the obscuration on existence and production. Not so much in experiential experience. Experience remains the same, more on karmic obscuration that blinds me on these aspects.
    [6:34 PM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: But there e lots of confusions due to the usages of certain terms across the different schools. Need quite some time to clarify all these terms.
    [6:36 PM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
    [6:36 PM, 8/22/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Maybe because u already realise anatta. When Greg read madhyamika he was still stuck with one mind subsuming
    [6:37 PM, 8/22/2018] John Tan: Possibly