Also see:

Dharma Talk - Steve hagen, "In the Seen There Is Only the Seen" July 18

Steve Hagen books are also clear and highly recommended.







    Soh Wei Yu
    I don’t think Steve is saying there is something unchanging like Advaita. Rather, he is talking about the unborn nature of dharma.
    Buddhism Plain and Simple page 115, by Zen Teacher Steve Hagen:
    With the two types of views there are two kinds of minds. As human beings, we all have what we could call ordinary minds - the mind that you've always assumed you've had. It's a calculating mind, a discriminating mind, a fragmented mind. It's the mind of ordinary consciousness, the mind of self and other. We generally think of it as "my mind."
    But there's another mind that is unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned. Unlike "your mind," it is unbound, for there is nothing beyond it. To this Mind, there is no "other mind."
    This Mind is nothing other than the Whole. It's simply thus, the fabric of the world itself - the ongoing arising and falling away that are matter, energy and events.
    Speaking of this Mind, the great Chinese Zen master Huang Po said,
    All buddhas and ordinary people are just One Mind... This Mind is beyond all measurements, names, oppositions: this very being is It; as soon as you stir your mind you turn away from It.
    This Mind is self-evident - it's always switched on, so to speak. We can - and, in fact, we do - see It in every moment. If we would refrain from stirring our minds (rest our frontal lobes, as my Zen teacher used to say) and let our conceptualising die down, like the ripples on a pond after the stirring wind has ceased, we would realise - we would know Mind directly.
    (Steve Hagen)
    Ultimate Truth, on the other hand, is direct perception. And what is directly perceived (as opposed to conceive) is that no separate, individualised things exist as such. There's nothing to be experienced but this seamless, thoroughgoing relativity and flux.
    In other words, there are no particulars, but only thus.
    When the Buddha spoke of individuals, he often used a different term: "stream." Imagine a stream flowing-eonstantly moving and changing, always different from one moment to the next. Most of us see ourselves as corks floating in a stream, persisting things moving along in the stream of time. But this is yet another frozen view.
    According to this view, everything in the stream changes except the cork. While we generally admit to changes in our body, our mind, our thoughts, our feelings, our understandings, and our beliefs, we still believe, "I myself don't change. I'm still me. I'm an unchanging cork in an ever-changing stream." This is precisely what we believe the self to be-something that doesn't change.
    The fact is, however, that there are no corks in the stream. There is only stream. What we conceptualize as "cork" is also stream. We are like music. Music, after all, is a type of stream. Music exists only in constant flow and flux and change. Once the movement stops, the music is no more. It exists not as a particular thing, but as pure coming and going with no thing that comes or goes.
    Look at this carefully. If this is true-how a stream exists, how music exists, and how we exist-see how it is that when we insert the notion of "I" we've posited some little, solid entity that floats along, not as stream, but like a cork in a stream. We see ourselves as solid corks, not as the actual stream we are.
    If we are the stream, what is it that experiences the flux, the flow, the change? The Buddha saw that there is no particular thing that is having an experience. There is experience, but no experiencer. There is perception, but no perceiver. There is consciousness, but no self that can be located or identified.
    Buddhism Is Not What You Think
    Buddhism Is Not What You Think
    Buddhism Is Not What You Think

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 13h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    In the seen only the seen is also no seer, no seeing and nothing seen
    John Tan: If seen is just seen, then there is no movement.
    Soh: Movement?
    John Tan: In the seen only the seen is also no seer, no seeing and nothing seen. There is no changing nor unchanging.
    Soh: Ic..
    Soh: The nancy also said the same.. nothing changing or unchanging
    [10:15 pm, 05/10/2021] John Tan: That is ultimate view.
    [10:16 pm, 05/10/2021] John Tan: Conventionally, there is changes and impermanence and origination in dependence as the right way of expression.
    We are infinite reflections without a source
    Echoes spinning
    Fleeting images
    Flowing thought dreams
    Without sides or a middle
    Dancing without movement or non movement
    without direction or non direction
    There are no colors or rainbows without us
    Without an imaginary persona there is no imaginary heart
    Loving all this
    That is not this
    Or that
    Or both
    Or neither
    There is no one to be free or bound
    Or gaze as infinite awe painting the dream scape with colors that cannot be seen
    Only felt
    No one to fall into your unutterable beauty
    Or fall endlessly in love with you
    At first this felt like, 'I am all this!"
    Then it felt like, 'All this!'
    Later it was .... 'Not even nothing...'
    no eyes apart from the seeing....
    no ears apart from the hearing
    no sound separate from the listening...
    no wind separate from your cheek
    no love separate from your heart
    no inside
    no outside
    the horizon that held the sky apart from the sea
    untied itself
    the timeline from birth to death collapsed
    as well as the time walker
    and left this knowing and feeling that there are no things
    simply an atemporal seamless flow without movement or non movement....
    no things to be permeant or changing ...
    feels like the first and last kiss ....
    a constant union of what was never apart...
    Soh: Sounds like she went through the stages
    John Tan: 👍
    In the seen only the seen is also no seer, no seeing and nothing seen
    In the seen only the seen is also no seer, no seeing and nothing seen
    In the seen only the seen is also no seer, no seeing and nothing seen

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 13h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    “The next understanding you must have after anatta and emptiness is to know that all qualities similar to those that are described and sounded ontological are always manifesting presently, spontaneously and effortlessly after the purification of anatta and emptiness insights. That is, spontaneous arising is not just saying responding automatically. It is the manifestation of these blissful characteristics of nature spontaneously. Non-arising, unmoving, unchanging, pristiness, clarity... spontaneously present” – John Tan, 2009
    “Mr. T: I cannot find a ground a base, to identify with, everything is changing constantly. Arising and passing away. All of experience, where do I stand?
    Kyle Dixon: Arising and passing away are characteristics of conditioned phenomena. As practitioners of the buddhadharma, our aim is to fully realize the unconditioned nature of phenomena, free of arising and cessation. That natural and perfect nature, is the true refuge.
    Upon realizing that nature, the Buddha stated the following:
    I have obtained the ambrosia of Dharma,� profound, peaceful, immaculate, luminous and unconditioned. �Even though I explain it, no one will understand, �I think I will remain in the forest without speaking. �Free from words, untrained by speech,� suchness, the nature of Dharma, is like space� free from the movements of mind and intellect, �supreme, amazing, the sublime knowledge. �Always like space, �nonconceptual, luminous, �the teaching without periphery or center �is expressed in this Dharmawheel. �Free from existence and nonexistence,� beyond self and nonself, �the teaching of natural nonarising �is expressed in this Dharmawheel.
    — The Ārya-lalitavistara-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra” – Kyle Dixon, 2021
    Labels: Anatta, Emptiness, Movement, Nancy Neithercut 0 comments | |

    • Reply
    • 13h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Also, John Tan said before:
    “This is correct. "Permanent" is not referring to something not undergoing change, it refers to the absence of causing of arising.”

    • Reply
    • 13h

  • Michael Hernandez
    His comment on not having views is important. A view sets up a refuge of a temporal permanence. I have them. It is a world view. If we get down to what the view really is it's more that a thought. It's a feeling associated with it.
    For example I feel a certain way about anti-vaxxers. I have this view which is really a feeling that they are ignorant. But that feeling is dislike or disgust. It is a subtle tension around the eyes down into the the gut. This view can lead to thoughts of reasonings.
    A view is my reality right now.
    I have a view when I perceive an attractive person. I like their looks. It occurs to me to they would be a desirable mate. That view exists entirely in my imagination but certainly I feel that attraction. I certainly identify with that perception feeling. My eyes might not be directed at the person but my peripheral vision has them located while all others are blurred out. It is a very temporal experience. And it's my view that they are attractive at this time and place. While they maybe attractive to another person our attractions on examination don't match completely on all points. We slightly different views yet mostly agree. That's politics, religion and ideologies.
    They are absolutely based on now as views change.

    • Reply
    • 1h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    The most crucial views to penetrate is the false view of 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Because that is the root of all grasping and suffering. You cannot grasp 'something' unless it is established to be existent (an attractive person, for example) or that existent thing becomes non-existent (such as the death of a loved one). Non-existence of something depends on apprehending an existent to begin with. What is non-arisen or has never originated to begin with cannot end up in non-existence. The extremes of existence and non-existence is the essential ignorance which reifies all self and phenomena into apparent reality, which is samsara.
    Freedom from extremes and the viewless view of emptiness however does not necessarily mean exactly having no views. Even Buddha had views which may be considered religious or even political (just a quick example: he was against the Brahmanic interpretation of the caste system, he did not support the caste system but was pro equality of all castes). But of course he is not attached to these views as he simply had no attachments whatsoever (otherwise he cannot be called a Buddha or an Arahant). Some views, be it religious, political, ideological, can be harmful and must be refuted strongly. Such as the anti-vax ideology. That is however not an excuse to have hate for these people. Instead, we should feel more compassion for them. However to shun politics/ideology can be another form of spiritual bypassing. Spirituality is not an escapism from the mundane, it is full engagement and full involvement without attachment. Politics is one of the many arenas of mundane life, and even if you may be politically apathetic, we do exercise our voting rights in a democratic country. Spiritual life and mundane life are not two.
    “Actually there is no forcing. All the 4 aspects in I AMness are fully expressed in anatta as I told you. If aliveness is everywhere, how is one not to engage… it is a natural [tendency] to explore in [various] arena[s] and enjoy in business, family, spiritual practices... I [am] involve[d] in Finance, business, society, nature, spirituality, yoga...🤣🤣🤣. I don't find it efforting… You just don't have to boast about this and that and be non-dual and open.” - John Tan/Thusness, 2019

    • Reply
    • 57m
    • Edited

  • Soh Wei Yu
    On how emptiness is not having no views:
    [10:43 PM, 6/6/2020] John Tan: There are two folds to it. Any view is ultimately empty... But freeing one from constructs and conceptualization has a different meaning to me. Like when see through self, we realized anatta. It is not the freeing, but must also involves the arising insight and wisdom.
    I think I mentioned I am not into without view. The freeing from seeing through self is not a form of "not knowing", contrary it is deep wisdom that allows one to understand our nature directly.”
    From Dharmawheel, Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith says Madhyamaka is not a simple minded “I have no view” proposition:
    “gad rgyangs wrote:
    He clearly says in the VV that he has no view to defend. Do you think he was wrong about himself?
    Malcolm wrote:
    He states in the VV that he has no propositions/thesis concerning svabhāva as defined by his opponents. He does not say he has no views at all. For example, he clearly states in the MMK that he prefers the Sammitya view of karma.
    Your claim is similar to the mistaken assertion made by some who claim that Candrakirti never resorts to syllogisms, which in fact he clearly does in the opening lines of the MAV. What Candra disputes is not syllogistic reasoning in its entirety, but rather, syllogistic reasoning applied to emptiness.
    Likewise, he clearly asserts the view in the VV that there is no svabhāva in phenomena. Madhyamaka is not a simple minded "I have no view" proposition.
    "Madhyamaka is not a simple minded "I have no view" proposition."
    gad rgyangs wrote:
    then why does the MMK end thusly? MMK 27.30:
    I salute Gautama, who, based on compassion,
    taught the true Dharma for the abandonment of all views.
    Malcolm wrote:
    "All views" here is summarized as two in chapter fifteen: i.e. substantial existence and nonexistence.”
    “The purpose of the view is to open the mind up fully without background, duality and inherency. So that experience is fully open, direct, immediate and without boundaries. Chariot and its basis are not a cause and effect relationship, they originate in dependence.” - John Tan, 2019
    “The truth of the matter is that “pacification of views” is directly related to the realization of emptiness. If you have not realized emptiness, then you have no business talking about a lack of view, because you still perceive conditioned phenomena and are therefore cognitively endowed with “views.” Those views can only be pacified through directly realizing non-arising.
    For some reason you mistakenly believe that “no view” means something like withholding a view, but it has nothing at all to do with that.” – Kyle Dixon, 2021

  • Reply
  • 56m


0 Responses