Shared by Jayson MPaul

It is more like I AMness sort of understanding.

In terms of awakening to reality rhetoric, is it said that this level of insight is foundational for deeper insight in that it is necessary to have this insight prior to deeper insight?

John Tan wrote in 2008:

Hi Longchen,

Must be having a challenging time sustaining the vivid presence of non-dual experience. Just to share with you some of my thoughts:

When we die, the thoughts and emotions that are karmically linked to the body are temporarily suspended. The contrast in experience that resulted from the dissolution of the ‘bond of a body’ gives rise to a more vivid experience of Presence; although the experience of Presence is there, the insight into its non-dual essence and emptiness nature isn’t there. This is similar to the experience of “I AM”. Thoughts and emotions will continue to arise and subside with the bond of ‘I’ and ‘Mine’ after death.

Awareness is always non-dual and all pervading; obscured but not lost. In essence all manifestation, transient (emotions, thoughts or feelings) is really the manifold of Presence. They have the same non-dual essence and empty nature. All problems lie not at the manifestation level but at the fundamental level. Deep in us we see things inherently and dualistically. How the experience of Presence can be distorted with the ‘bond’ of dualistic and inherent seeing maybe loosely categorized as:

1. There is a mirror reflecting dust. (“I AM”)

Mirror bright is experienced but distorted. Dualistic and Inherent seeing.

2. Dust is required for the mirror to see itself.

Non-Dualistic but Inherent seeing. (Beginning of non-dual insight)

3. Dust has always been the mirror ( The mirror here is seen as a whole)

Non-Dualistic and non- inherent insight.

In 3, whatever comes and goes is the Rigpa itself. There is no Rigpa other than that. All along there is no dust really, only when a particular speck of dust claims that it is the purest and truest state then immediately all other arising which from beginning are self- mirroring become dust.

Not so many. A few people like Daniel Ingram didn't go through I AMness first. But in the AtR group, where 40+ realized anatta, statistically, most people have gone through I AMness first. I've spoken to them and ascertained their progression.

Most people do not have any type of realisation yet, yes.

I’m asking because frankly I’m somewhat disillusioned by a lot of basically intellectuals out there who do not have what I might call a sort of foundational mystical insight. If this is considered to be basically foundational and not rejected out of hand as being ‘Hindu’ or whatever, and then it is understood that there are progressive levels of insight from that foundation, basically, that makes me feel better about AtR.

Put loosely.

You are absolutely right. Personally I do think it is important to read texts from other religions, I have done that myself. For many reasons.

1) wisdom is wisdom, and there are always things that even buddhists can learn from the mystics of hindus, christians, muslims, taoists, judaist, new age, and so on. Tao te ching is on my to-study list as advised by john tan.

2) i am personally drawn to hindu teachings early on and any awareness teachings. They can have good pointers. Even I AMness is a precious and important realisation, also some non buddhists have gone even further than that.

3) although there are many similarities, certain buddhist insights are indeed unique and therefore i am not a perennialist. In understanding other religions, it also helps us to understand the unique points and differences between buddhism and other religions.

It is done, as acarya shridhar rana rinpoche said, not for the purpose of criticising other systems but to understand each system better.

Achaya Mahayogi Shidhar Rana Rinpoche: “"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."

Christian mystic Bernadette Roberts: “"That everyone has different experiences and perspectives is not a problem; rather, the problem is that when we interpret an experience outside its own paradigm, context, and stated definitions, that experience becomes lost altogether. It becomes lost because we have redefined the terms according to a totally different paradigm or perspective and thereby made it over into an experience it never was in the first place. When we force an experience into an alien paradigm, that experience becomes subsumed, interpreted away, unrecognizable, confused, or made totally indistinguishable. Thus when we impose alien definitions on the original terms of an experience, that experience becomes lost to the journey, and eventually it becomes lost to the literature as well. To keep this from happening it is necessary to draw clear lines and to make sharp, exacting distinctions. The purpose of doing so is not to criticize other paradigms, but to allow a different paradigm or perspective to stand in its own right, to have its own space in order to contribute what it can to our knowledge of man and his journey to the divine.

Distinguishing what is true or false, essential or superficial in our experience is not a matter to be taken lightly. We cannot simply define our terms and then sit back and expect perfect agreement across the board. Our spiritual-psychological journey does not work this way. We are not uniform robots with the same experiences, same definitions, same perspectives, or same anything."

““Everything comes down to how you hold phenomena.” Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

Light pours down from the sky. Tumbles down like a waterfall of tender hearted affection. More simply, lets just call it Love. It is like the sun in the sky, but that is not the sky I am talking about.

I am talking about an uborn light, uncaused, atemporal. It tumbles down from NowhereEverywhere of Divine Mysterium. Tumbles down and enters the crown of my head making everything into deathlessness.

One day that light is made of Love.

One day it is made of brilliance.

One day it is made of a mother’s caring.

One day it is made of Love’s fury.

One day it is made of unflinching compassion.

One day it is made of gratitude. (Yes, the divine is ever more grateful, filled with gratitude, overflowing with gratitude than we have ever imagined being - even in our most thankful moment.)

Really it is all one flavor. In the Heart’s prism it splays into infinite colors. Our lives are made from this light. Our lives, trees, cars, every being, every appearance, every phenomena.

If you set aside preoccupation then mind, body, feeling all are the manner in which this beauty and wonder is held. And in turn they are how phenomena are held.

It is what is held, what holds, where it is held. It is giver, receiver and the gift given. These words are, perhaps, easy enough when phenomena seem to agree with us. The test is their knowing when it does not”

Was reminded of something John Tan wrote in 2010 to me during my nondual phase (one month before anatta realisation):

o 12 Sep `10, 12:44PM

Hi Simpo and AEN,

Yet we cannot get carried away by all these blissful experiences. Blissfulness is the result of luminosity whereas liberation is due to prajna wisdom.

To AEN,

For intense luminosity in the foreground, you will not only have vivid experience of ‘brilliant aliveness’, ‘you’ must also completely disappear. It is an experience of being totally ‘transparent’ and without boundaries. These experiences are quite obvious, u will not miss it. However the body-mind will not rest in great content due to an experience of intense luminosity. Contrary it can make a practitioner more attach to a non-dual ultimate luminous state.

For the mind to rest, it must have an experience of ‘great dissolve’ that whatever arises perpetually self liberates. It is not about phenomena dissolving into some great void but it is the empty nature of whatever arises that self-liberates. It is the direct experience of groundlessness and non –abiding due to direct insight of the empty nature of phenomena and that includes the non-dual luminous essence.

Therefore In addition to bringing this ‘taste’ to the foreground, u must also ‘realize’ the difference between wrong and right view. There is also a difference in saying “Different forms of Aliveness” and “There is just breath, sound, scenery...magical display that is utterly unfindable, ungraspable and without essence- empty.”

In the former case, realize how the mind is manifesting a subtle tendency of attempting to ‘pin’ and locate something that inherently exists. The mind feels uneasy and needs to seek for something due to its existing paradigm. It is not simply a matter of expression for communication sake but a habit that runs deep because it lacks a ‘view’ that is able to cater for reality that is dynamic, ungraspable, non-local , center-less and interdependent.

After direct realization of the non-dual essence and empty nature, the mind can then have a direct glimpse of what is meant by being ‘natural’, otherwise there will always be a ‘sense of contrivance’.

My 2 cents and have fun with ur army life.

Edited by Thusness 12 Sep `10, 12:56PM

Malcolm also said this year, "Rongzom’s view is the real Nyingma View. It is followed by both Longchenpa and Mipham."

I personally think Nyingma School is quite excellent.

Are you a Nyingma practitioner? Do you follow a teacher?