I often feel very inspired to write after my meditation in the morning when I let my mind rest in its true nature.
    I “watch” reality today, and feel like we must never, ever, shortchange the Blessed One’s teaching because THIS truth, our own nature, is far superior, far more liberating, far more blissful, than any other teachings.. and when one touch the heart of it, one will cry…
    .. With utmost gratitude, with out of the world joy, with a conviction that no one could take this understanding away, and a hope of finally escaping birth and death.
    I believe matters of life, death and liberation cannot be compromised. I have the same attitude in my medical career, and I treat my spiritual learning similarly.
    If you want to escape cyclic existence, first take the buddha’s word seriously. The teachings are consistent, it is us that are treating the teachings like a knowledge for intellectual stimulation rather than actualising it fully. No true understanding can come this way.
    *Duality framework, no “I” *
    In anatta / no-self realization/ awakening,
    It is a completely different framework or mode of perceiving and experiencing the world.
    The usual structure of seeing the world from a body and brain completely collapse. That personal identity is GONE.
    Bec The seer-seeing-seen structure is GONE. The duality framework collapse. The ghost of the fake self is seen through.
    And .. most important thing is, you don’t take on a new identity. You disappear completely.
    “Who am I?” Becomes irrelevant.
    “I” and “mine” becomes irrelevant.
    There is no “who”.
    *No thing*
    “The world” (not “your world”), is left with just these sensations popping in and out, and calling them sensations is too much even. Such-ness or it-ness or “empty presence” fits better.
    They are vividly there, but in deep non duality, one understands that it couldn’t be found, more below.
    These suchness or more crudely speaking “dance of consciousness” rapidly change, yet there is no-thing changing, just change happening.
    *No Mine*
    All sensations are equal, there is no privileging “my pain” “my memory “ more important than “sound” or “sight”. I and mine is GONE, there is no “my world”, “my life”, “my story”.
    Just pain, just memory, like a sound, a touch, an itch, a car, a body,
    Equal, neutral.
    That is why the Buddha says do vipassana. See clearly! Meditate.
    Just the body. What do you mean my body? “My” is call prapanca- conceptualisation, adding in your own interpretation and your “mine, me, then, we”. Cutting up reality into pieces like cake, very brutal !
    *non arising, depdendent origination*
    Impermanence is the nature of all sensations. Yet it is not exactly.
    because now you understand there is no arising or ceasing, only dependent origination. Nothing can arise if it arise dependently.
    These ephemeral empty presence of touch sounds and sights are dependently arising, due to conditions coming together, they “ping” into your consciousness, they are not there in reality.
    You don’t see a ghost not coz it’s not there, it is cause they cannot dependently originate as conditions are not enough, they don’t “ping” and show itself in your consciousness.
    Yet , You can’t say it’s there or not there .. it doesn’t work that way!
    All Like a rainbow. You have sun, rain, and then there’s rainbow! Is there really a rainbow 🌈 you can find?
    But we call it rainbow, so it becomes a “thing”. Our mind gives the rainbow its thingness, like everything else we labelled.
    *non locality*
    In deep non duality this is clear. When you are everything, you cannot grasp anything. Everything is gapless. The sound is where you are, the sight is where you are, no gap, at all. The word “you” here is extra, it doesn’t feel like “me” but I cannot construct a senstence without a subject !
    Hence there is no “where”.
    * timeless *
    Each moment becomes a whole moment in itself.
    There’s no link of one moment causing the other . Cause and effect is seen through. Not one moment causing the next. Just this whole world dependently arising one moment because of magical karmic links coming together . Then another, and another, not linking, totally timeless. Yet eternal, incorporating all past present and future without division.
    So in anatta, there is no “who”, no “where” , no “I”, no “when”, just..
    Hard to use words.
    Thich nhat hant used the words “this is it”.
    I understand what he tries to say.
    Very strange. All paradox seems to work. Not metaphorically but literally.
    You are no where yet everywhere.
    It is timeless yet eternal.
    There’s no distance yet infinite
    There’s Neither existence nor non-existence.
    It is not one yet not two.
    *non conceptual*
    The non-conceptual perception in anatta loosen all the labels and names, and sometimes i can’t name when the mind is in equipoise.
    Even the sensations become undifferentiated. Of course sounds and touch is different, but in equipoise all feels like presence - same nature. One have to put some effort to name “sound”.
    *why anatta is liberating as opposed to awareness teaching *
    In Anatta, the mind finally rest. And when it happens, the taste of liberation is felt. Mind release itself from any holding. Not even holding onto awareness.
    You don’t want to go back to previous way of perceiving, because it is very painful as compare to how this is!
    You can’t understand what is the pain I am talking about because you haven’t feel release and you cannot compare.
    If you ask someone who is in mature anatta to go back to be dual, and in exchange give them a million dollar, I’m not sure if anyone is willing.
    Then you will also understand why ppl would tell you not to hold on to awareness. They take time to send you links, write a whole ebook, risk their karma to say this is not right despite them being monastic..
    Coz they been there before. It’s not it.
    Only anatta is effortless. Only anatta gives one true peace and rest. Insight is important.
    That is why the Buddha stood up against the Hindus “universal Brahman” teaching and teach despite nearly being killed multiple times.
    That is why he left his two ascetic teachers who taught him jhanas, hang on to awareness and rest in Awareness samadhi.
    If that is not compassion, what is it?
    You think the Buddha want fame then with the fame he continue to live in forest ? Just to create a new cult?
    Then why we keep hanging onto universal Brahman and reify awareness ?
    Do ponder .
    Enough yada3! Time to meditate !
    Illustration has got nothing to do with this post but I love the sea. Hahaaha


    Soh Wei Yu
    Nicely written.
    In the seen only the seen is also no seer, no seeing and nothing seen / No Movement
    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...'
    In the seen only the seen is also no seer, no seeing and nothing seen / No Movement
    In the seen only the seen is also no seer, no seeing and nothing seen / No Movement
    In the seen only the seen is also no seer, no seeing and nothing seen / No Movement

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 10h

    Yin Ling
    Ok yes. this is correct. I contradict myself abit when I say not even “impermanence” , I shouldn’t describe “change” after that , I mix the relative and ultimate and will cause confusion.
    Saying Change also posits an existence which can change.
    Just dependent origination. Moment after moment arising dependently from conditions hence nothing really there.

  • Soh Wei Yu
    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: 👍
    “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
    "This is correct. "Permanent" is not referring to something not undergoing change, it refers to the absence of causing of arising." - John Tan, 2021
    "To conclude, in the expanse of phenomena, there is no dual nature of appearance and emptiness, and no twofold division. Therefore, by a mere expression of language—through words—it is also said that the relative truth and ultimate truth are “indivisible.” Although the expanse is like this, separate categories are made merely in terms of the conventional, based on the way things appear. In this way, all phenomena included within samsara—all that is comprised by distorted perceptions and all that appears through the power of dualistic thought—are not real when analyzed. They are fluctuating and impermanent; therefore, these deceptive phenomena are the relative truth. And all phenomena comprised by great nirvana—which is difficult to realize and thus profound, free from constructs, and which is the luminous clarity of wisdom’s knowing, relinquished from all suffering—are beyond material and momentary phenomena. Therefore, they are free from the misery of change. Having the nature of immutability, they are the ultimate truth."
    - Mipham
    Duckworth, Douglas; Mipam, Jamgon. Jamgon Mipam: His Life and Teachings (p. 159). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.
    Labels: Anatta, Emptiness, Movement, Nancy Neithercut |

  • Ng Xin Zhao
    Soh Wei Yu if eyelid close, then no seeing, still got eyes ma, cause next time open eyes, can see.
    Same as sleeping for the other senses.
    How to overcome these objections from the mind?

  • Yin Ling
    Coz you are interpreting from dual.
    If you are seeing from non dual.. like the person above, there won’t be “awareness” from eyes.
    The awareness is in the seen.
    Crudely speaking it feels like the cup on your table is seeing itself. Except it’s not like cup-seeing cup.
    It’s like the seeing is intrinsic in the cup already. The split between the head here and the cup there is dissolve.
    Hence “in the seen just the seen”.
    Try to slowly investigate like that, it will seem strange at first.
    Will let soh explain his way haha

  • Ng Xin Zhao
    Yin Ling still not easy. Too easy to use dualistic mind to question.
    Without light there's no seeing of cup, without eyes there's no seeing of cup. Without cup there's no seeing of cup.
    There's no reason for cup to emit visible light for eyes to be able to see.
    It's all the conditions come together then there's eye consciousness can be aware of cup.
    Is it that you're trying to say, don't locate the eye consciousness in the head, but in the cup?
    Like out of body experience? Astral travel?
    As established, it's not to deny that there's still distance between the head and the cup. Not to intellectually throw away 3D modeling of the world with space, or else mind and body cannot operate properly.

  • Yin Ling
    It’s good. Now you feel the bond very clearly right? Like there’s a here and there, a dual. That’s the start.
    Science trap us in this understanding very tightly. I had that too because I study biology for decades lol I wonder if Angelo Grr has a way to solve this.
    I was asking this Q too before the bond broke.
    Later I find the 洪文亮法师 talk that helped me. At the gym now.
    In atr ppl who reach the I Am stage they lose the vision bond very fast.
    I lose the sound one first then I had a reference to compare.

  • Tan Jui Horng
    It may help to put those more ontological thoughts aside, and start with "what appears to experience".

  • Yin Ling
    Tan Jui Horng yeah, how did you do it jui Horng?
    I had the sound experience to compare with my sight experience to know one is dual one is non dual, and slowly break. But even then I still ask the Q Ng was asking above. For a long long time.
    Ng Xin Zhao the bond when you feel you are seeing the things from here to there.

  • Yin Ling

    • Reply
    • See Translation
    • 8h

  • Yin Ling
    那么这个变化怎么可以指挥脑细胞的变化?假定,看到红的时候就这样动〔↑〕,看到白的时候就这样动〔→〕,看到绿的就这样动〔←〕,看到黄的就这样动〔↓〕。你怎么有能力把这个当成一个象显现在我的眼前呢?因为我们自己有本事,不是我们想出来的。我们不可能把这个变化变成一个象在我们的眼前显现,不是我们变的,也不是我们想出来的。这里有这样的变化,自然就在我们的眼前。一朵花就是花的象在我们的眼前,其实这朵花的象,不是在这里显现,如果这个象没有经过光线、网膜、视觉神经的变化到脑神经,我们根本不知道花的象在这里,其实这个象没有直接到脑里头去,知道这一点,很要紧!是我在这里,我身体脑的一部分专管视觉的这个地方,由于前面有花,这个地方起了变化,不是这个象直接到脑里头去,那么把这个地方,我脑里头的变化,我自己有本事把这个变化换成有一个象在我的前面,GET IT!所以在脑里头的变化,就是脑神经一个细胞是这样,假定脑细胞是这样,看到你的时候,它这样动,看到他的是时候这样动,这个动是不是象?对应到你的时候,因为光线的关系,折射、反射的关系,透过视觉神经种种缘,它这样动,动是你的象吗?脑神经的变化就是你的象吗?你的那个象只是变化不一样吧了。对到他的时候,这样动,这样动或那样动,是你的象或他的象吗?不是吧!只不过是神经的变化不一样而已。红色、白色、长的、短的、圆的、变化的大小、范围的不同,我们就有这本事,真的很厉害,把这个脑神经细胞的动、变化变成我眼前的狗、猫、鱼、蓝天、白云,奇怪!这是脑神经细胞的变化而已,不是这个象照到我脑里头去。是两回事,截然不同,要弄清楚,不可以色见声求,都是在脑里头的细胞起变化,而且这个视觉神经细胞的变化很有定力。

    • Reply
    • See Translation
    • 8h

  • Yin Ling
    象的去来,就是我这里的脑细胞在变化,有了就这样地动,你的象没有了,它就没有这样的动,是“这里”有动跟没有动的分别而已,这里哪里有你的象?没有。以你的象的来去当做来去,脑细胞会提出抗议。这个就是佛法说的颠倒妄想。这个要先弄得懂,佛经才读得懂。我没有讲我的,佛也没有讲他的,实际上是这样,它只是这样,他不是把理论学说想出来了,给我们讲。佛的道理是他发现我们是这样真正动,那是事实,HE POINT IT OUT!指出来而已,佛没有讲他的意见、理论。不管你的理论懂不懂,我们就是这样动,耳朵、眼睛、鼻子、舌头、身体的感觉都一样,最难的是我们搞不清楚“意”和“想”。
    有一个念头,“花”的念头。意根动,才有花的念头上來,不是用眼睛看的,是用心的意根,才有花的念头。意根不像眼睛、耳朵、鼻子一样有一个形让我们分别,因为意根是分散的。比方想到“花”,跟耳朵听到A一样,B的变化、C的变化、白花的那个念头的变化、跟狗的那个念头的变化,在我们的意根动起来,都不一样,“白花”念头起来意根动的变化,是那个样子,如果是一只鱼或一只狗的念头,那个念头变化不一样。耳朵里收了这个声音,到听觉细胞,听觉细胞动了,这个会让你听到声音吗?光是动还是动而已,我们有本事把这个动当做AH,E的声音,为什么我们能分别?是意识的作用加进去了。听的细胞变化一样,看的细胞变化一样,光是变化我们不知道我们听到什么,我们看到什么。我们还有一个力量,是分别的第六意识的力量。噢,A,B,红,白把这个变化读成各种不同的声音、各种分别、分别名相,第六意识分别意识的作用。意根也一样,有一个念头,白花这个念头进来了,那个意根接受这个意念的来访,它也起变化,这个时候它知道不知道是白花?不知道。分别意识没有去分别这个是什么念头。这个地方很要紧,很多人搞不清楚。意根有一个念头来的时候,意根的变化跟耳朵听到狗叫声所起的变化,鸟叫时候的变化,虽然是不同的变化,但是显现的方式是一样的。意根有一个念头是白花的念头,一个念头是狗的念头来了,意根的变化是不一样。只是这两个变化,这个时候你知道是你想到什么吗?不知道啊!意识分别加进去了之后,才说:“啊!我想到白花,想到狗”,能够UNDERSTAND ME?不是说意根动了,马上就知道是是狗。念头来了,你还不能知道这个念头是什么念头,分別意识那个作用没有加进去,只是念来,只是耳朵收进声波的变化而已,还没有办法分出是狗叫还是猫叫,这两种情況是一样的。一个念头来,收进来,意根动,如实地动,什么念头它怎么动,但是你自己还不知道。是念头来了,然后你自己的分别意识起了作用,才知道是什么念头。噢!我想到你,想到他,我想到你的那个念头先进来,然后才分别那个是你的念头。

    • Reply
    • See Translation
    • 8h

  • Yin Ling
    现在是借科学的知识帮忙了解,原来是这样动,但我们不知道,我们以为有一个“我”在看、有一个“我”在听,所以来去都是象,其实这个地方有没有变化而已,甚至能够清楚到这个变化本身就是觉知,不是另外有一个能力去看这个变化,然后读它,把它当做外面有象。那个变化本身就是知,不要另外造一个有能知的去读这个变化。把它当做什么,那是不得已,IN REALISTIC,在实相中没有所谓能跟所这回事!没有设定一个“能知”的去知道“所知”,所以这朵花,花的影子在这里起变化,变化本身已经是能知,没有一个能知道的能力去读我的脑子变化才是,不是这样的!那个“变化本身”是包括能知,这是无情说法,花也在说法,不要把“佛的那个觉性”当做能知的知的精神作用,这个就是佛性,不是觉知那个最高深的法、非常真善美、体谅人的精神、最高清净的那个知,已经把人的分别认识的能知,就是把能知的最深的法〔作用〕当做佛的觉知,那完蛋了,错到一塌糊涂。所以无情说法,就不知道了。什么叫无情说法?这个东西在这里起变化,没有这个就没有起变化,这个变化的四大,由四大构成的脑,四大有主吗?没有主,外面的这个四大有主吗?也没有主。内外四大都是没有主的,都是相通的,没有分别,它是跟这个东西是同一个东西在动,“动本身”就是知,没有一个能知的去看这个动。(没有能知所知,所以才叫无情说法。)赵州禅师说:佛性是什么?就是路边的一颗石头或亭中的一棵柏树。

    • Reply
    • See Translation
    • 8h

  • Yin Ling
    I don’t know if this will help though,
    My path was note until things sound becomes non dual for me.
    ATR helped by urging you to see “presence” first, let the presence be more overpowering then the self could be seen through.

  • Tan Jui Horng
    Uh, not sure if this answers your question. For me, experiencing illusions (optical, auditory etc) and contemplating what happened helped to loosen my idea of what things are supposed to be in the "objective world". At the moment of experience, there can be no doubt of the "realness" of *that* experience e.g. I really did experience sound coming from the back even when there were only speakers in front, blue dress when others say it's a white dress etc. So how things are supposed to be outside of my immediate experience, useful as may be, is not the point of my practice because well, they're not workable.

  • Yin Ling
    Tan Jui Horng for me I was frustrated and confused and I decided not to think and just experience before I go crazy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • Angelo Grr
    Yin Ling A couple of points I would make. My personal experience is it’s not so much science that gets in the way of direct exploration, it’s a far earlier learning. Ie. If we’re to suggest to you look at that chair over there, you don’t need any scientific knowledge to turn that experience into a subject-object thought and a label. That starts happening once there is a perception of self/other around 16-18 months old. We learn labels for things and they already appearing as “not me” perceptually. This is why we unhook these very basic associations in later stages realization. They’re so fundamental to our world view and basic moment to moment experience that it seems absurd to question.
    HOWEVER (there’s always a however isn’t there?) it doesn’t mean that these experiences aren’t approachable and cannot be deconstructed in the way we are discussing. And interestingly the exact way to do that is with a ruthlessly empirical (scientific approach). This means don’t accept conclusions unless they are directly observable right?
    So approaching this way, if I were to point over there to the appearance that we usually agree is called a chair and then I ask “what do you ACTUALLY see there?”
    You would probably say “a chair.” Which is fine of course. However if we are approaching it from a ruthlessly empirical perspective I would tell you that chair is a thought you are overlaying on “that.” So still observing that, I might ask “if that was called something other than a chair would it stop being “that?” You’d say no it wouldn’t.
    Then you’d say “but there is clearly some object over there.”
    I’d ask “where are you finding the object-ness?”
    You’d say it’s “right there!”
    Then I’d say “well if you and a 6 month old infant are here looking in that direction, you would be describing an object, but the 6 month would be SEEING something that they are not perceiving as an object rather just a visual experience. So does that visual experience cease to be because the infant does not call it (or even perceive it as) an object? “
    You’d probably agree that no that raw visual experience is there even if you don’t overlay the perceptual filter on top of it that it is an “object over there.”
    So then I’d ask again, “considering this, where does the object ness arise, or where are you taking reference from to know that is an object out there somewhere?”
    If you were really honest about your direct experience you’d have to say “well that is actually a thought about it being an object and it being over there.”
    See your attention actually moves from the raw visual experience to a thought to try to get at what’s “out there.”
    So then I might say ok great, now move your attention back to the visual experience and tell me what actually is without even the thought about it’s separateness and it’s location.
    If you do this in earnest you might be surprised. There will almost certainly be an initial insistence by the mind that “No I definitely know what that is it’s a “label,” and it’s “out there” and I’m “in here.” But if you just discard that, recognizing attention has returned to thought and has overlaid some “qualities” onto the visual experience, you’d have the opportunity to behold the raw visual experience once again. More importantly that overly itself isn’t actually “out there” but an overlay of a visual snapshot that only exists in thought, then you’d have the opportunity to return attention to the raw visual experience with no labels overlays etc. Then you’d notice something very key here. That is that the direct raw experience of seeing CANNOT ACTUALLY BE IMPUTED with labels, qualities etc. That can only happen in thoughts.
    So now you will find yourself in a very mysterious place indeed if you return attention again to the visual experience realizing that it doesn’t actually exist as a construct of our understanding, even, but rather it clearly exists primary to any processing,
    Furthermore that existence if I just keep my attention there seems to defy usual ways we perceive space, meaning it feels to be sort of “in here” and “out there” simultaneously. It feels mysterious bc no label can capture, yet more intimate and familiar than conceptual knowledge which is always associated with some level of doubt.
    This raw visual experience that I can lead myself back to through the method described above is always here, and the experience deepens and clarifies when I rest attention there. It’s undeniable and precludes any descriptions or understandings.
    That’s one approach, there are many others.
    Also can approach through consciousness or the basic sense of I.
    So if we were In a room and I pointed to various objects and asked you to immediately put your attention on whatever I pointed to you could do it when I said “chair, floor, flower”
    But when I say “you”
    Where does your attention go?
    You might say the body and then I’d say well body is a thought, can you find something that feels like you that was there before and after the thought “body” was in your mind?
    Like this.
    Put your attention right where it feels like you are.
    This is often a great starting point because, well, the sense of being you is always the first assumption as we contemplate anything is it not?
    Yet can you find where it is precisely ?

    • Reply
    • 7h
    • Edited

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Ng Xin Zhao Reading this will help you with an understanding of what emptiness of eyes etc (and all aggregates) mean: http://greg-goode.com/.../Introduction-to-the-Emptiness... - quite good and recommended to go through
    But for a more experiential realisation perspective, Yin Ling and Angelo and Jui has given more apt advices above.

  • Angelo Grr
    One way:
    when closing eyes notice “nothing to see” is a thought, then see what is there to see (the variations in light and forms behind the eyelids). The mind usually filters these out as unimportant. 🙂
    It’s something like an impressionist painting or an abstract 🎨


    Огњен Пушац
    What practice does she do?

  • Yin Ling
    Огњен Пушац Samatha and vipassana 🙂

  • Огњен Пушац
    Yin Ling would shikantaza be something similar to samatha?

  • Yin Ling
    Hmm.. I am not sure exactly what Shikantanza entails.
    But I did do some “do nothing” meditation or you can call it “open awareness” midway. And now even.
    And I find that both Samantha and vipassana intermix .
    Actually I did a lot of stuff lol, my teacher was trying really hard to break down my “self” along the path. She call it my toolbox 🧰 haha.
    She probably can see my conditions and prescribe me the medicine becusse she told me not everyone will work with what she gave me to do.
    I’m careful of advising , hence.

  • Огњен Пушац
    Yin Ling I get it. Thank You for Your sincere answers 🙏. Is it too much to ask who Your teacher is?

  • Yin Ling
    Огњен Пушац I won’t put it out in public coz she doesn’t want publicity and I have to respect her privacy. But if you are sincerely looking for a teacher you could personally message me any time. 🙂

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Yin Ling Shikantaza (只管打坐) is actualization of anatta. As Hong Wen Liang often said, shikantaza is not "meditation". And it is not "you" meditating or "you" sitting. Sitting is sitting. Universe is sitting.

  • Ryan Weeks
    Soh Wei Yuthere are several very different understandings of shikantaza, be careful. I like yours. But most people think of shikantaza as sitting down and doing nothing, then expecting realization. But it is rare. Yours only makes sense after some realization. Before that, you have to break through somehow. And sitting doing nothing is not usually enough.

  • Ryan Weeks
    Since shikantaza is literally "only/just sitting" and is interpreted dogmatically by most in Soto Zen these days.

  • Soh Wei Yu
    I like this article:
    In authentic shikan-taza neither of these two elements of faith can be dispensed with. To exclude satori from shikan-taza would necessarily involve stigmatizing as meaningless and even masochistic the Buddha's strenuous efforts toward enlightenment, and impugning the Ancestral Teachers' and Dogen's own painful struggles to that end. This relation of satori to shikan-taza is of the utmost importance. Unfortunately it has often been misunderstood, especially by those to whom Dogen's complete writings are inaccessible. It thus not infrequently happens that Western students will come to a Soto temple or monastery utilizing koans in its teaching and remonstrate with the master over the assignment; since all are intrinsically enlightened, they argue, there is no point in seeking satori. So what they ask to practice is shikan-taza, which they believe does not involve the experience of enlightenment.[5]
    [5]For the attitude of one such novice, see p. 147.
    Such an attitude reveals not only a lack of faith in the judgment of one's teacher but a fundamental misconception of both the nature and the difficulty of shikan-taza, not to mention the teaching methods employed in Soto temples and monasteries. A careful reading of these introductory lectures and Yasutani-roshi's encounters with ten Westerners will make clear why genuine shikan-taza cannot be successfully undertaken by the rank novice, who has yet to learn how to sit with stability and equanimity, or whose ardor needs to be regularly boosted by communal sitting or by the encouragement of a teacher, or who, above all, lacks strong faith in his or her own Bodhi-mind coupled with a dedicated resolve to experience its reality in one's daily life.
    Because today, Zen masters claim, devotees are on the whole much less zealous for truth, and because the obstacles to practice posed by the complexities of modern life are more numerous, capable Soto masters seldom assign shikan-taza to a beginner. They prefer to have the student first unify the mind through concentration on counting the breaths; or where a burning desire for enlightenment does exist, to exhaust the discursive intellect through the imposition of a special type of Zen problem (that is, a koan) and thus prepare the way for kensho.
    By no means, then, is the koan system confined to the Rinzai sect as many believe. Yasutani-roshi is only one of a number of Soto masters who use koans in their teaching. Genshu Watanabe-roshi, the former abbot of Soji-ji, one of the two head temples of the Soto sect in Japan, regularly employed koans, and at the Soto monastery of Hosshinji, of which the illustrious Harada-roshi was abbot during his lifetime, koans are also widely used.
    Even Dogen himself, as we have seen, disciplined himself in koan Zen for eight years before going to China and practicing shikan-taza. And though upon his return to Japan Dogen wrote at length about shikan-taza and recommended it for his inner band of disciples, it must not be forgotten that these disciples were dedicated truth-seekers for whom koans were an unnecessary encouragement to sustained practice. Notwithstanding this emphasis on shikan-taza, Dogen made a compilation of three hundred well-known koans,[6] to each of which he added his own commentary. From this and the fact that his foremost work, the Shobogenzo (A Treasury of the Eye of the True Dharma), contains a number of koans, we may fairly conclude that he did utilize koans in his teaching.
    [6]In Nempyo Sambyaku Soku (Three Hundred Koans with Commentaries).
    Satori-awakening as Dogen viewed it was not the be-all and end-all. Rather he conceived it as the foundation for a magnificent edifice whose many-storied superstructure would correspond to the perfected character and personality of the spiritually developed individual, the woman or man of moral virtue and all-embracing compassion and wisdom. Such an imposing structure, Dogen taught, could be erected only by years of faithful zazen upon the solid base of the immutable inner knowledge which satori confers.
    What then is zazen and how is it related to satori? Dogen taught that zazen is the "gateway to total liberation," and Keizan-zenji, one of the Japanese Soto Dharma Ancestors, had declared that only through Zen sitting is the "human mind illumined." Elsewhere Dogen wrote [7] that "even the Buddha, who was a born sage, sat in zazen for six years until his supreme enlightenment, and so towering a spiritual figure as Bodhidharma sat for nine years facing the wall."[8] And so have Dogen and all the other great masters sat.
    [7]In his Fukan Zazengi (Universal Promotion of the Principles of Zazen).
    [8]Following Bodhidharma's example, Soto devotees face a wall or curtain during zazen. In the Rinzai tradition sitters face each other across the room in two rows, their backs to the wall.
    For with the ordering and immobilizing of feet, legs, hands, arms, trunk, and head in the traditional lotus posture,[9] with the regulation of the breath, the methodical stilling of the thoughts and unificatio of the mind through special modes of concentration, with the development of control over the emotions and strengthening of the will, and with the cultivation of a profound silence in the deepest recesses of the mind--in other words, through the practice of zazen--there are established the optimum preconditions for looking into the heart-mind and discovering there the true nature of existence.
    [9]See p.36 and section IX.
    Although sitting is the foundation of zazen, it is not just any kind of sitting. Not only must the back be straight, the breathing properly regulated, and the mind concentrated beyond thought, but, according to Dogen, one must sit with a sense of dignity and grandeur, like a mountain or a giant pine, and with a feeling of gratitute toward the Buddha and the Dharma Ancestors, who made magnifest the Dharma. And we must be grateful for our human body, through which we have the opportunity to experience the reality of the Dharma in all its profundity. This sense of dignity and gratitude, moreover, is not confined to sitting bu must inform every activity, for insofar as each act issues from the Bodhi-mind it has the inherent purity and dignity of Buddhahood. This innate dignity of the human being is physiologically manifested in an erect back, since humans alone of all creatures have this capacity to hold their spinal columns vertical. An erect back is related to proper sitting in other important ways, which will be discussed at a later point in this section.
    In the broad sense zazen embraces more than just correct sitting. To enter fully into every action with total attention and clear awareness is no less zazen. The prescription for accomplishing this was given by the Buddha himself in an early sutra: "In what is seen there must be just the seen; in what is heard there must be just the heard; in what is sensed (as smell, taste or touch) there must be just what is sensed; in what is thought there must be just the thought."[10]
    安谷 (白雲) 量衡 Yasutani (Hakuun) Ryōkō (1885-1973)
    安谷 (白雲) 量衡 Yasutani (Hakuun) Ryōkō (1885-1973)
    安谷 (白雲) 量衡 Yasutani (Hakuun) Ryōkō (1885-1973)

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 12m

  • Soh Wei Yu
    John TanWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:11pm UTC+08
    Imo he cannot just teach 只管打坐 (shikantaza, only sitting) for anatta, must 参 (contemplate)
    Soh Wei YuWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:12pm UTC+08
    Soh Wei YuWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:12pm UTC+08
    yeah his explanation for zazen is like 'zuo wang' (forget self)
    Soh Wei YuWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:12pm UTC+08
    fusing into everything
    Soh Wei YuWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:12pm UTC+08
    but it seems like a stage
    Soh Wei YuWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:12pm UTC+08
    im not sure how that can lead to anatta
    John TanWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:14pm UTC+08
    One must 参 (contemplate) the view
    John TanWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:14pm UTC+08
    Because karmic tendencies r strong
    John TanWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:15pm UTC+08
    However it is sincerity that counts
    John TanWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:15pm UTC+08
    Otherwise it is only an experience
    John TanWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:16pm UTC+08
    Unless one is truly wise otherwise it is not easy to realize ANATTA and progress to the prajna wisdom that penetrates extremes.
    Soh Wei YuWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:21pm UTC+08
    Soh Wei YuWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 4:21pm UTC+08
    i wonder how he leads people to anatta
    John TanWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 5:52pm UTC+08
    I think his 只管打坐 (shikantaza; only sitting) is to directly experience his teachings so there is no 参 (contemplate) Koan per say but directly experience what he taught and explain.
    Soh Wei YuWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 5:54pm UTC+08
    Oic.. but experience not necessarily will have realization isnt it
    John TanWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 6:13pm UTC+08
    It is not just experience, there is realization. It is just that it is a guided journey rather than a on one's own after certain pith instructions or koan.
    John TanWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 7:02pm UTC+08
    Lol...but one also needs to know the insights of the individual. After certain lvl of insights spoon feeding becomes a disservice to one's progress.
    John TanWednesday, October 1, 2014 at 9:34pm UTC+08
    That said, as 洪文良has too many students, it is not possible to monitor the progress of each student
    Soh: One more comment
    Hong Wen Liang also utilize koan -- he also gave me a koan before.

  • Reply
  • 5m
  • Edited
Labels: , | edit post
0 Responses