Well, there's at least a few things which should carry forward: https://suttacentral.net/an1.268-277/en/sujato...

Some things becomes impossible to do.

“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for a person accomplished in view to acknowledge another teacher. But it is possible for an ordinary person to acknowledge another teacher.”

Basically, will become Buddhist, not another religon.

These are a few articles that might be worth including:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../anatta-not-self-or... (for refuting Thanissaro’s views on anatta)

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../substantial-and... (clear and comprehensive description on the difference between substantialist and non-substantialist non-duality)

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../no-mind-and-anatta... (no-mind vs anatta)

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../suggestions-for... (different members who realized anatta)

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../anatta-and-post... (William Kong’s anatta realization + John Tan’s comments)

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-transient... (for understanding luminosity/presence, might be helpful for those who skipped I AM or followed MCTB)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/2580991161942298/ (if you agree I think this post on presence by Hale along with the comments by John Tan should be made into a new blog post)

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-magical... (for motivating spiritual practitioners and to show what’s possible in terms of experiencing/actualizing post-anatta insights)

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../insight-diagnosis... (good summary of Thusness Stages)

For Stage 6:

Total Exertion:

Non-Arising:

1) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../four-levels-of...

2) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../all-things-are...

3) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../post-anatta...

4) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../wrote-this...

5) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../nondual-emptiness...

6) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-two-truths-of...

7) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../looking-straight-at...

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../emptinesschariot-as...

9) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../a-conversation-with...

10) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-only-way-to...

11) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../kyle-dixon-on...

12) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../dependent-arising...

13) http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../equipoise-and-post...

The latter I just copied from the sample atr practice guide.

John Tan

When Dogen was still a monk in Tendai School, he was puzzled and couldn't understand the teaching of "original enlightenment". If we were originally enlightened, how can we be lost? Unsatisfied he traveled to China in search for answers and when he returned back to Japan, he began promoting "practice-enlighthment". What did Dogen realize from this koan of "original enlightenment" into "practice-enlightenment"?

Those that went for the ATR gathering don't answer ah.

2

Continue at

Dr. Greg Goode wrote in Emptything:

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?

I 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 everywhere...

- http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../greg-goode-on...

Is there in you an entity which you call the 'I' or the 'mind' or the 'self'? Is there a co- ordinator who is co-ordinating what you are looking at with what you are listening to, what you are smelling with what you are tasting, and so on? Or is there anything which links together the various sensations originating from a single sense -- the flow of impulses from the eyes, for example? Actually, there is always a gap between any two sensations. The co-ordinator bridges that gap: he establishes himself as an illusion of continuity.

In the natural state there is no entity who is co-ordinating the messages from the different senses. Each sense is functioning independently in its own way. When there is a demand from outside which makes it necessary to co-ordinate one or two or all of the senses and come up with a response, still there is no co-ordinator, but there is a temporary state of co- ordination. There is no continuity; when the demand has been met, again there is only the unco-ordinated, disconnected, disjointed functioning of the senses. This is always the case. Once the continuity is blown apart -- not that it was ever there; but the illusory continuity -- it's finished once and for all.

Can this make any sense to you? It cannot. All that you know lies within the framework of your experience, which is of thought. This state is not an experience. I am only trying to give you a 'feel' of it, which is, unfortunately, misleading.

When there is no co-ordinator, there is no linking of sensations, there is no translating of sensations; they stay pure and simple sensations. I do not even know that they are sensations. I may look at you as you are talking. The eyes will focus on your mouth because that is what is moving, and the ears will receive the sound vibrations. There is nothing inside which links up the two and says that it is you talking. I may be looking at a spring bubbling out of the earth and hear the water, but there is nothing to say that the noise being heard is the sound of water, or that that sound is in any way connected with what I am seeing. I may be looking at my foot, but nothing says that this is my foot. When I am walking, I see my feet moving -- it is such a funny thing: "What is that which is moving?"

What functions is a primordial consciousness, untouched by thought.

...

You must always recognize what you are looking at, otherwise you are not there. The moment you translate, the 'you' is there. You look at something and recognize that it is a bag, a red bag. Thought interferes with the sensation by translating. Why does thought interfere? And can you do anything about it? The moment you look at a thing, what comes inside of you is the word 'bag', if not bag', then 'bench' or 'bannister', 'step', "that man sitting there, he has white hair." It goes on and on -- you are repeating to yourself all the time. If you don't do that, you are preoccupied with something else: "I'm getting late for the office." You are either thinking about something which is totally unrelated to the way the senses are functioning at this moment, or else you are looking and saying to yourself "That's a bag, that's a red bag," and so on and so on -- that is all that is there. The word 'bag' separates you from what you are looking at, thereby creating the 'you'; otherwise there is no space between the two.

Every time a thought is born, you are born. When the thought is gone, you are gone. But the 'you' does not let the thought go, and what gives continuity to this 'you' is the thinking. Actually there is no permanent entity in you, no totality of all your thoughts and experiences. You think that there is 'somebody' who is thinking your thoughts, 'somebody' who is feeling your feelings --- that's the illusion. I can say it is an illusion; but it is not an illusion to you.

Your emotions are more complex, but it is the same process. Why do you have to tell yourself that you are angry, that you are envious of someone else, or that sex is bothering you? I am not saying anything about fulfilling or not fulfilling. There is a sensation in you, and you say that you are depressed or unhappy or blissful, jealous, greedy, envious. This labelling brings into existence the one who is translating this sensation. What you call "I" is nothing but this word 'red bag', 'bench', 'steps', 'banister', 'light bulb', 'angry', 'blissful', 'jealous', or whatever. You are putting your brain cells to unnecessary activity making the memory cells operate all the time, destroying the energy that is there. This is only wearing you out.

This labelling is necessary when you must communicate with someone else or with yourself. But you communicate with yourself all the time. Why do you do this? The only difference between you and the person who talks aloud to himself is that you don't talk aloud. The moment you do begin to talk aloud, along comes the psychiatrist. That chap, of course, is doing the same thing that you are doing, communicating to himself all the time -- 'bag', 'red bag', 'obsessive', 'compulsive', 'Oedipus complex,' 'greedy', 'bench', 'banister', 'martini'. Then he says something is wrong with you and puts you on the couch and wants to change you, to help you.

Why can't you leave the sensations alone? Why do you translate? You do this because if you do not communicate to yourself, you are not there. The prospect of that is frightening to the 'you'.

...

The eyes are like a very sensitive camera. The physiologists say that light reflected off objects strikes the retina of the eye and the sensation goes through the optic nerve to the brain. The faculty of sight, of seeing, is simply a physical phenomenon. It makes no difference to the eyes whether they are focused on a snow-capped mountain or on a garbage can: they produce sensations in exactly the same way. the eyes look on everyone and everything without discrimination.

You have a feeling that there is a 'cameraman' who is directing the eyes. But left to themselves -- when there is no 'cameraman' -- the eyes do not linger, but are moving all the time. They are drawn by the things outside. Movement attracts them, or brightness or a color which stands out from whatever is around it. There is no 'I' looking; mountains, flowers, trees, cows, all look at me. The consciousness is like a mirror, reflecting whatever is there outside. The depth, the distance, the color, everything is there, but there is nobody who is translating these things. Unless there is a demand for knowledge about what I am looking at, there is no separation, no distance from what is there. It may not actually be possible to count the hairs on the head of someone sitting across the room, but there is a kind of clarity which seems as if I could.

The eyes do not blink, except when there is sudden danger -- this is something very natural because the things outside are demanding attention all the time. Then, when the eyes are tired, a built-in mechanism in the body cuts them out -- they may be open, but they are blurred. But if the eyes stay open all the time, if the reflex action of blinking is not operating, they become dry and you will go blind; so there are some glands beyond the outer corners of the eyes, which are not activated in your case, which act as a watering mechanism. Tears flow all the time from the outer corners. Ignorant people have described them as 'tears of joy' or 'tears of bliss'. There is nothing divine about them. By practicing not blinking, one will not arrive in this state; one will only strain the eyes. And there are neurotics in mental hospitals whose eyes do not blink for one reason or another -- for them it is a pathological condition. But once you are in your natural state, by some luck or some strange chance, all this happens in its own way.

There is nothing that unifies experience here. There are memories of a past experience, but each moment is unique and there is no referencepoint or centerpoint or a unifying ground to which the different moments refer back to. And yet in this unique instant you can feel the total exertion of all times and the entire universe in that moment of activity.

Dogen puts it this way:

"

Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.

This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring."

- http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../genjo-koan...

Also,

[27/1/16, 12:47:33 AM] John Tan: Each form is time anew and each time is an anew form. Hearing sound, that is time. Seeing colors that is time. Actually awareness is altogether forgotten and not needed, so is duration. Only when u step out of "being-time", duration arises. That is what I think Dogen meant by being-time.

[27/1/16, 1:01:09 AM] John Tan: Also when Dogen say being-time, time is also not just a brief instance, nor is it linear. Past is not before present and present is not before future. The whole of one's entire past and the whole of one's entire future is fully exerted in a single instant manifested as form.

[27/1/16, 1:17:31 AM] John Tan: To hv a heart to heart communication with Dogen, u must read with the wisdom of total exertion. A brief instance of wisdom is at the same time the full exertion of an infinite lifetimes wisdom. This is not abt beautiful words, u must fully feel it.

That background is seen through in anatta. And indeed everything is disjointed and uncoordinated. All these are described in the 2nd 'must read' article by John Tan https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../on-anatta...

It's important to keep an open and contemplative mind for progress. Otherwise you'll get stuck with some stages of realization.

That question supposes that talking is initiated by an agent, a talker.

The anatta insight is precisely the realisation that all actions does not need an agent much like "lightning" is simply "flash", it is simply an illusory construct that lightning is an agent which initiates flash, or wind is an agent that initiates blowing, or river is an agent that initiates flowing, etc. Both words are just that activity, that manifestation.

Likewise awareness is not an agent behind experience but is simply the experience in all its vivid colors, sounds, sensations. There is no one singular awareness behind experience. That is anatta insight.

The Buddha rejected the "who" question and asks, with what condition X arise? This leads to insight of conditionality.

See: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../flawed-mode-of...

and http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../phagguna-sutta-to...

Short excerpt:

"Who, O Lord, feels?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

It is only a convenient convention to call it "my experience", when in truth there is no I, me, or mine whatsoever. Everything just rolls and knows without a knower.

“Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

"Consummate with taints destroyed,

One who bears his final body,

Would he still say 'I speak'?

And would he say 'They speak to me'?"

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,

He uses such terms as mere expressions."

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;

For him all knots of conceit are consumed.

When the wise one has transcended the conceived

He might still say 'I speak,'

And he might say 'They speak to me.'

Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,

He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)” - https://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../jootla/wheel414.html