Maybe this part I may not express it this way --

Session Start: Friday, 2 October, 2009

(Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, Rainbow Painting: "All our thoughts come out of the buddha nature as its expression, like rays of sunlight emanate from the sun. It is not that the sun comes out of the rays.")

(7:53 PM) Thusness: Tulku Urgyen makes a good statement but that is before understanding stage 5 and 6.

(7:53 PM) Thusness: that is without the source, nothing happens

(7:55 PM) Thusness: However in Buddhism, insight is to see, penetrate and investigate and become thoroughly clear that the idea of a source, an essence is unnecessary. Once you experience and arise the insight of anatta, u begin open to happening without source, without the need of an essence.

(7:56 PM) Thusness: This is then the beginning of Buddhism.

(11:51 PM) AEN: http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/index.php...

still there

(11:52 PM) AEN: i go update the link

(12:01 AM) AEN: http://now-for-you.com/viewtopic.php?t=5593

(12:04 AM) AEN: oh ya btw vajrahridaya and some others think tulku urgyen writings is prone to advaita

u read the 'as it is' right? what u tink

(12:04 AM) Thusness: yeah

i commented

(12:04 AM) AEN: oic where

(12:05 AM) Thusness: to u...i said that is only true when one after non-dual experience still rest in a subject-object view.

(12:07 AM) AEN: oic...

(12:08 AM) Thusness: however if one thoroughly eliminates the agent through the insight of anatta, then the practitioner will not make such a remark. He will gradually move into the dependent origination and no-self. To know the breadth and depth of no-self, be willing to drop also the view and replace it with DO. Rest on a view that requires no source and essence.

(12:09 AM) AEN: icic..

(1:03 AM) AEN: i read that tulku urgyen rinpoche has a literal take of the shentong view.. his view is inclined to shentong

(1:03 AM) AEN: btw it's fine to talk about source right? i mean The Supreme Source talks about it.... but i think its different from other non-buddhist views?

(1:04 AM) Thusness: talking about the source is okie but ur understanding of how things are interdependent without a source.

(1:04 AM) Thusness: when u hear sound

do u say awareness is the source?

(1:05 AM) Thusness: or when u hit a bell, the bell is the source of the sound?

or the stick?

(1:05 AM) AEN: the supreme source seems to state that consciousness is the source of everything but at the same time it says all manifestations are the display of me (consciousness)... so it doesnt dualify source/manifestation i think

(1:06 AM) Thusness: there is no duality and there is no effort in the supreme source

(1:06 AM) AEN: icic..

(1:06 AM) Thusness: what i want u to know is to eliminate the entire idea of a source

(1:07 AM) Thusness: but that comes after non-dual and u really feel like awareness is the source of everything even after non-dual realization, u felt that awareness is the source

(1:07 AM) Thusness: experience is non-dual, even after realization, there is still an idea of a source

why is this so?

(1:08 AM) Thusness: why can't we eliminate the idea of a source even after the experience of anatta?

(1:08 AM) Thusness: clearly there is no agent

thought after thought without an agent

a thinker

(1:09 AM) Thusness: in complete clarity we see this

yet the idea of a source still persist

(1:09 AM) Thusness: this is why i meant desync of view and experience

therefore replace the view

(1:10 AM) AEN: oic..

(1:12 AM) Thusness: kok ur head...since when did i say dharma dan is an arhant

(1:12 AM) Thusness: i said his insight is deep and profound

(1:13 AM) AEN: icic..

(1:13 AM) Thusness: and many practitioners are not his level

(1:13 AM) AEN: oic..

(1:13 AM) Thusness: i believe I nv said he is an arahat

(1:14 AM) Thusness: even ajahn chah, i never said i think he is an arahat

(1:14 AM) Thusness: i nv said anyone is an arhat.

(1:14 AM) AEN: lol

icic..

(1:16 AM) Thusness: i am never interested in others attainment

i merely tell u, the depth of his insight

(1:16 AM) Thusness: how will that help u in a practical sense

(1:17 AM) AEN: oic..

(3:36 AM) AEN: Come to think of it now, why didn't I become like a blind and deaf person right away? "Blind and deaf" here means a state of mind where there is nothing to see and nothing to hear. When you see, there's only the seeing, and the subject

that sees doesn't exist. When you hear, there's only the hearing, and the subject that hears doesn't exist. The objects which are seen or heard are, just as they are, without substance. But understanding the logic of this will not do. When this is realized as a fact, you become like a "blind and deaf" person.

...The point is why the person inside the hermitage (subject) cannot see the things "in front of the hermitage" (object). That's because there isn't anything in front of the hermitage. You may say that there is only the subject, there being no object at all. Yet, in actual truth, that "subject" doesn't exist either.

(3:36 AM) AEN:

The water flows of itself and the flowers are naturally red.

The water runs smoothly, the flowers are colored scarlet. This line seems to imply that there are only the objects and there's no subject at all. However, as a matter of fact, those objects do not exist at all.

It's simply that the water is running smoothly, and flowers are scarlet. Everything is just as it is [tada korekore], and everything is void as it is

now [arugamama no aritsubure]. The fact that there is no distinction between self and others simply continues without end - "The water flows of itself and the flowers are naturally red.".

(3:47 AM) AEN: http://www.terebess.hu/english/oxherding.html

Session Start: Saturday, 3 October, 2009

(3:03 PM) AEN: i asked namdrol "Just to clarify: in your understanding, all Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras/tantras come from realized masters other than Buddha?" he replied "Yup."

(10:32 PM) Thusness: That is zen enlightenment.

If you find it is strange that there were only two masters in the whole of India that had realized anatta back then in the 11th century, a similar analogous situation is present today – I can only find two dharma teachers in the whole of India (a sub-continent with over 1 billion+ population) that is currently teaching from the experiential insight of anatman – the Dzogchen practitioners/teachers Prabodha Jnana Yogi* and Abhaya Devi Yogini. You’ll probably say, well, that’s to be expected because Buddhism largely died out in India, Hinduism being its current predominant religion, so of course the Atman view must be prevalent. However, I would also add that throughout China and Taiwan (where roughly 20% and 35% respectively are Buddhists), another subcontinent with currently over 1+ billion people, I can only find two dharma teachers that teaches with the experiential insight into anatman – Zen Master Hong Wen Liang （洪文亮禅师）and Zen Master Hui Lu （慧律法师）(update: September 2020, found the third one: 继程法师. Upate 2021: sorry, 继程法师 doesn’t live in China but in Malaysia.). The others, as I found, mostly teach from the realization of I AM and one mind. I believe this is largely due to the gradual evolution of doctrinal influences over hundreds/thousands of years that made the Chinese Mahayana teaching gradually deviate from the original doctrine of No-Mind/Anatman taught by the first Ch’an Patriarch Bodhidharma, as I discussed in Problem with Many Zen Teachings, and perhaps elucidated more clearly in scholastic books like How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the Way to China (which I never read, but the synposis seems interesting). Interestingly, insight into anatman is somewhat more common in the west at the moment. Realization of anatman is seemingly more common in Soto Zen (a Japanese Zen sect that was derived from the Chinese Cao Dong school of Ch’an Buddhism) perhaps due to the emphasis on the study of its founder Zen Master Dogen’s teachings, but I have known people who realize anatman in all the three main Buddhist traditions – Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, and within Vajrayana I know of and can name people [currently alive] who realized anatta in basically all the subsects of Vajrayana, so I know that this insight is fundamental to all Buddhist traditions without exception, although not always commonly attained.

Arcaya Malcolm said in 2020, “While there are problems with Sino-Japanese concepts of self, as eloquently illustrated by the late Jungnok Park in his How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the Way to China, the idea of all phenomena possessing buddhanature that we see frequently mentioned in Sino-Japanese Buddhism is not a problematic at all, if understood as Nāgārjuna states it in the MMK, "Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world. As the Tathāgata has no nature, the world has no nature."”

For Dzogchen, Dzogchen teachers Acarya Malcolm Smith and his student Kyle Dixon are very clear: https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../clarification...

Prabodha Yogi and Abhaya Devi Yogini are also very clear: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/04/way-of-bodhi.html

When I was in California in 2019 I asked Kyle Dixon if he attended Dzogchen talks in San Francisco. He turned and looked and me, and told me, not really. I asked why? He said well.. like you, I wasn’t really impressed with the understanding of the Dzogchen teachers flying in and out of his town. He also mentioned previously that he was disappointed by some Dzogchen teachers talks he attended which taught substantialist view.

“John: what is "I AM"

is it a pce? (Soh: PCE = pure consciousness experience, see glossary at the bottom of this document)

is there emotion

is there feeling

is there thought

is there division or complete stillness?

in hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound!

so what is "I AM"?

Soh Wei Yu: it is the same

just that pure non conceptual thought

John: is there 'being'?

Soh Wei Yu: no, an ultimate identity is created as an afterthought

John: indeed

it is the mis-interpretation after that experience that is causing the confusion

that experience itself is pure conscious experience

there is nothing that is impure

that is why it is a sense of pure existence

it is only mistaken due to the 'wrong view'

so it is a pure conscious experience in thought.

not sound, taste, touch...etc

PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) is about direct and pure experience of whatever we encounter in sight, sound, taste...

the quality and depth of experience in sound

in contacts

in taste

in scenery

has he truly experience the immense luminous clarity in the senses?

if so, what about 'thought'?

when all senses are shut

the pure sense of existence as it is when the senses are shut.

then with senses open

have a clear understanding

do not compare irrationally without clear understanding”

“...There is nothing underneath everything, in the state of I AM, it is just I AM. The rest of the 5 sense doors are shut. Everything else is excluded. It is called I simply because of the koan, nothing else.

What’s experienced is similar to hearing sound without the sense of hearer. So keep the experience but refine the view.” - John Tan to someone in Awakening to Reality Discussion Group, 2019

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../reality-i-am...

Excerpt:

[5:24 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What is the most important experience in I M?

[5:24 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What must happen in I M?

[5:25 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: There is not even an M, just I... complete stillness, just I correct?

[5:26 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Realization, certainty of being.. yes just stillness and doubtless sense of I/Existence

[5:26 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: And what is the complete stillness just I?

[5:26 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Just I, just presence itself

[5:28 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: This stillness absorbs excludes and includes everything into just I. What is that experience called?

[5:29 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: I am everything?

[5:29 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: That experience is non-dual.

[5:30 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: And in that experience actually, there is no external nor internal, there is also no observer or observed.

[5:30 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Just complete stillness as I.

[5:31 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. yeah even I AM is nondual

[5:31 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: That is ur first phase of a non dual experience.

[5:32 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: We say this is the pure thought experience in stillness

[5:32 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Thought realm

[5:33 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: But at that moment we don't know that...we treated that as ultimate reality.

[5:33 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah

In 2007:

(9:12 PM) Thusness: you don't think that "I AMness" is low stage of enlightenment leh

(9:12 PM) Thusness: the experience is the same. it is just the clarity. In terms of insight. Not experience.

(9:13 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:13 PM) Thusness: so a person that has experience "I AMness" and non dual is the same. except the insight is different.

(9:13 PM) AEN: oic

(9:13 PM) Thusness: non dual is every moment there is the experience of presence. or the insight into the every moment experience of presence. because what that prevent that experience is the illusion of self and "I AM" is that distorted view. the experience is the same leh.

(9:15 PM) Thusness: didn’t you see i always say there is nothing wrong with that experience to longchen, jonls... i only say it is skewed towards the thought realm. so don't differentiate but know what is the problem. I always say it is misinterpretation of the experience of presence. not the experience itself. but "I AMness" prevents us from seeing.

……

“It is not the contemplations that are important, it is the view brought to contemplation that makes the difference. For example, there is no actual difference between the Hindu Nirvikalpa samadhi and Vajropama samadhi in terms of its content, but the fact that one is accompanied by insight and the other is not makes the difference between whether it is mundane or liberative.” – Dzogchen Teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith, 2014

In 2009:

“(10:49 PM) Thusness: by the way you know about hokai description and "I AM" is the same experience?

(10:50 PM) AEN: the watcher right

(10:52 PM) Thusness: nope. i mean the shingon practice of the body, mind, speech into one.

(10:53 PM) AEN: oh thats i am experience?

(10:53 PM) Thusness: yes, except that the object of practice is not based on consciousness. what is meant by foreground? it is the disappearance of the background and whats left is it. similarly the "I AM" is the experience of no background and experiencing consciousness directly. that is why it is just simply "I-I" or "I AM"

(10:57 PM) AEN: i've heard of the way people describe consciousness as the background consciousness becoming the foreground... so there's only consciousness aware of itself and thats still like I AM experience

(10:57 PM) Thusness: that is why it is described that way, awareness aware of itself and as itself.

(10:57 PM) AEN: but you also said I AM people sink to a background?

(10:57 PM) Thusness: yes

(10:57 PM) AEN: sinking to background = background becoming foreground?

(10:58 PM) Thusness: that is why i said it is misunderstood. and we treat that as ultimate.

(10:58 PM) AEN: icic but what hokai described is also nondual experience rite

(10:58 PM) Thusness: I have told you many times that the experience is right but the understanding is wrong. that is why it is an insight and opening of the wisdom eyes. there is nothing wrong with the experience of I AM". did i say that there is anything wrong with it?

(10:59 PM) AEN: nope

(10:59 PM) Thusness: even in stage 4 what did I say?

(11:00 PM) AEN: its the same experience except in sound, sight, etc

(11:00 PM) Thusness: sound as the exact same experience as "I AM"... as presence.

(11:00 PM) AEN: icic

(11:00 PM) Thusness: yes”

“"I AM" is a luminous thought in samadhi as I-I. Anatta is a realization of that in extending the insight to the 6 entries and exits.” – John Tan, 2018

John Tan: It’s non conceptual. Yup. Okay. Presence is not conceptual experience, it has to be direct. And you just feel pure sense of existence. Means people ask you, before birth, who are you? You just authenticate the I, that is yourself, directly. So when you first authenticate that I, you are damn happy, of course. When young, that time, wah… I authenticate this I… so you thought that you’re enlightened, but then the journey continues. So this is the first time you taste something that is different. It is… It is before thoughts, there is no thoughts. Your mind is completely still. You feel still, you feel presence, and you know yourself. Before birth it is Me, after birth, it is also Me, 10,000 years it’s still this Me, 10,000 year before, it’s still this Me. So you authenticate that, your mind is just that and authenticate your own true being, so you don't doubt that. In later phase…

Kenneth Bok: Presence is this I AM?

John Tan: Presence is the same as I AM. Presence is the same as… of course, other people may disagree, but actually they're referring to the same thing. The same authentication, the same what... even in Zen is still the same.

But in later phase, I conceive that as just the thought realm. Means, in the six, I always call the six entries and six exits, so there is the sound and there’s all these… During that time, you always say I’m not sound, I’m not the appearance, I AM the Self that is behind all these appearances, alright? So, sounds, sensations, all these come and go, your thoughts come and go, those are not me, correct? This is the ultimate Me. The Self is the ultimate Me. Correct?

William Lam: So, is that nondual? The I AM stage. It’s non-conceptual, was it nondual?

John Tan: It’s nonconceptual. Yes, it is nondual. Why is it nondual? At that moment, there is no duality at all, at that moment when you experience the Self, you cannot have duality, because you are authenticated directly as IT, as this pure sense of Being. So, it’s completely I, there’s nothing else, just I. There’s nothing else, just the Self. I think, many of you have experienced this, the I AM. So, you probably will go and visit all the Hinduism, sing song with them, meditate with them, sleep with them, correct? Those are the young days. I meditate with them, hours after hours, meditate, sit with them, eat with them, sing song with them, drum with them. Because this is what they preach, and you find these group of people, all talking about the same language.

So this experience is not a normal experience, correct? I mean, within the probably 15 years of my life or 17 years of my life, my first... when I was 17, when you first experienced that, wah, what is that? So, it is something different, it is non conceptual, it is non dual, and all these. But it is very difficult to get back the experience. Very, very difficult, unless you're in when you're in meditation, because you reject the relative, the appearances. So, it is, although they may say no, no, it is always with me, because it's Self, correct? But you don't actually get back the authentication, just pure sense of existence, just me, because you reject the rest of that appearances, but you do not know during that time. Only after anatta, then you realize that this, when you when you hear sound without the background, that experience is exactly the same, the taste is exactly the same as the presence. The I AM Presence. So, only after anatta, when the background is gone, then you realize eh, this has the exact same taste as the I AM experience. When you are not hearing, you are just in the vivid appearances, the obvious appearances now, correct. That experience is also the I AM experience. When you are even now feeling your sensation without the sense of self directly. That experience is exactly the same as I AM taste. It is nondual. Then you realize, I call, actually, everything is Mind. Correct? Everything. So, so before that, there is an ultimate Self, a background, and you reject all those transient appearances. After that, that background is gone, you know? And then you are just all these appearances.

William Lam: You are the appearance? You are the sound? You are the…

John Tan: Yes. So, so, that is an experience. That is an experience. So after that, you realize something. What did you realise? You realise all along it is the what, that is obscuring you. So… in a person, for a person that is in I AM experience, the pure presence experience, they will always have a dream. They will say that I hope I can 24 by 7 always in that state, correct? So when I was young, 17. But then after 10 years you are still thinking. Then after 20 years, you say how come I need to always meditate? You always find time to meditate, maybe I don't study also meditate, you give me a cave last time I will just meditate inside.

So, the the thing that you always dream that you can one day be pure consciousness, just as pure consciousness, live as pure consciousness, but you never get it. And even if you meditate, occasionally probably you can have that oceanic experience. Only when you after anatta, when that self behind is gone, you are not 24 by 7, maybe most of your day, waking state, not so much of 24 by 7, you dream that time still very karmic depending on what you engage, doing business, all these. (John mimics dreaming) How come ah, the business…

So, so, in normal waking state, you are effortless. Probably that is the, during I AM phase, what you think you are going to achieve, you achieve after the insight of anatta. So you become clear, you are probably in the right path. But there are further insights you have to go through. When you try to penetrate the… one of them is, I feel that I become very physical. I am just narrating, going through my experience. Maybe that time… because you experience the relative, the appearances directly. So everything becomes very physical. So that is how you come to understand the meaning, how concepts actually affect you. Then what exactly is physical? How does the idea of physical come about, correct? That time I still do not know about emptiness, and all these kind of things, to me it is not so important.

So, I start going into what exactly is physical, what exactly is being physical? Sensation. But why is sensation known as physical, and what is being physical? How did I get the idea of being physical? So, I began to enquire into this thing. That, eh, actually on top of that, there is still further things to deconstruct, that is the meaning… that, just like self, I’m attached to the meaning of self, and you create a construct, it becomes a reification. Same thing, physicality also. So, you deconstruct the concepts surrounding physicality. Correct? So, when you deconstruct that, then I began to realize that all along, we try to understand, even after the experience of let’s say, anatta and all these… when we analyze, and when we think and try to understand something, we are using existing scientific concepts, logic, common day to day logic and all these to understand something. And it is always excluding consciousness. Even if you experience, you can lead a spiritual path you know, but when you think and analyze something, somehow you always exclude consciousness from the equation of understanding something. Your concept is always very materialistic. We always exclude consciousness from the whole equation.

” - https://docs.google.com/.../16QGwYIP.../edit...

Sogyal's description is just the preliminary unripened rigpa.

John Tan's reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:

“This is like what I tell you and essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing [its] Nature. First apprehend Mind, later realise [its] Nature).

First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like zen sudden enlightenment of one's original mind or mahamudra or dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa or even self enquiry of advaita -- the direct, immediate, perception of "consciousness" without intermediaries. They are the same.

However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) yet. If you go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, you will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots are.

Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between buddhist's anatta and selflessness of other religions -- whether it is anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness.

The former focused on selflessness and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self whereas the latter is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.

As for emptiness there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness of Tsongkhapa and there is the emptiness free from extremes by Gorampa. Both are equally profound so do not talk nonsense and engaged in profane speech as in terms of result, ultimately they are the same (imo).”

Dalai Lama - "Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels...." - Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book

If you read Malcolm's explanation of Dzogchen basis you will also see it is totally in line with anatta, emptiness, spontaneous perfection insight.

Likewise the books of Dzogchen tantras he translated goes in depth in explaining the view. Too long to elaborate

Besides Sogyal Rinpoche, here are a bunch of other Dzogchen masters describing I AM insight, the preliminary rigpa:

Tenzin Wangyal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNK7g5xZu7w

Lopon Tenzin Namdak: "To clarify the Dzogchen view: "We are just what we are, the Natural State which is like a mirror. It is clear and empty, and yet it reflects everything, all possible existences and all possible lifetimes. But it never changes and it does not depend on anything else."

Dzogchen teacher James Low: "I am a non-entity English

I am a non-entity French

I am a non-entity German

I am a non-entity Spanish

The basic ground of my presence is undefinable, never constrained, restricted or contaminated. I am open, ungraspable, naked, ever fresh – the always already integrated empty presence.

Without change or effort this state is also the infinite richness of all possible appearances. Open and empty is not other than rich and full. This is the open field within which gestures arise: gestures of identity, of connection, of control, of limitation, of welcome, of conflict. All of samsara and nirvana is just the play of possibilities of this field of becoming.

When fear, attachment and self-cherishing arise, they are the empty radiance of the ungraspable nature. Relax and see that they go free by themselves. Identity, intention, hope, fear, lostness, despair, all are moments devoid of enduring essence. Without trying to change the experience be present as the experiencer, the source; presence inseparable from space.

I am open, I am everything, I am just this, I am nothing. Whatever is said or thought is mere play; nothing is nothing, everything is nothing, nothing is everything.

I am a non-entity. Our presence, this amazing, ungraspable facticity of awareness is also an illusion. Nothing, something, everything, anything, just this thing, nothing – these moments are not separate and other, they are the non-dual ungraspable richness of the open ground.

I am, a non-entity. I am a non-entity. I, am a non-entity. Problems are mere parsing and punctuation. Start with ‘I am’, awaken to ‘I am’, relax as ‘I am’."

Soh Wei Yu

badge icon

Chris Pedersen

I wasn't having ChNN particularly in mind, but really, all Dzogchen teachers I've seen and come across lead students to I AM. (not necessarily as a final stage)

But yes, ChNN is included. It isn't even controversial. Kyle Dixon would agree with me, in fact, he told me himself that Malcolm Smith points to I AM as initial rigpa and is the said instant presence.

There's an important aspect to the guru yoga taught by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu which brings out the aspect of I AMness or Pure Presence.

I wrote previously, quoting a text from ChNN:

"...We sound another A and from that moment we are no longer working with visualization, thinking, or judging, but are only being in that presence. In particular, we notice who is doing this visualization, who is being in this white A at the center of the gakhyil. We are not looking at something in a dualistic way; we are being in that state, and that is instant presence and our real condition."

-- this is a self-enquiry instruction pointing to the same realization, exactly the same, even if you do not want to call it by those name.

ChNN pointing out the I AM (note that I am not suggesting that I AM is the limit of his insight):

5/12/2012 6:29 AM: Soh Wei Yu: "If you are in the state of instant presence, and compare this sensation with the experience of emptiness, or clarity, or in a different way you compare one with another, you discover that presence is unique, that it always remains the same. But before we are able to be in the state of presence, experiences are all different. So that is the meaning of tsed la pheb:

5/12/2012 6:30 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Maturing: you discover really that the state of instant presence or rigpa is unique. In our lives everything is an experience, and there are not only three experiences."

5/12/2012 8:54 AM: John: What does he meant by not only three experiences

5/12/2012 9:43 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Emptiness (in the gap between thoughts that is emptiness but there is nonetheless someone noticing that, a presence, sounds like I AM), clarity (like movement, manifestation) and sensation (sensation of pleasure incl sexual contact)

5/12/2012 9:45 AM: Soh Wei Yu: He said

5/12/2012 9:47 AM: Soh Wei Yu: "...when we are dissolving everything into emptiness, in that moment we are discovering instant presence because we are not only lost in emptiness, there is also someone noticing that, there is a presence. So this is called instant presence. And you can also have this instant presence with the experience of clarity and with the experience of sensation, even with a strong sensation like sexual contact. Of course, at this moment you can feel a very strong sensation of pleasure and maybe you are generally distracted by it, but

?5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: If you are a good practitioner you also notice the instant presence. That is, you are not only enjoying the strong sensation but at the same time

5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: you are in instant presence.

5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Then followed by the ""If you are in the state of instant presence, and compare this sensation with the experience of emptiness... Etc

.....

ChNN also said before,

"Ranxin minis means one does not simply remain in the condition of the experience, but uses the experience as a method to find oneself in the state of contemplation. In these experiences there is a presence. It is not as if one has fainted or lost consciousness. There is somebody who remains in it. There is no difference whatsoever whether this presence is found in the experience of the person who is smiling or in the experience of the person who is frightened, even though the experiences are completely different. Minis does not mean that two things are united, or that we think that they are the same. If we just say that the nature of those things is not real, thus they are the same, then it will remain as a mental construction. But if one goes through the diverse experiences and hence finds that the true state of presence has no difference, then the real state of nacog is one, and the presence is called rigba (rig.pa.) If we say different experiences are not equal, this is what we mean.

"Whether it is calm, movement, or any one of hundreds of experiences, the important thing is to know the difference between experience and presence. When we know what is meant by rigba, we ought to know how to integrate with all these aspects in our presence."

"So, ugly or beautiful, positive or negative conditions, heavens or hells or transmigration do not in any way affect the underlying nature of the consciousness that is the state of the mirror itself." "that which is noticing thoughts and that which is noticing no thoughts, that which notices both conditions is Rigpa"

·

Reply

· 3d

Based on something I said before, ""Another interesting 'technical' point since this is DhO. There was a point in his retreat where Arcaya Malcolm Smith described how at the mature phase of Dzogchen practice, the 'vidya'/'rigpa' (the knowing/knowledge) is exhausted where the vidya and dhatu (something like knowing and field of experience) totally collapsed in a 1:1 synchrony (and he gestured two circles coming together), whereas before that point [the exhaustion of vidya] there is a sort of out of phase issue between vidya and dhatu. That's said to happen in the fourth vision. Somehow it really reminded me of one of Daniel's descriptions in MCTB on fourth path. His student Kyle did inform me that it is the same as what I call anatta realization [which I realised almost 10 years ago, it is the same as MCTB's fourth path]. Also, Malcolm mentioned many people have the wrong idea that Vidya/Rigpa is some eternal thing that just goes on forever, but it too is exhausted later along with all other phenomena [although this is not annihilation as appearances/pure vision still manifest] (elaboration: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../acarya-malcolm... )."

Likewise, Kyle Dixon, that Malcolm told me over dinner was the first student of his that totally understood his teaching, also said in 2014, "'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness." - Kyle

In other words, the same thing. Dalai Lama is saying first recognise the unfabricated clarity aspect (which he also said elsewhere is found in Hindu teachings as well), but that is not the end, but further proceed into emptiness realization. He said that in the context of Dzogchen and Mahamudra, so he understood that this should also be the progression for all these paths.

Similar to the Thusness 7 stages.

" Being Dzogchen pointed to this doubltess "ground" have the quality of cognizant (without a perciever), this is the empty cognizant of dharmakaya, meaning the emptiness that is already inherent in all phenomena. Non-buddhist doesnt point to this I think "

This is precisely and exactly what we call I AMness and all religions point to it.

Do read this: https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../mistaken...

Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?

Being freed from individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even in the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going. This "AMness" is God.

Practitioners should never mistake this as the true Buddha Mind! "I AMness" is the pristine awareness. That is why it is so overwhelming. Just that there is no 'insight' into its emptiness nature. Nothing stays and nothing to hold on to. What is real, is pristine and flows, what stays is illusion. The sinking back to a background or Source is due to being blinded by strong karmic propensities of a 'Self'. It is a layer of ‘bond’ that prevents us from ‘seeing’ something…it is very subtle, very thin, very fine…it goes almost undetected. What this ‘bond’ does is it prevents us from ‘seeing’ what “WITNESS” really is and makes us constantly fall back to the Witness, to the Source, to the Center. Every moment we want to sink back to Witness, to the Center, to this Beingness, this is an illusion. It is habitual and almost hypnotic.

But what exactly is this “witness” we are talking about? It is the manifestation itself! It is the appearance itself! There is no Source to fall back, the Appearance is the Source! Including the moment to moment of thoughts. The problem is we choose, but all is really it. There is nothing to choose.

There is no mirror reflecting

All along manifestation alone is.

The one hand claps

Everything IS!

[continued in link]

That is why I highly recommend you spend some time to go through this article because it clarifies a lot of misconception about Dzogchen view:

Ok, well, you have to understand that everything in Crystal came from an early period in ChNN's career, when he was not teaching in English. At this time, he used various English translators such as John Shane, Barry Simmons, and so on, before ChNN switched over to teaching in English directly around 1988, the same year Crystal came out. So we cannot regard it as a definitive representation of ChNN's intent, since it is an edited transcript of translation from his original Italian. It broadly served as a introduction to his teachings, but was never intended to be a definitive statement of them. But more importantly, there is no such term in Dzogchen as "the fundamental ground of existence." The term "gzhi" refers to your own nature which you have failed to recognize. That's it. It is not a "ground of being" as in Paul Tillich's theology, where the term originates:

For Tillich, God is being-itself, not a being among other beings. To describe the relationship between being-itself and finite beings, Tillich takes the word, "ground." For Tillich, God is the ground of being, the ground of the structure of being. God as being itself is the ground of the ontological structure of being. In other words, every ontological being has its power to be in being itself, participate in the ground of being. All accounts of God are expressed through what we comprehend. Can we know God? For Tilich, the answer is clear: we can. Adopting the theory of analogia entis (analogy of being), that is, "that which is infinite is being itself and because everything participates in being itself" (239), The theory of analogia entis explains the possibility of knowing and saying anything about God. However, for Tillich, the analogia entis justifies our ways of saying about God only under a fact that "God must be understood as being itself" (240). Thus, existential approach to God through the category of finitude must be described symbolically. God is the ground of being, being-itself; who concerns us ultimately. Thus, God is our ultimate concern.

There is no such ground of being in the whole length and breadth of buddhadharma, including Dzogchen teachings.

......

gad rgyangs wrote:

I dunno Malcolm, the basis is more like the backdrop against which any appearances appear, including any consciousness. Also, what sense would it make to say "rigpa is one's knowledge of the basis" if that basis was one's own continuum? the basis is pure no-thing as abgrund of all phenomena. Consciousness is always a phenomenon.

Malcolm wrote:

I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing.And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others.

The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.

[Quoting gad rgyangs: Consciousness is always a phenomenon.] So is the basis. They are both dharmas.

Or as the Great Garuda has it when refuting Madhyamaka:

Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,

there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.

An 12th century commentary on this text states (but not this passage):

Amazing bodhicitta (the identity of everything that becomes the basis of pursuing the meaning that cannot be seen nor realized elsewhere than one’s vidyā) is wholly the wisdom of the mind distinct as the nine consciousnesses that lack a nature.

In the end, Dzogchen is really just another Buddhist meditative phenomenology of the mind and person and that is all.

gad rgyangs wrote:

Then why speak of a basis at all? just speak of skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, and be done with it.

Malcolm wrote:

Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.

gad rgyangs wrote:

There is no question of the basis being an entity, thats not the point. Rigpa is precisely what it says in the yeshe sangthal: instant presence experienced against/within the "backdrop" (metaphor) of a "vast dimension of emptiness" (metaphor).

Malcolm wrote:

It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty.

gad rgyangs wrote:

When all appearances cease, what are you left with?

Malcolm wrote:

They never cease....

gad rgyangs wrote:

In the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.

rigpa is ontological not epistemic: its not about some state of consciousness before dualism vision, it is about the basis/abgrund of all possible appearances, including our consciousness in whatever state its in or could ever be in.

Malcolm wrote:

Sorry, I just don't agree with you and think you are just falling in the Hindu brahman trap.

Sherlock wrote:

Isn't the difference between transpersonal and personal also a form of dualism?

Malcolm wrote:

The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta.

....

And this so-called "god" aka basis [gzhi] is just a nonexistent mere appearance, that is, our primordial potentiality also has no real existence, which is stated over and over again in countless Dzogchen tantras.

For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.

For those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.

-- Nāgārjuna.

....

Malcolm:

"One, whoever told you rig pa is not part of the five aggregates? Rig pa is knowledge of your own state. In its impure form one's own state manifests as the five aggregates; in its pure form, it manifests as the five buddha families.

....

“The relative is not "reliant" on the ultimate, since they are just different cognitions of the same entity, one false, the other veridical.

There is no separate entity called "buddhanature" that can be established to exist in a sentient being composed of the five aggregates. If one should assert this is so, this position will be no different than the atman of the nonbuddhists.”

To longchenpa self-awareness "is simply a vivid auto-manifestation, a process lacking any reality whatsoever".

...

According to the viewpoint of this system, he says, all phenomena

are self-luminous in the state of great primordial knowing like light in the sky, having

always been the very essence of this self-occuring primorial knowing which remains

naturally free from causes and conditions .263

...

"It

is possible, Klong chen pa suggests, to simply recognize this nondual

self­occuring primordial knowing in its pristine nakedness (rjen pa sang

nge ba) - both as it

abides

in its naked clarity and as it continuously manifests as myriad objects

- without hypostatizing it.273 For so long as "one thinks of the

abiding and manifesting of cognition as two different things and talks

about [the experience of] 'settling in the nonconceptual essence' [but

also of] 'preserving the expressive energy as being free in its arising'

, one's practice goes in two directions and one fails to understand the

key point."

...

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../a-letter-to-almaas...

The Practice Of Dzogchen: Longchen Rabjam's Writings on the Great Perfection https://www.amazon.com/Practi.../dp/155939434X/ref=sr_1_1...

The general advise in AtR is the four aspects of I AM and the two nondual contemplations and two stanzas of anatta:

And it will not help to get confused by faulty translations of Dzogchen texts. I have to say Acarya Malcolm Smith's translations are much trustworthy... not that other translations are without merit, but just be careful and don't get confused.

I rather you read this Mahamudra book because it clearly pointed to anatta:

Basis is not ground of being, as Malcolm said, it is just your nature that has been unrecognised. Malcolm: "there is no such term in Dzogchen as "the fundamental ground of existence." The term "gzhi" refers to your own nature which you have failed to recognize. That's it. It is not a "ground of being" as in Paul Tillich's theology, where the term originates"

I also like Mahamudra's explanation here by Karmapa, notice the word 'basis' is also used here but clearly it is pointing to the anatta and emptiness insight like Malcolm rather than a substantial ground of being:

....

All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.

Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind

Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,

manifesting as everything whatsoever.

Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut.

Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self.

By the power of this dualistic fixation, beings wander in the realms of samsaric existence.

May ignorance, the root of confusion, he discovered and cut.

It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it.

It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.

This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.

May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, he realised.

If one says, "This is it," there is nothing to show.

If one says, "This is not it," there is nothing to deny.

The true nature of phenomena,

which transcends conceptual understanding, is unconditioned.

May conviction he gained in the ultimate, perfect truth.

Not realising it, one circles in the ocean of samsara.

If it is realised, buddha is not anything other.

It is completely devoid of any "This is it," or "This is not it."

May this simple secret, this ultimate essence of phenomena,

which is the basis of everything, be realised.

Appearance is mind and emptiness is mind.

Realisation is mind and confusion is mind.

Arising is mind and cessation is mind.

May all doubts about mind be resolved.

....

Looking at objects, the mind devoid of objects is seen;

Looking at mind, its empty nature devoid of mind is seen;

Looking at both of these, dualistic clinging is self-liberated.

May the nature of mind, the clear light nature of what is, be realised.

Free from mental fabrication, it is the great seal, mahamudra.

Free from extremes, it is the great middle way, madhyamika.

....

“I came to realize clearly that the mind is not other than mountains, rivers, the great wide earth, sun, moon, stars”

- Dogen

“Mind as mountains, rivers, and the earth is nothing other than mountains, rivers, and the earth. There are no additional waves or surf, no wind or smoke. Mind as the sun, the moon, and the stars is nothing other than the sun, the moon, and the stars.”

- Dogen

“For Dōgen, Buddha-nature or Busshō (佛性) is the nature of reality and all Being. In the Shōbōgenzō, Dōgen writes that “whole-being (Existence itself) is the Buddha-nature” and that even inanimate things (grass, trees, etc.) are an expression of Buddha-nature. He rejected any view that saw Buddha-nature as a permanent, substantial inner self or ground. Dōgen held that Buddha-nature was “vast emptiness”, “the world of becoming” and that “impermanence is in itself Buddha-nature”.[23] According to Dōgen:

Therefore, the very impermanency of grass and tree, thicket and forest is the Buddha nature. The very impermanency of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature. Nature and lands, mountains and rivers, are impermanent because they are the Buddha nature. Supreme and complete enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature.[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dōgen#Buddha-nature“

As John Tan said in 2007 about Dogen, “Dogen is a great Zen master that has penetrated deeply into a very deep level of anatman.”, “Read about Dogen… he is truly a great Zen master… ...[Dogen is] one of the very few Zen Masters that truly knows.”, “Whenever we read the most basic teachings of Buddha, it is most profound. Don't ever say we understand it. Especially when it comes to Dependent Origination, which is the most profound truth in Buddhism*. Never say that we understand it or have experienced it. Even after a few years of experience in non-duality, we can't understand it. The one great Zen master that came closest to it is Dogen, that sees temporality as buddha nature, that see transients as living truth of dharma and the full manifestation of buddha nature.”