- Reply
- 20h
- Reply
- 20h
- Edited
- Reply
- 16h
- Reply
- 15h
- Reply
- 15h
- Reply
- 13h
- Edited
- Reply
- 13h
- Reply
- 13h
- Reply
- 14h
- Reply
- 14h
- Reply
- 1h
- ActiveSoh Wei YuSudden Awakenings André A. Pais did a nice summary in http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/11/beyond-awareness.html
- Like
- Reply
- 1m
- Reply
- 14h
- Reply
- 14h
- Reply
- 14h
- Reply
- 14h
- Reply
- 14h
- Edited
- Reply
- 13h
- Reply
- 13h
- Reply
- 12h
- Edited
- Reply
- 12h
- Reply
- 12h
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 6h
- Reply
- 5h
Aditya Prasad shared a link.
I'm having some difficulty distinguishing stages 2 and 4 (conceptually). I've already bothered Soh enough, so I want to put this question to the wider group.
"Stage 4 tends to end up in the case of dissolving separateness into the pole of an ultimate pure subjectivity"
"stage 4 is on object...only on the object"
"stage 2 is object merge into subject"
These pages sound contradictory. Is anyone here able to explain the differences between stages 2 and 4 in a very simple manner?
24 Comments
Aditya Prasad
Author
I'll take a stab, and people can correct me.
Stage
2: Subject and object are still viewed as distinct, and objects are
seen to be an emanation / manifestation of the subject.
Stage 4: They are seen to be primordially nondual, but there's still a sense of substantiality to the subjectivity.
But it seems like in both cases objects "merge into" or "dissolve into" subjectivity?
Mr. TJ
The
way I conceive of it is that stages 2 and 3 reflect stages 4 and 5,
respectively, but only within mental consciousness, not within the sense
consciousnesses directly. So in stage 2, consciousness pervades and is
inseparable from all perceptual events, but perceptual events being a
layer of conceptuality, the third skandha. The conceptualizing tendency
is expressed as "I am everything." Whereas in stage 4 it is truly "in
the seeing, just the seen, in the hearing just the heard" - direct,
immediate, non-dual, non-conceptual mode of perception (though still a
subtle reification of a background).
André A. Pais
Admin
That's why I always go for the simplified 4-stage model (I Am, One Mind, Anatta, Shunyata).
Aditya Prasad
Author
André A. Pais
Yeah, seems much simpler. One thing I haven't understood there: if the
substantiality of awareness / luminosity is gone by anatta, then what is
still not seen as empty?
Or
maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. The "substantiality" that is
gone in anatta is the sense of subjectivity as a pre-existent thing. But
_while_ the luminosity is manifesting, I suppose it might still be seen
as "real."
Is it laid out clearly anywhere on the blog or in the book that you know of?
Aditya Prasad
Author
I suppose I should have another go at reading carefully myself before making you do my homework for me...
Yin Ling
Admin
Aditya Prasad I think u got it right Aditya.
If
the practitioner after realising anatta understood also the emptiness
of phenomena, the work is quite done. Some might realise this way due to
the way they learn and practise, they might practise on emptiness of
phenomena first so when they realise anatta they realise everything is
empty as well
Ur
second paragraph describe my experience though becusse I didn’t have
direct experience of emptiness when anatta comes, so sensations was
solid to me.
It’s
like how sometimes theravada teaching still solidify the 5 aggregates
despite seeing the emptiness of self. They take the 5 as “real”
Aditya Prasad
Author
Yin Ling
Thanks, this is helpful! Yes, that is how I had always understood the
Theravada teaching when younger, and why it didn't appeal to me. Even in
I AM there can be some insight into the emptiness of phenomena, and so
such a teaching does not seem attractive.
Yin Ling
Admin
Aditya Prasad yeah i understand what u mean.
Even
at anatta I already intuited that phenomena is a blend of mental +
physical because of the awareness merging with object .. but when I go
back to the theravada sutta their teachings doesn’t have much on that,
as in they didn’t teach u how to see the 5 aggregates at this point.
Yes it is not self; but what is the nature? Physical? Mental? What?
That
wasn’t clear in theravada (maybe I’m not fluent) but the Mahayana
vajrayana are very strong at these hence I became inclined to another
sect
André A. Pais
Admin
Reading what, the 13 hundred pages of the guide, or the 8 hundred pages of the journal...? 

Sudden Awakenings
André A. Pais yes, please! I’d like to hear more about this 4-stage model.
Mr. TJ
Aditya,
you ask, " if the substantiality of awareness / luminosity is gone by
anatta, then what is still not seen as empty?" The answer I've gleaned
from reading John and Soh's writings is...all the rest of the pre-verbal
conceptual categories that organize our experience. Externality,
arising and ceasing, cause and effect, movement, parts and wholes.
These are the things that are deconstructed piece by piece with MMK
reasoning. Some of these might have seemed to have ceased with non-dual
realization, and yet somehow there is still some remnant that isn't
seen clearly until subjectivity drops.
Aditya Prasad
Author
Mr. TJ
"Until subjectivity drops" = anatta, right? Seems like some of them
only drop after anatta. Maybe which ones drop when depends on the
practitioner. For example, emptiness of time is sometimes used to guide
one to anatta, but perhaps sometimes time isn't seen as empty until
afterward.
Mr. TJ
Right,
subjectivity drops = substantiality drops = anatta. The really weird
case in point is externality - it is often said that the difference
between anatta and emptiness is whether external objects are taken is
real. But would seem that externality drops at non-dual, by definition,
right? Yet this is because they are subsuming everything into Mind.
When this Mind itself drops, some vestige of externality can re-emerge,
people say reality turns "physical". Deconstructing this gives vestige
of physicality is then emptiness. Not sure about other things like
time. For instance, in Greg Goode's Direct Path book, deconstructing
arising is what triggers non-dual. I'm not sure if there is a further
deconstruction of arising that would have to happen post anatta if one
proceeded like this.
Aditya Prasad
Author
Mr. TJ
Thanks! I've heard that the distinction between anatta (as understood
in Theravada) and emptiness (in Mahayana) is precisely that: emptiness
of phenomena. I had always thought that was because anatta (in
Theravada) didn't include "I AM" -- in which it is already obvious that
consciousness cannot be caused by physicality. To then head that there
are people who have realized anatta (as defined in AtR) yet still
believe this is strange to me. But I guess there really are a lot of
nuances, and they will differ based on our propensities!
Yin Ling
Admin
Stage 2 is dual. There is the I. But u become big. I am everything , but the I stand apart and watch
stage 4 is non dual. This big I is gone and go into all sensations, separately yet everywhere.
Not a one big I as awareness anymore like 2. The self is dropped.
For
me the experience is night and day. Stage 4 u can’t really find
yourself anymore, just sensations and more sensations which is
self-aware
That’s my interpretation of the phases haha wonder if u could relate?
Mr. TJ
How, then, would you describe the difference between stage 4 and 5?
Yin Ling
Admin
Mr. TJ stage 4 is when the awareness falls out from the head to merge with sensation “over there”.
There’s a sense of “merging”.. a line between awareness and sensation like A+B
At 5, imo, the insight of anatta will inform that there’s no merging needed.
In the seen only the seen. The awareness and sensation is just a whole manifestation, just this whole “X” if you may haha.
So the effort to merge is drop and perception becomes effortless
That’s imo how I intuit
Original person Soh Wei Yu need to attest lol
Aditya Prasad
Author
Yin Ling From the second post I linked:
(11:51 PM) Thusness: Stage 2 is there is merging
(11:51 PM) Thusness: As if I dissolved and merge..
(11:52 PM) Thusness: There r two, dual
(11:52 PM) Thusness: Non-dual is there never was a separation
So I think maybe in non-dual (stage 4) already there is no more "merging." But I don't really know, of course.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
If there is merging, it is more like candle flame example:
4. On Non-Dual Experience, Realization and Anatta
I
have just casually gone through some of your forum discussions. Very
enlightening discussions and well presentation of my
7-phases-of-insights but try not to over-emphasize it as a model; it
should not be taken as a definite model of enlightenment nor should you
use it as a framework to validate others' experiences and insights.
Simply take it as a guide along your spiritual journey.
You
are right to differentiate non-dual experience from non-dual
realization and non-dual realization from the insight of anatta. We have
discussed this umpteem times. Non-dual experience in the context we are
using refers to the experience of no-subject-object division. The
experience is much like putting two candle flames together where the
boundary between the flames becomes indistinguishable. It is not a
realization but simply a stage, an experience of unity between the
observer and the observed where the conceptual layer that divides is
temporarily suspended in a meditative state. This you have experienced.
Non-dual
realization on the other hand is a deep understanding that comes from
seeing through the illusionary nature of subject-object division. It is a
natural non-dual state that resulted from an insight that arises after
rigorous investigation, challenge and a prolonged period of practice
that is specially focused on ‘No-Self’. Somehow focusing on “No-Self”
will spark a sense of sacredness towards the transient and fleeting
phenomena. The sense of sacredness that is once the monopoly of the
Absolute is now also found in the Relative. The term ‘No-Self’ like
Zen-Koan may appear cryptic, senseless or illogical but when realized,
it is actually obviously clear, direct and simple. The realization is
accompanied with the experience that everything is being dissolved into
either:
1. An ultimate Subject or
2. As mere ‘flow of phenomenality’
In
whatever the case, both spells the end of separateness; experientially
there is no sense of two-ness and the experience of unity can be quite
overwhelming initially but eventually it will lose its grandeur and
things turn quite ordinary. Nevertheless, regardless of whether the
sense of Oneness is derived from the experience of ‘All as Self’ or ‘as
simply just manifestation’, it is the beginning insight of “No-Self”.
The former is known as One-Mind and the later, No-Mind.
In
Case 1 it is usual that practitioners will continue to personify, reify
and extrapolate a metaphysical essence in a very subtle way, almost
unknowingly. This is because despite the non-dual realization,
understanding is still orientated from a view that is based on
subject-object dichotomy. As such it is hard to detect this tendency and
practitioners continue their journey of building their understanding of
‘No-Self based on Self’.
For
Case 2 practitioners, they are in a better position to appreciate the
doctrine of anatta. When insight of Anatta arises, all experiences
become implicitly non-dual. But the insight is not simply about seeing
through separateness; it is about the thorough ending of reification so
that there is an instant recognition that the ‘agent’ is extra, in
actual experience it does not exist. It is an immediate realization that
experiential reality has always been so and the existence of a center, a
base, a ground, a source has always been assumed.
To
mature this realization, even direct experience of the absence of an
agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm
shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the
idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and
understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a
source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and
rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.
Therefore
this phase of insight is not about singing eloquently the non-dual
nature of an Ultimate Reality; contrary it is deeming this Ultimate
Reality as irrelevant. Ultimate Reality appears relevant only to a mind
that is bond to seeing things inherently, once this tendency dissolves,
the idea of a source will be seen as flawed and erroneous. Therefore to
fully experience the breadth and depth of no-self, practitioners must be
prepared and willing to give up the entire subject-object framework and
be open to eliminate the entire idea of a ‘source’. Rob expressed very
skillfully this point in his talk:
One
time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not
to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there
being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and
disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s
actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very
interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end
it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.
This
group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with
that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not
rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into
this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so
much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are
unbudgeable there.
What
then is the view that Buddhism is talking about without resorting to a
‘source’? I think the post by Vajrahridaya in the thread ‘What makes
Buddhism different’ of your forum succinctly and concisely expressed the
view, it is well written. That said, do remember to infinitely regress
back into this vivid present moment of manifestation – as this arising
thought, as this passing scent – Emptiness is Form. 

Labels: Anatta, I AMness, John Tan, Non-dual, Stages of Enlightenment |

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
[4:14 pm, 09/05/2022] John Tan: Stage 2 is different. U should not assumed from a non-dual or anatta perspective in stage 2. In order words, the idea of "de-construction" is not present at that point in time.
U din actually go through that also. I told u not to extrapolate. For stage 2, it is very focus on the "I M". The "mind" has a non-dual experience but it couldn't understand it. So the mind projects the very "I" in me is the very "I" in you; Is the "I M" in yin ling; is the "I M" of my dog, the "I M" in the fish swimming.
[4:17 pm, 09/05/2022] John Tan: Then we project a even bigger "I" being multiplied as "I M" in all these individual "I M" and equate that with "God".
[4:18 pm, 09/05/2022] John Tan: There is no de-construction of mental constructs, opposite in fact. An infinite multiplication of that "I".
U din actually go through that also. I told u not to extrapolate. For stage 2, it is very focus on the "I M". The "mind" has a non-dual experience but it couldn't understand it. So the mind projects the very "I" in me is the very "I" in you; Is the "I M" in yin ling; is the "I M" of my dog, the "I M" in the fish swimming.
[4:17 pm, 09/05/2022] John Tan: Then we project a even bigger "I" being multiplied as "I M" in all these individual "I M" and equate that with "God".
[4:18 pm, 09/05/2022] John Tan: There is no de-construction of mental constructs, opposite in fact. An infinite multiplication of that "I".