I AM: Experience vs Realization, and Anatta

 Conversation took place two years ago before Anurag realized anatta.

    Anurag Jain
    "I Am", if you mean it to be Self can never be an object of any perception so it's strange how you see it as 'one of the ten thousand things'. Self I that which witnesses the ten thousand things' including your thought which says I Am is one of the ten thousand things.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Anurag Jain only after anatta it is realised to be another condition
    Even consciousness without object, pure subjectivity is no longer seen as pure subjectivity
    But at the I AM level it is indeed seen as pure subject that cannot be made an object of observation.
    Pure I, not even am


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu the one who is talking about Self as subject is object to the Self.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    In I, there is only I. No subject or object.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    After anatta that too is another pure nondual condition. No different from in hearing just sound. So there is no reifying pure subjectivity.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu. Who is the one who talks about it?


    • Soh Wei Yu
    self enquiry is only for leading to self realization
    Further realization requires other kinds of inquiry


    • Anurag Jain
    All realizations of every kind are object to Self. There are infinite realizations possible but all are objects to Self.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Nov
    18
    Anatta and Pure Presence
    Someone told me about having been through insights of no self and then progressing to a realisation of the ground of being.
    I replied:
    Hi ____
    Thanks for the sharing.
    This is the I AM realization. Had that realisation after contemplating Before birth, who am I? For two years. It’s an important realization. Many people had insights into certain aspects of no self, impersonality, and “dry non dual experience” without doubtless realization of Presence. Therefore I AM realisation is a progression for them.
    Similarly in Zen, asking who am I is to directly experience presence. How about asking a koan of what is the cup? What is the chirping bird, the thunder clap? What is its purpose?
    When I talked about anatta, it is a direct insight of Presence and recognizing what we called background presence, is in the forms and colours, sounds and sensations, clean and pure. Authentication is be authenticated by all things. Also there is no presence other than that. What we call background is really just an image of foreground Presence, even when Presence is assuming its subtle formless all pervasiveness.
    However due to ignorance, we have a very inherent and dual view, if we do see through the nature of presence, the mind continues to be influenced by dualistic and inherent tendencies. Many teach to overcome it through mere non conceptuality but this is highly misleading.
    Thusness also wrote:
    The anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of no-self. But it must first have an intuitive insight of Presence. Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights
    Labels: Anatta, Luminosity |


    • Anurag Jain
    What you call anatta is nothing but avyakta Prakriti in Advaita.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    No, what i call anatta is totally unknown in advaita


    • Soh Wei Yu
    And also 98% or more of buddhist “realised” masters and teachers do not realise what I call anatta. They too do not go beyond I AM and one mind


    • Soh Wei Yu
    In the whole of china and taiwan, only two teachers I can find have realised what i realised -
    Zen Master Hui Lu and Zen Master Hong Wen Liang.
    You can see how rare it is.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu you will have to do more than assertions 🙂 There is nothing unknown to Advaita because Self is beyond space and time.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Look, we are arguing past each other. I have realised what you realised and you have not realised what I have realised. Of course I understand you are not convinced, so be it.
    I rather prefer Buddha’s version of omniscience since it lines up with my current insight:
    AN 4:24  Kāḷaka Sutta | At Kāḷaka’s Park
    DHAMMATALKS.ORG
    AN 4:24  Kāḷaka Sutta | At Kāḷaka’s Park
    AN 4:24  Kāḷaka Sutta | At Kāḷaka’s Park

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 2y

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu I have realized that which has always been realized 🙂


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu omniscience is a duality. In Self, which is partless, there is nothing apart from itself to be known. Self is knolwedge itself.
    Buddhism, by the way has come from the Vedas. It has commonalities with Sankhya.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Buddha was a refuter of Samkhya, although he learnt from and attained what the two Samkhya teachers he had taught him, he left them in pursuit of further realisation.
    See the commentary and discourse at:
    Also:
    "What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage." - Lopon Malcolm
    “The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept 'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when you will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies. If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be confused.
    When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness.” - John Tan, 2005
    MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
    DHAMMATALKS.ORG
    MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
    MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu the perceiver is an object to Self. And the Self cannot be experienced. Please convey this to John Tan 🙂


    • Anurag Jain
    And neither can the Self be known, because You Are Self.


    • Anurag Jain
    Buddha gives a view of dependent origination which is different from Sankhya but like Sankhya he gives a reality to Prakriti.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain you should read Boddhisattvacharyavatara chapter on Prajna. Samkhya view is completely obliberated there. I reccomend "Nectar of Manjushri's Speech" for easier read.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, please answer me whether Buddhism denies reality to the world of phenomena.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    In essence Buddhadharma has no view. The tathagata has done away with views.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Oneness is just another view on the absolute.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, are you talking about absolute?!


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    There are languages which don't have distinction between plural and singular with regards to many phenomena. Clinging to one is just yet another form of clinging to a concept - in this case a number.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, to the Self all languages are objects. All views are objects, right view, wrong view or no view.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Also Buddha calls teaching that all pertains to one self or all is one self "completely" "a fool's teaching" in the Pali Canon. So even though Buddhadharma arose in a Vedic world - it doesn't buy into central ontological premise of the Vedas.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, it is talking of emptiness which is very much part of the "fools teaching" Buddha was referring to 🙂 Please read Katha Upanishad. The Self is beyond emptiness, beyond being and non-being.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain you don't understand emptiness clearly.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So how about you read what I reccomended you and then I read that Upanishad? Then we can discuss, deal?


    • Anurag Jain
    The Anatta experience is an experience located in space and time. It did not exist at one time and then the insight arises.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anatta is a seal - not an experience.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    You don't know what Anatta is, do you? 😛


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, call it a seal. It does not exist at some time and then it comes to be known.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I know that Anatta is known at one point and then it becomes known. I know that this knowing is an occurrence in time.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain haha the same could be said about the Self. It does not exist at some time and then it comes to be known xD


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, no that's not the same with Self. It exists at all times.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So claiming that about Anatta is as stupid as claiming that about the Self. It's just a misunderstanding on the nature of these realisations.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    And Anatta is always already so.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert Self exist at all times. The insight happens in time.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Same with Anatta. So you have failed to prove your point. In the meantime I've gotta go so have a good day 🙂


    • Anurag Jain
    Yes. Who knows Anatta?


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert. Have a good day 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain as a PS: Anatta is revealed when the illusion of the self - including the knower - is extinguished 😉

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Robert and who knows that the knower is dropped:-)

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain doesn't apply. This question is based on an assumption which is baseless. Sorry. Ok really gotta go. All the best ❤


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, just an assertion 🙂


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Robert is very clear. Anatta is a realisation of what is always already the case. Anyone who speaks of anatta as a stage or experience is deluded.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu my question was, who knows anatta? Clear and simple 🙂


    • Soh Wei Yu
    That is a wrong question to ask for anatta as it has hidden assumptions.
    We discussed before.
    Flawed Mode of Enquiry
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
    Flawed Mode of Enquiry
    Flawed Mode of Enquiry

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 2y

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu tell me the assumption.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain why are you walking naked on the street?


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I am not walking naked on the street. If I will I would report the same.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    See? My question assumes you are walking on the street naked.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Your question assumes somebody who knows.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, yes but it did not assume that I did not know.




    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Im an not asserting nor assuming anything with regard to the concept of self. I am not saying it exists. Im not saying it doesnt exist.
    It is you who are trying to prove such a self exists. …
    See more


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So Im free from positon regarding the self. You are not. Sorry.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, my question remains unanswered 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    What happens when you let go of establishing existence or nonexistence of self?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Do this and your question will be answered.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert,and as regarding views and positions, I have already said that all these are objects to Self.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Conceptual answer will not do you any good.


    • Anurag Jain
    All answers are concepts. All experiences are objects to Self.


    • Anurag Jain
    But Self is not a concept in Self realization.


    • Anurag Jain
    One can talk of Self as a concept of course.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    People who think Jesus speaks to them are also sure it is not a concept. Or people who are attached to materiality think its not a concept.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So your experience does not prove anything as you are just assuming something and assuming its reality.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert talk to them, they are talking of forms.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    I could now say that mugzotopu is real beyond self. Or glubeehoo


    • Anurag Jain
    My experience is that I exist.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    And some people experience Jesus.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Or material world.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Robert I am not talking about any form. You are speaking to yourself 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Our view conditions our experience.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Formless as well. People experience formless Jesus as well.


    • Anurag Jain
    I am not talking about Formless as well.


    • Anurag Jain
    I already stated this beyond,form and formless.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    In any case your experience just proves it is an experience. Nothing more. Its hardly any proof of anything else than you have a kind of experience.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    People can have all kinds of experience - both sober, on drugs etc.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert let me know when you are over and available for dialogue 🙂

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain dialogue? You are trying to force your experience as an argument on me.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So I just told you it doesnt make what you posit real.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, no I am not. I did not even call you for dialogue or comment on you. I was talking to Soh 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    You could say even beyond beyond even beyond and that doesnt change anything.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Sounds dualistic btw. Like there is this beyond and whats not beyond.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I can share but I am sure you don't want to learn Advaita 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain I have no problem. Im open to learning new stuff.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Learning concepts is not a problem.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I have a group on Advaita study. I teach seekers. Would you like to join the group 😁


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Though Ive received Advaita teachings and had experiences you describe. Nice and all.


    • Anurag Jain
    You had a fake Advaita teacher Robert. Advaita is not about experience.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Though the talk about oneness seems forced. I wonder how would they explain their teachings to people whos languages do not make distinction between singular and plural.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    First theyd have to invent for them the concept of one or singularity XD


    • Anurag Jain
    Ok I shall wait, till you get over with your catharsis 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So its seems like Advaita does not go beyond mathematics XD


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag thanks for being so understanding. Afterall you got plenty of space to preach your idea and experience of self here.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, most welcome. I asked because you said you were ready to learn. No issues 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Ok I do not know what self or one or many even means. Now please explain to me without using these concepts what are you trying to prove exactly


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, that would entail the entire teachings isn't it? The process of Advaita is neti, neti. You have not been exposed to real Advaita. It does not speak about experiences.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So what do I do neti neti for?

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, join the group 🙂 All answers are there.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Either you are able to do it here or it doesnt work.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Does realisation you speak of require joining a group? Seems like religion and belief.


    • Anurag Jain
    I'll have to answer all your doubts and queries. The processes are shravana, Manana and Nidhidhyasana.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain simple question. What do I do that for? Tell me the goal first.


    • Anurag Jain
    Yes Robert, you have to learn from someone right.


    • Anurag Jain
    It takes years and years of shravana, Manana and Nidhidhyasana.




    • Anurag Jain
    Shravana means listening. Manana means asking questions and resolving all doubts and Nidhidhyasana is a contemplaton after all doubts are resolved.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, learning about reality by eliminating all falsity.


    • John Tan
    Anurag Jain, convey what to me?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Ok but what for? Tell me the goal. Im not looking for entertainment or filling time or learning just for the sake of learning.
    All I told you is that I have nothing against learning new concepts and skills should you share any.


    • Anurag Jain
    John Tan did you not go through the thread? Convey that Self cannot be experienced.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I am not going to teach concepts. I am going to teach elimination of all falsity (which includes all concepts)


    • John Tan
    Anurag Jain, u cannot experience Self.


    • Anurag Jain
    John Tan , absolutely. Soh shared some dialogue in which he talks about you talking of experience of Self. Please scroll up.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain but I have left the falsity already.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, good then you don't need to learn from me 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Including all notions of self, one, many, existing or not existing.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, good. So who am I talking to?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Are you asking in the absolute sense?


    • Anurag Jain
    Tree stone, rocks ?!


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Or relative - for example like if a policeman asked me this question?


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, in the absolute sense.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    In the absolute sense your question does not apply.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    What a who is?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    You are assuming there is a who in this question.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, am I speaking to Soh? Oh sorry.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    I dont assume there is a who therefore I cant answer your question without making assumption I dont hold.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, oh I understand. We will get into an infinite regress 🙂 I will ask who is that "who does not assume" 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain relatively or absolutely?


    • John Tan
    Anurag Jain, knowing is relative. To know is to measure and compare. Knowingness is beyond knowing. Knowingness is realized not by the relativity of a conditioned mind. U need to leap out of the conditioned.
    I-I or I M is a direct and gapless authentication.


    • Anurag Jain
    John Tan absolutely agreed.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Im speaking relatively.
    If you prefer I will use words "there is no assumption of who in the absolute truth"


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Obviously the language is based on words like who or selves.


    • John Tan
    Anurag Jain an experience is an after thought.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So with your attachement to "who" you are showing you do not go beyond linguistically enforced concepts.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I can always ask the same question. "Who says that there is no assumption of who in the absolute truth"?




    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain but thats just hammering your assumption based question like a broken record.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I said we shall go into infinite regress 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Why are you walking naked on the street?


    • John Tan
    Anurag Jain to realize the I-I, a koan will b more appropriate to leap one out of the relative. As for Soh Wei Yu, yes. He knows what he is talking about...lol

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Yes the regress is caused by that concept of who. When you let go of it there is no regress.


    • Anurag Jain
    John, I understand and agree to all that you are saying 🙂


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I can really imagine you with a hammer ready to strike me now. But "Who let's go off the concept of who". Sorry 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain the concept relaxes and unties on its own.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Like drawing on water.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Nobody has to make it so.


    • Anurag Jain
    And who knows that the concept is untied and has relaxed?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    And why you assume there is someone who knows?


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, are you talking without knowing you are realized??!!






    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, without having realized anatta. You just said that


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Whats knowing?


    • Anurag Jain
    Good question. Have you realized anatta Robert?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Relatively or absolutely speaking?

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, say both the ways. You know the relative and absolute levels. Right?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Relatively - I realised Anatta.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, ok. So who knows that he has realized anatta?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Absolutely - no realisation or one realising can be found to exist or not exist.


    • Anurag Jain
    And who knows all this 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Absolutely or relatively?




    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Relatively Robert. Absolutely no who knowing all this can be established as existing or not.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    You could say relatively also


    • Anurag Jain
    So who knows that all this cannot be established as existing?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Relatively or absolutely?


    • Anurag Jain
    Both ways 🙂

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Relatively Robert. Absolutely: unestablishable


    • Anurag Jain
    So who knows that it is absolutely unestablishable? 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    For this and all your question till beyond infinity the answer is the same


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Besides what "who" is?


    • Anurag Jain
    Great Robert. So you agree that there is an infinite regress 🙂

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Who asks the question, "who is what ?"


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Relatively speaking the body and mind complex gets release from tension clinging to who, what, where, when.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Obviously you will experience infinite regress because you can always ask that question.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, and who knows that this complex is released? 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Relatively speaking you are attached to it and stuck with its assumption.


    • Anurag Jain
    Yes, so who is the questioner?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So Advaita is brainwashing people to assume there is who?


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I ask all kinds of questions 🙂


    • Soh Wei Yu
    After anatta, even the I-I is not seen as a “who”. It is not the subject behind all objects. It is realised that there never was a subject. I-I is just I-I, but not reified into a background. It is just another foreground manifestation, another “occurr…
    See more

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited



    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Doing this mantra over and over until they are programmed with the concepts of "who" and "knowing"?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain thats beside the point.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I am not teaching you Advaita. You did not give me the permission 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain but self enquiry doesn not lead to Total Release


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Neti neti also


    • John Tan
    Anurag, the Self cannot b the perceiver nor can the Self b the percieved. Why then do u still ask "Who"?
    Though u may have the eureka authentication, If post authentication one is still within the who, what, where, when and why mode of enquiry, he will forever be playing hide and seek.
    Anatta as Robert said, relook the entire matter in different way so happy exploring.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Neti assumes that you will be left with that which cannot be negated. So starting the search you already reinforce false assumption.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    John Tan nice just as i was posting at the same time 😂


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Robert realised anatta


    • Anurag Jain
    John, the Self never asks questions 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Self enquiry assumes "I". The version with asking "who knows" assumes who and knowing.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Questions based on assumption do not lead to truth. They only reinforce another false assumption.


    • Anurag Jain
    John, you are assuming that I am inquiring. I am not. I am asking questions to others.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Is there a self though?


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, you and John don't speak the same language. Sorry !


    • Soh Wei Yu
    We are speaking the same realisations


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh talk to Roberts about his experiences. I don't talk about experiences.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Me neither. Anatta is a seal


    • Soh Wei Yu
    He already told you anatta is a realisation, not an experience.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Anatta is what is always already the case


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Now you are manipulating. When I asked you about self you said its your experience.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh, but I agreed to all the things John said in this thread at least.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So you are saying contradictory things.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    What John said and what I said concurs.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, may you please quote where I said Self is an experience. This whole dialogue started by me saying that Self is not an experience.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, please give proof 🙂


    • No photo description available.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    "My experience is that I exist"


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu did you read the thread completely and my responses?


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert,ha, ha that is not talking of Self as experience dear !


    • Soh Wei Yu
    In anatta, one realises that the experiencer-experiencing-experience paradigm to be fundamentally flawed. This applies to everything, not only I-I. Then in hearing, hearing is only sound without hearer, and so on, is the same luminous taste as I-I

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu, did you go through this thread?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    You werent clear on that. In any case what a "self" or "Self" is?


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, in Advaita they are different from an unenlightened view and same from an enlightened view.




    • Anurag Jain
    But we will have to cover a lot of ground to understand this


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu because, I do not deviate an inch from what he said.


    • Anurag Jain
    And he did not speak of anatta. He was speaking of Self in that thread.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    You mean you agree with John?


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu that means you did not go through the thread 🙂


    • Soh Wei Yu
    I agree with John too. But you fail to see that John agrees with Robert too, on anatta.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    You fail to understand anatta just like when you said anatta is an experience. It is not.


    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu talk about what John Tan wrote in this thread. Exactly the same words.




    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu I meant quote his words again.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So what is any kind of "self".


    • Anurag Jain
    It is too much of a trouble for me to scroll up all these comments 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    What if I tell you that shakapoo and Shakapoo are the same in the absolute but different in the relative?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Do you know what shakapoo is? You understand this concept?


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert 🙂 Do you want to learn Advaita ?


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Anyway its not surprising at all. John Tan and I have gone through self realization.
    The I-I is not itself the issue, the issue we and Robert are debating and John Tan is pointing out is that you are caging the I-I into a dualistic paradigm of knower-known and asking a question of who/etc based on dualistic assumptions.
    All these do not apply at all after anatta is realised.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So explain to me what "self' is. For now its just word without any meaning. Like shakapoo


    • Anurag Jain
    Yes Robert shakapoo is a nice sounding word 🙂

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Like self. So self is nothing more than a nice sounding word ?


    • Anurag Jain
    Self is what you are in essence.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain so self is what my self is? XD




    • Anurag Jain
    And essence is that quality which is permanent.



    • Reply
    • See Translation
    • 2y

    • Anurag Jain
    Beyond space and time.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Permament is based on time


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    In any case sounds like an assumption that there is something permament


    • Anurag Jain
    There is nothing permanent in objects.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, to a novice emptiness is also an assumption.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So assumption based on an assumption. Circular


    • Anurag Jain
    To a novice, the sun goes around the earth.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    John tan wrote:
    Anurag Jain, knowing is relative. To know is to measure and compare. Knowingness is beyond knowing. Knowingness is realized not by the relativity of a conditioned mind. U need to leap out of the conditioned.
    I-I or I M is a direct and gapless authentication.
    ...
    Anurag Jain to realize the I-I, a koan will b more appropriate to leap one out of the relative. As for Soh Wei Yu, yes. He knows what he is talking about...lol
    ...
    Anurag, the Self cannot b the perceiver nor can the Self b the percieved. Why then do u still ask "Who"?
    Though u may have the eureka authentication, If post authentication one is still within the who, what, where, when and why mode of enquiry, he will forever be playing hide and seek.
    Anatta as Robert said, relook the entire matter in another way so happy exploring.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    emptiness is word for freedom from assumptions


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    You cannot say there is such a thing as emptiness


    • Anurag Jain
    Absolutely Soh. Leave the last three Paras out as I haven't answers to them.


    • Anurag Jain
    So Robert talk about emptiness to a man on the street and he gets it. Right?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    The meaning is that all assumptions of self, permanence, one, many and the rest are empty assumptions


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain we do not preach on the streets and do not start with emptiness.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, good you are learning Advaita.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So Advaita does not assume there is a self?

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    And neither do we start with Self Robert.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, no Advaita does not assume a self.


    • Anurag Jain
    Advaita does not start with assumptions.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So why Self Enquiry and Neti have the assumptions?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anyhow Self is an assumption.


    • Anurag Jain
    Which assumptions do they have Robert?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So if Advaita takes a positon that there is a Self then it just assumes something.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    And saying its not assumption but reality is meaningless as all people in ignorance feel their assumptions are reality


    • Anurag Jain
    Advaita is not a position Robert. Anyways I have to quit now. John Tan has said all that I agree with.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So in Buddhadharma we could say that there is Self but also say there is not


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    As well as say you cannot say that at all - that there is or there is not. Is - extreme position. Is not - another extreme. Same goes for all iterations of both is and is not, neither is or is not. All of these are limited.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So Advaita has limited position.


    • Anurag Jain
    Thanks for the conversation Robert brother 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Buddhadharma has not




    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, thanks brother 🙂


    • Jax's (Jackson Peterson) Message
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
    Jax's (Jackson Peterson) Message
    Jax's (Jackson Peterson) Message

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu knowingness is Self.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    Anurag Jain You are talking about I-I. I am not denying, I am saying that this taste is found as all manifestation after anatta. Plus caging it in who/what/where/when/why enquiry and dualistic paradigm simply puts a limit to the boundless and limitless unfolding of this taste.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    Right now this same I-I taste is always unfolding in its intensity, naturally, effortlessly throughout day and night not just as a formless Presence, but also as the very vivid foreground manifestation that we normally call sky, trees, and birds chirping. Even before these labels. Everything is brilliant radiating presence, knowingness, aliveness, intelligence. If we cage this taste into a ghostly entity hiding behind everything else, this is merely imposing artificial boundaries and limitations. Falling into the framework of experiencer-experiencing-experience instead of the direct authentication of this

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu I was asking who/what/why to others....not for myself. I cleared that in my comments above.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu, your language is different from mine but yes, I-I is in all states.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    The same taste is in all states and manifestation and is none other than manifestation. But in terms of view your view is different because I do not posit a changeless background


    • Soh Wei Yu
    John tan:
    “The Absolute as separated from the transience is what I have indicated as the 'Background' in my 2 posts to theprisonergreco. …
    See more


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Of course the above talks about “experience” but actually both I AM and anatta is a realization, not a passing experience
    The point is rather about no background and presence as manifestation


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    "The same taste is in all states and manifestation and is none other than manifestation. But in terms of view your view is different because I do not posit a changeless background" <- it matches what Malcolm Smith says that the experience, the taste of nonconceptual Samadhi can be the same and equally strong in both Hindu and Buddhadarma traditions but the view is different and is the crucial, key factor of liberative power. So the usual problem is that people - and in some way they're right - that the experience is the same in all traditions. But that misses the point as Buddhadharma stresses the right view. That's why there is distinction between Shamatha and Vipassana.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So three experiences of "non-thought", "clarity" and "bliss" are accessible to everyone on all the paths. However the unique import of Buddhadharma is that contextualising experience with wrong view leads to involuntary rebirth in the three realms of formless, form and desire while experiences in the absence of wrong views are a Path to final release.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    The meditative experience of nonthought, clarity or bliss is not the realization of I AMness. This is where john tan and I agree with anurag. It is a realization


    • Soh Wei Yu
    1. On Experience and Realization
    Comments by Soh: Also see related article - I AM Experience/Glimpse/Recognition vs I AM Realization (Certainty of Being)
    One of the direct and immediate response I get after reading the articles by Rob Burbea and Rupert is that they missed one very and most important point when talking about the Eternal Witness Experience -- The Realization. They focus too much on the experience but overlook the realization. Honestly I do not like to make this distinction as I see realization also as a form of experience. However in this particular case, it seems appropriate as it could better illustrate what I am trying to convey. It also relates to the few occasions where you described to me your space-like experiences of Awareness and asked whether they correspond to the phase one insight of Eternal Witness. While your experiences are there, I told you ‘not exactly’ even though you told me you clearly experienced a pure sense of presence.
    So what is lacking? You do not lack the experience, you lack the realization. You may have the blissful sensation or feeling of vast and open spaciousness; you may experience a non-conceptual and objectless state; you may experience the mirror like clarity but all these experiences are not Realization. There is no ‘eureka’, no ‘aha’, no moment of immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood something undeniable and unshakable -- a conviction so powerful that no one, not even Buddha can sway you from this realization because the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. It is the direct and unshakable insight of ‘You’. This is the realization that a practitioner must have in order to realize the Zen satori. You will understand clearly why it is so difficult for those practitioners to forgo this ‘I AMness’ and accept the doctrine of anatta. Actually there is no forgoing of this ‘Witness’, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature. Like what Rob said, "keep the experience but refine the views".
    Lastly this realization is not an end by itself, it is the beginning. If we are truthful and not over exaggerate and get carried away by this initial glimpse, we will realize that we do not gain liberation from this realization; contrary we suffer more after this realization. However it is a powerful condition that motivates a practitioner to embark on a spiritual journey in search of true freedom. 🙂
    Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
    Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
    Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 2y

    • Jax's (Jackson Peterson) Message
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
    Jax's (Jackson Peterson) Message
    Jax's (Jackson Peterson) Message

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 2y

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Soh Wei Yu sure. I wasn't clear on that - what I was trying to underline is that there is difference with regards to the view while some "qualities" might appear to be the same.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    I underwent I AM realization less than a year after John Tan wrote that to me in september 2009. Before that i had glimpses




    • Anurag Jain
    Soh Wei Yu in Advaita, as indicated in Mandukya, Self is beyond Form and Formless.
    Also, after Self is known, all forms are also seen as Self only.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain in Buddhadharma we call that a wrong view.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    For more you can read the screens I've posted below.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I know that. In Advaita we say all views are mind, thoughts and concepts which aee objects to Self.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    The Self posited above doesn't stand analysis posited below which reveals it's a mistaken way of cognizing.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    No philosopher or mystic of Advaita has never made any point that couldn't stand the Madhyamaka analysis presented there and never will.

    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Edited

    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So they avoid confronting with it - rightly sensing it is so.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, Self is that which witnesses the one making positions and negations.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Such Self is illusory.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    As it is revelead when one goes through contemplations provided there.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, Self is that which witnesses all these assertions.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Also one stops asking questions based on "who" after going through these contemplations.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, Self is one that witnesses the questioner and the questions and the answers.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain so read these screens for yourself and see whether that Self of yours can stand that analysis?


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    I dare you it is not so.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert Dominik the Self is that which witnesses reading this screen and thinking and daring.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain nah this self is witnessed by another self.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    which is witnessed by another self


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    which is even witnessed by a SupersuperSelf even beyond that self xD


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Until you get to a fractal in 1000dimension which is seen by Paramatmabhramaextrasupersayanself 😃


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    I respect for you it is ultimate truth and I can see honest conviction in you that I too shared when I was at the level of Advaita. I just say what you propose is seen as empty and shallow when you have the Buddhadharma realisation.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, Self is the one who witnesses all this history 🙂
    My wife has come back home. Having some tea with her. Take care Roberts. Hope we shall have tea together some day too 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    The thing is both Soh Wei Yu and John Tan had the realisation of Self you speak of but they went deeper. Like many seekers you got stuck on something that seems ultimate to you. However what you say is pointless because unless you check for yourself and honestly and humbly follow pointers Soh and John give then your position has no value. As they have checked both your Self and Emptiness of Buddhadharma and you only checked the Self. Sorry but this is simply how it is and no amount of repeating Advaita claims will change it.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    If you were interested in truth and actual dialogue then you would suspend your arrogance and spend time earnestly contemplating what Buddhadharma says to verify for yourself. For now you are trying to convince people who have seen the larger perspective to cling to your narrow perspective.


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain for people who have realised both the "Self witnesses all of it" of Advaita and Emptiness of Buddhadharma - the Self is not liberation. There is also a master Ratnashree whos realisation of Self was confirmed by great Hindu sages. However he then met Buddhadharma and studied it until realising its teachings. According to him the teachings you advocate are mundane compared to the liberative insight of the Buddhadharma. So you can write "but the Self is witnessing all of it" or asking "who is witnessing all of this" like an Advaitron 9000 robot but this doesn't change anything and makes you seem ignorant in your being so sure in promoting your view even though you only see one side of this debate and not both sides like the people I've mentioned.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I know all this 🙂 I winess all this too 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Anurag Jain so the debate is meaningless as we could go on until the end of time saying:


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Self is empty - the Self sees that - Self is empty - the Self sees that


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    It's completely pointless as in myself the mistake cognition of "witnessing" and "self" can arise never again - it's impossible. And as long as you will reject all possibility of investigating what Buddhadharma is about but will just promote "Self" view then it's going to be just going back and forth between me saying "Self you speak of is illusory" and you saying "Self is witnessing that" and so on and so on and so on


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, yups. Self is the eternal Witness 🙂


    • Robert Dominik Tkanka
    So if you are unwilling or unable verify my points without rejecting them with your assumption then we're wasting our time here and it's better to drop the subject alltogether and just drink tea instead.


    • Anurag Jain
    Robert, I was just going to say that. Thank you so much for accepting my invitation for tea brother 🙂





  • Reply
  • 2y
  • Edited
Labels: , | edit post
0 Responses
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)