Awakening to Reality: John Tan's Questions to Geovani Geo

Can u give answers John? Ahaha

Yin Ling I think good to contemplate and look into one's experience.

As long as we don't go in with any pre-conceived ideas about what results will the various ways of de-constructing techniques yield, the relationship between experiences and the techniques of deconstruction become quite Intuitive and predictable.

Reply
1d
Edited

John Tan ya.

I find 1) bring myself to “emptiness” insight when suddenly I intuit the whole sofa is itself a designation and the designation doesn’t lie elsewhere . The understanding comes suddenly .

2) I don’t know

3) who am I bring one face to face with the mind, not its nature like 1) .. it’s a differnt insight imo

4) this inquiry is to realize anatta. At 3) someone might see the mind and phenomena as one but not understanding “no-self”- that there was no split from the start, but it was ignorance that create an artificial split- hence “just the sound”..

4) Might or might not intuit 1) but things starts to get really trippy haha.

I am not sure! I’m just guessing hence need some answers

Yin Ling there are no text book answers, just sincere investigation so that we won't mixed up and lead to wrong conclusions resulting in confusions. But I like ur answers.

John Tan ooohh I see. Thanks

John Tan but I don’t know number 2) ?

I don’t know is also an answer?!

John Tan oh I see. Thanks!

- Reply
- 1d

My take

1) In greg goode direct path, the conceptual notions and constructs of physicality and objectivity is deconstructed even at the I AM phase prior to collapse of witness

In this path, objects and physicality become deconstructed into arisings within witnessing awareness, even before witness collapses.

This leaves the subjective pole undeconstructed until much later.

(Their path: coarse Witnessing with personality undeconstructed > subtle Witness or opaque witness with personality and objectivity deconstructed > collapse of witness into pure consciousness (aka one mind) > finally even consciousness dissolve (no mind?))

3) will lead to dissociation and I AM. But neti neti is needed for self enquiry and I AM realization.

4) deconstructs subjective pole, leading to direct realization and taste of radiance as all manifestations. Aka anatta

Reply
1d
Edited

Soh Wei Yu how does insight of "I Am" got triggered via such method of seeing through "named things"?

To me I AM is triggered from self enquiry, not deconstruction. Seeing through named things is more on deconstruction

Soh Wei Yu so u r saying 1 will not lead to realization of "clarity" but just mere release of mental suffering?

If the deconstruction of all conceptual notions goes along with meditation into a state of cessation of concepts, there is also a possibility of discovering pure awareness / I AM. Doesn’t have to be self enquiry. Like sim pern chong got there by breathing meditation, some people through psychedelics, some people through yoga, kundalini etc

Soh Wei Yu yes but not necessarily until total cessation of concepts, however at a much later phase of de-construction. The insight by then will be much clearer and stable imo though it comes at a later phase of de-constructing. I m more interested in how and why.

- Reply
- 1d

As for 2) i think 1) can be a kind of release on mental level even if anatta isn’t realised. Greg goode said that by the time he reached transparent witness he was free of mental suffering.

Reply
1d
Edited

Soh Wei Yu what is opaque witness? Free of mental suffering is true.

Sorry wrote wrong. Opaque witness first followed by transparent witness. He became free from mental suffering at transparent witness:

Source: https://www.amazon.sg/After-Awareness-Dr.../dp/1626258090

AMAZON.SG

After Awareness: The End of the Path

Reply
Remove Preview
1d

James Bird Demik

Soh Wei Yu which are free to read if you have azon unlimited

- Reply
- 23h

Thanks for the detailed question that lead me to a deeper line of inquiry. I must start with #4. What I am going to say is NOT some kind of a criticism towards AtR at all. I am pretty sure there are several types of mind that resonate fully with the AtR 7 stages. As for me, I have a few problems. For example, regarding Anatta and Maha, I am unable to see them as stages. How could someone say that has realized Anatta but feels as if action or volition are still issuing from an entity or a centre? As I see it, if that is the case, then very simply Anatta was not fully realized.

Another 'issue' is at the initial stages. The problem there is quite 'personal'. The thing is that what is called 'I am stage' conflicts with an experience I had as a young kid, that I have no other way to call it but 'I am' also. But these 2 'I am', the AtR and my experiencing, are different. In my case, at an age that was certainly less then 7, for I was not in school yet by the time we lived at that town, was as follows:

"I suddenly realized that something was looking out from behind these eyes that was from 'inside out', unlike all other beings in the whole universe that where seen form 'outside'. And I knew that this could be realized by anyone who would care to look at it".

And I felt it deeply as an 'I am'. But, of course, it was a split 'I am', for such seeing was looking at an outside world. Nonetheless, something absolutely genuine, undeniable, was at play there that ignited my 'quest' for truth - way of speaking.

Having said that, as a beginning of my answer to your question, I would say that de-construction can start from the objective or subjective side.

Later more...

Reply
1d
Edited

Geovani Geo thks for the answers but don't quite get what u r trying to convey...haha

John Tan. Well, for the time being I am just saying that I am unable to answer your #4 question: "How do 1 and 3 differ from ATR anatta enquiry. But I will look closely at,

"In hearing, there is just sound, no hearer;

In seeing, there is just colors and shapes, no seer",

and try to understand the proper context of your question.

John Tan. "there is the way of de-construction from analysis where one analyses and understands that "named things" are empty and "non-arisen" but still, one may not directly taste that empty clarity even after clearly understanding it conceptually. We must ask y is it so."

Because the de-construction is not complete. There may still remain a sense of inner versus outer or this versus that. One may see that named things are empty "out there", as objects, but fail to see that the "inner" has not been de-constructed and is being taken as an subjective side.

Reply
1d
Edited

Geovani Geo I still don't get the linkage. If I deconstruct "chair", "car", "cause and effect"...etc, how does it eventually lead to direct authentication of one's radiance clarity? I m not saying it won't, but where and what that "linkage"?

John Tan, yes, I understand, you are trying to follow my train of logic and thought.

The "linkage" is there because you don't just deconstruct "chair", "car", the so-called outside things. You also deconstruct any and all fabrications involving a separate centre, like sensations, feelings, thoughts, etc. So, if nothing is left as some kind of an observer, you are left AS the whole enchilada that is self-shining.

And such "shining light" is also linked with "emptiness".

Geovani Geo yes. In addition to self-luminous presence from thorough de-construction of "named things", any other insights?

Reply
1d
Edited

John Tan, yes. The most subtle and 'powerful' perhaps: emptiness. One of the connotations or corollary of the realization of 'emptiness' is that appearances are spontaneous, that it all could not happen in any other way... naturally. Just like gravity, or the flow of a river downwards.

- Reply
- 1d

John, when you say,

"clearly understanding which de-constructing technique lead to what "result" is crucial",

are you implying that there is not an ultimate realization that may be arrived at through several different approaches?

Reply
1d
Edited

Geovani Geo If u ask r we our thoughts? No coz thoughts come and go, but obviously we do not come and go. Likewise we r not our heart, our body, our thoughts, our sensations..we kept disassociating from all these appearances until we come to a point where the mind becomes completely still and is simply aware of ITSELF. Such negation technique result in the direct face to face authenication of one's clarity but do not recognize the nature of appearances.

In contrast to the above negation technique, u can also contemplate along the line of 4, i.e, negating self and realised there is zero distant, zero gap between appearances (thoughts, sensations, sounds, smells, colors....etc) and trigger the insight of all appearances as one's empty clarity.

The former leads to disassociation from appearances while the latter is full embracement. Different technique, different realization, different result.

John Tan, got it. But, ultimately, can not both approaches can lead to the same thing?

If neti-neti is taken to its ultimate consequences any distance from seeming objects is zero-ed. If all and anything perceived is not "I", then "I" am nothing and suchness is what is appearing. Nothing is everything. Fragmentation ended.

If, OTOH, one goes through "perceptions only perceiving", such perceiving is source-less. You are left with appearances likewise. Fragmentation ended.

Reply
1d
Edited

Geovani Geo possibly but u must explain what do u mean by "taken to its ultimate consequences" like how u start from thorough disassociation of neti neti, what makes the u-turned into total embracement using the same technique.

Reply
1d
Edited

By "ultimate consequences" I mean that with the neti-neti approach often he "perceiver" is quite difficult to completely be seen through, although one understands that any residue "inside" is also neti-neti.

Failure to go all the way through "ultimate consequences" may leave the residue as some self standing eternal entity, namely, as in neo-advaita is called Awareness.

John Tan asks, "what makes the U-turned into total embracement"?

Because taken to its ultimate consequences, the source-less perceiving imply in nothingness, like the analogy of "space". And by being nothing I am everything.

Geovani Geo yes that is one point, but how and y the total embracement of appearances? Do take note that even when witness is deconstructed, it may not be a u-turned into embracement of appearances but into a state of total oblivion or a state of impersonality or no-doership. There is no effortless and insubstantial non-dual insight.

John Tan, what is the difference between "u-turn into embracement of appearances" and "state of impersonality or no-doership"?

Geovani Geo impersonality is a total surrender where u let go even of the witness and being lived by life. Non-doership is state of effortless flowing as there is no-self. Both does not lead to insight that appearances are one's radiance clarity so simply negating witness does not necessarily lead to embracement of appearances. Coalescence of emptiness and appearances require more than that.

John Tan, ...or perhaps less.

I don't think that the coalescence of emptiness and appearances can be arrived at through some method. The very 'notion' of emptiness is crucial end tricky. I say it is tricky because one can make 'something' out of it, a kind of subtle substantiation. And its crucial because it is emptiness that gives coalescence, equalizes all.

Reply
1d
Edited

John Tan, and more than that, one realizes that what is, is self-perfecting. I really dont see such realization possible as a consequence of anything 'else' - like a system or method of contemplation. Just my opinion.

Reply
1d
Edited

Geovani Geo I don't buy into that. Lol. I think that is a misconception of self-perfection. Awakening does not happen through confused views. Also just my opinion.

Reply
1d
Edited

John Tan, if its not self-perfecting, who or what is able to perfect it? Some "other"? "God"? The meditator? Then perfection would be a consequence, a result of some cause. Makes no sense.

Reply
1d
Edited

Geovani Geo I m not denying self and natural perfection. I m saying self-perfection does not means any path, anything goes and anyhow will still lead to same result. That is complete mis-interpretation.

Reply
1d
Edited

John Tan, but now you are regarding a time-bound "self-perfecting" as a means to go from here to there. From one state to another better state. I am not looking at it in such manner.

Geovani Geo u have completely mistaken the natural state from the conventional. What de-constructed is the conventional, no attempt is made to make suchness more suchness.

Reply
1d
Edited

John Tan, but that is what I said above! In the conventional "perfecting" is from one state to another, from not-so-perfect towards a more perfect. That is the conventional. It is looking at the other shore as if there where different shores, right? We are so used to methods and systems that we think that the Path is to move from here to there. Its a conditioned view. Actually, the Path is never other then the one under our feet. No?

At one point there is no other shore to get at, there are no two shores. Is this not the quantum leap, the immediate no-otherness?

Geovani Geo if u feel totally ok with such understanding, there is no point in discussing further and it is about time for me to sleep also..haha.

Reply
1d
Edited

John Tan, there is absolutely no claim here of attainment of some 'state' of being OK. I am what I am at the moment I am writing stuff. As I wrote that, above, yes... It felt just like that, really OK: no other shore to be attained is arriving at the other shore.

Circumstances change and the scenario changes.

It was our - as you called it - discussion that led me to that specific "place".

Reply
1d
Edited

Geovani Geo In self-arising wisdom, there only spontaneous presence and natural perfection; but,

If there is mind even in the most minuest sense, there will be knowing, there will be apprehension, there will be grasping and there will be division. Hence everything orginates in dependence, everything is empty;

And as long as there is mind,

"Self" and "otherness" orginate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting;

View, path and result originate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting;

Cause and effect orginate in dependence -- that is self-perfecting;

If we r still in a state of mind (relative) even in the minuest sense and sprouting glamorously "no practice, no path and and no result" that is just deluding oneself into self-perfection.

- Reply
- 1d
- Edited

Chris Wilson

1.I don't like my answer to this.. I can't articulate it. Edit: looking more at the question... I don't know

3. yes because it gives things to look at and investigate and to see that it can't be that and eventually lead to a complete frustration of all thought the mind can present for an answer to the point of surrender of control to actually experience the clarity.

4. The investigation is deconstructing the internal.. the point of reference.. rather than looking for the internal that the external is found in. It feels like the point of reference getting thrown out to everywhere and nowhere for I to land or everywhere for it to land.

Reply
1d
Edited

Chris Wilson

4 is not very clear for me... just what I think coming from brief experiences

Chris Wilson my conversations with Geovani Geo may answer some of ur questions.

Chris Wilson

Thank you... my bad this isn't AtR... just saw some of the usual suspects