Posts
This is a chapter from the longer AtR guide: https://app.box.com/s/157eqgiosuw6xqvs00ibdkmc0r3mu8jg
No-Self Does Not Imply Solipsism
(This
issue is not peculiar to Stage 5 and in fact may be more common in earlier
phases of insights prior to thorough deconstruction of Subjectivity, the issue
of falling into the other extreme of inherently existing physicality may be
more pertinent to Stage 5)
Some people fall into the erroneous view
of solipsism, the notion that there is no others than yourself, or that there
are no others and only your presently arising experience exists. No-self does
not negate conventional (other) mindstreams, only an inherently existing and
unchanging and independent soul, self/Self, agent (perceiver, doer) or medium
of experiences and actions. Mindstreams are conventionally valid like chariot,
while the notion of inherent existence and souls are as impossible and invalid
even conventionally as a rabbit with horns, which is to say they have no valid
basis of designation at all and is purely a figment of imagination, just like
unicorns. Inherent existence does not exist even conventionally, it is an
impossible way of existence much like the impossibility of a “square triangle”.
Conventionally, we can understand minds and mindstreams to be unique for each
individual, there is nothing universal (all beings are mere extensions of One Mind)
nor solipsistic (only my present mind/experience exists) about minds. However,
just as with a chariot, mindstreams when sought for cannot be found whether
apart from or within the parts or basis of designation, so mindstreams too are
merely (dependently) designated and are ultimately also empty and non-arisen.
“Anatta and emptiness
is in some ways diametrically opposite of Advaita view. We deconstruct
"Oneness", there is no ontological "oneness" or a unifying
reality in Buddhism. That would be an essence view, and the insight of anatta
and emptiness deconstructs all essence views. Not only does all mindstreams
remain differentiated rather than collapsed into oneness, all experiences are
also not collapsed into oneness - therefore sight is not same as sound, no two
moments or experience arising in dependence on the different sense faculties
and objects are the same, and consciousness is always simply the myriad
manifestation in all its diversities.” – Soh, 2021. Also see chapter on: Anatta as
Dispersing into Multiplicity + Spontaneous, Disjoint and Unsupported
[1:07 PM, 11/25/2020] John Tan: Only when
you subsume into one, it turns solipsistic.
So either freedom of extremes or you see DO and total exertion and
emptiness. Then you do not fall into
extremes.
“Although Bhāviveka doesn’t struggle that much, he is quite
clear:
“Since [the
tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasiveness and oneness
contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence,
non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different.” – Kyle
Dixon, 2020
“Bhāviveka
demonstrates the proper way to view buddhanature:
The
statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects
of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further,
"Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of
aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner
personal agent pervading everyone.” – Kyle
Dixon, 2021
Jake Karat
I once
slipped into a solipsistic state - admittedly after consuming to much cannabis
over a summer after graduating high school - and it was terrifying. I look back
and have realized after reading more on Buddhism that there was something
missing to the "approach".
This is where
"No-Self" is so important to understand. Solipsism could be the
result of "non-duality" IF there is still an attachment to a sense of
"Self", in which case non-dual is still not fully understood.
When there is
no "Self", there is no, "There's only me.", perspective.
There are just "happenings", which include the stream of
conceptualizations that give an appearance and feeling of a "Self" in
the first place.
-
Reply
Admin
John Tan
wrote:
Yes
solipsistic state can be overcome by:
1. What he
said.
2. Overcoming
the sense of "mine".
3. Also by
de-constructing via dependent designation into kadag, primordial purity.
4.
Essencelessness
Solipsisim is
an extreme of deducing a conclusion using our existing dualistic and inherent
paradigm. Negation without affirming anything will not.
Likewise
de-construction does not lead into an all encompassing space, that too is an
abstraction and extrapolation. It is to slowly allow us to see through the
faulty premise and open up the entire field.
Reply
8h
Ng Xin Zhao shared a link.
Aonri1 p132P2lu6fl1h2r1t a :M a ·
https://www.reddit.com/.../all_forms_of_nonduality.../
Any
refutations to this? The author there asked for help to refute.
reddit.com
All
forms of nonduality inevitably lead to solipsism
\*Trigger
warning: the ideas discussed here can be very detrimental to the mental health
of some people. If you're prone to suffer from...
43 Comments
Yin Ling
Admin
This
is because the author is reifying / privileging his “mind”.
He
has seen through some “I” but not yet seen through “mine”
Why
is the experience of talking to someone “mine”?
In
an experience, is there anything in the xp, say an xp of a seeing a flower;
“mine”?
Who
says it’s “mine”?
That
extra “mine” is an extra imputation.
Xp
of a flower is just that - colours, eye consciousness, consciousness, that
dependent originate.
That’s
it.
No
I , no mine.
So
shouldn’t be solipsism
Hence
Buddha taught to take the view of DO.
· 2d
Mr. SG
Lol.
Solipsism is just an idea. Reality does not think of itself in these terms.
Only the small self that projects itself onto the universe.
· 2d
Admin
Yeah.
On one extreme everything is subsumed into a singular mind. That causes
solipsism but eliminates subject object division. That is a phase that many
people including John Tan has experienced in the substantialist nondual phases.
On
the other extreme all self/Self is deconstructed but everything is subsumed or
collapsed into objective matter. The world is inherently existing and real.
Everything is vibrant and alive but objective or objectively existing. That is
the actual freedom teachings. Here there is no solipsism but materialism, but
also no subject object division. This is also a phase John Tan went through
post anatta but before emptiness.
Then
there is the emptiness teachings, which allows us to deconstruct everything
without subsuming to either poles, all subjects and objects are liberated on
the spot by seeing its empty and non-arisen and dependently designated /
dependently originated nature. That is the nature of all appearance / mind /
phenomena, empty and yet luminous/vibrant/alive.
· 2d
· Edited
Admin
Conventionally
different mindstreams are still different mindstreams but not established as
real ultimately, and also not subsumed into a “one”.
Reply
2d
“Why
do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?
Māra,
is this your theory?
This
is just a pile of conditions,
you
won’t find a sentient being here.
When
the parts are assembled
we
use the word ‘chariot’.
So
too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient
being’ is the convention we use.
But
it’s only suffering that comes to be,
lasts
a while, then disappears.
Naught
but suffering comes to be,
naught
but suffering ceases.” - Vajira Sutta
“The subsuming of everything into one's
mind took place because one's mind seems to be the common factor in the mode of
enquiry in solipsism.
However if using the same line of
reasoning, it is in others’ mind as well.
If everything is in everyone's mind, then mind is no more the common
factor but "Everything". If
you see this common factor of everything and shift your attention to
everything, then experience turns very "physical".
Prasangika overcomes such issue by
inquiring into its "inherentness".
Taking the “seed-plant-tree" example, why is the seed
"growing"? Is there anything at the side of the "sprout"
that is saying it is growing? It can be
understood as a decaying process as well.” - John Tan, 2019
John Tan on how the tendency of solipsism
arises post non-dual: “Characteristics of internal and private not
deconstructed. Just like when the line
that demarcates left and right dissolved, it does not mean all of left has
become right or all of right has become left.” – John Tan, 2021
“[4:00 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: When I
realized for the first time how PRIVATE the "objective external
world" is, I was thrown into amazement and enter into the realm of
"All is Mind". I am
experiencing my Mind not as a background, not as illusive thoughts floating in
my little head BUT in real time, directly, as the world I have so long mistaken
as "external" and "objective".
I touch everything with great intensity;
feel everything with immense sensitivity, hear sound as if I am tasting
it. Everything turns magic, primal and
miraculous.
[4:01 AM, 8/1/2018] Soh Wei Yu: And the
intensity is not only visual.. the sense of smell and auroma is so acute and
other senses. Seems like I skew towards visual most of the time
[4:02 AM, 8/1/2018] Soh Wei Yu: You wrote
this?
[4:02 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: Yes
[4:12 AM, 8/1/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Yes
similar.. the objective external world is completely illusion and all is just
Mind, just God. Except it’s no longer even private it’s like everything is
lived. All my actions and experience are the spontaneous play of this
intelligence. But any way of conceptualizing what this intelligence is is a
form of idolization, be it primitive way of seeing God as a bearded man in the
sky or as a formless background of experience. It can only be tasted in
complete immediacy
[4:14 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: When I
realized for the first time how PRIVATE the "objective external
world" is, I was thrown into amazement and enter into the realm of
"All is Mind". I am experiencing
my Mind not as a background, not as illusive thoughts floating in my little
head BUT in real time, directly, as the world I have so long mistaken as
"external" and "objective".
I touch the wall, keep feeling the
texture, I really wanted take it all in. I feel the sensations of the hardness
of the floor with great intensity; feel everything with immense sensitivity;
hear sound as if I am tasting it.
Everything turns magic, primal and miraculous.
[4:15 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: One of the
essential insight - All is Mind.
[4:15 AM, 8/1/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Very
similar except I didn’t have notions of privateness or personality or self..
privateness sound quite individualistic :P
[4:18 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: Yes. Privateness yet "fully external and
objective", two into one. This also
leads to another 2 deep insights ... The insight that designations is very
participative and freedom from extremes.
[4:21 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: When you
move "internal" into "external and objective" world,
colors, smell, sound....marvelling all these aliveness with wonder.
[4:22 AM, 8/1/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. yes
[4:24 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: The
convention "private", "internal" suddenly turns upside
down...suddenly your whole head and internal world squeeze through a pinhole
into a world of immerse colors and aliveness.
[4:25 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: The lil self
disappears. you feel God like and divine
and spiritual.
[4:25 AM, 8/1/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Ic yes
[4:27 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: That is why I
kept telling you about intensity
[4:30 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: However the
intensity of all is Mind lasted for several months before it wears off. All my insights lasted for almost 90 days
cycle before wearing off.
[4:31 AM, 8/1/2018] Soh Wei Yu: It’s both
the intensity and the sense of being lived completely without individual
doership or agency. Like you said anatta in all three aspects and the aspect of
vivid aliveness, clarity, intelligence and vitality experienced all at once
[4:31 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: I mean all
the intense experience that came from insights
[4:34 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: I wonder how
those without insights feel and experience
[4:35 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: It can also
be triggered by yoga esp when I do inversion and yoganidrasana
[4:38 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: Once I was
doing inversion and the blood flows to my head and I repeated several times
followed by yoganidrasana, while doing it I realized if I can manage my breath,
the energy can flow to my brow and crown and suddenly energy broke lose while
still remaining in the pose
[4:39 AM, 8/1/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Oic wow..
[4:39 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: Then post
yoga I was sitting then I can't feel my whole body and head ... Suddenly I turn
transparent while sitting
[4:39 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: I open my
eyes...the living colors and I become one.
[4:40 AM, 8/1/2018] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. nice
when was that
[4:40 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: Long ago
[4:40 AM, 8/1/2018] John Tan: I still can
trigger it”
“[1:09 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Now having
non-dual experience or a state of no- mind do not mean finality.
[1:10 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: We must
also free our from many more intellectual obscurations.
[1:10 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: And other
obscurations of cause.
[1:11 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Like having
non-dual or no-mind may not free on from the notion of self.
[1:11 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Freeing one
from the notion of self, may not free one from the notion of cause.
[1:11 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Freeing one
from the notion of cause, may not free one from the notion of existence.
[1:12 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Freeing one
from duality, may not free one from non-duality.
[1:13 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: The color
you see is neither inside, nor outside.
It is inside, it is also outside.
It is private, it is also public.
So it is neither too.
[1:14 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: So freedom
from insight is not different from a blank state.
[1:15 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: You mean
is different
[1:15 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Yes
[1:15 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..
[1:18 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: So in
addition to walking in a park, being anatta, borderless and open, non-dual and
total exerted, you must also spend time to free up further intellectual
obscurations to blind us.
[1:18 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: That blind
us I mean.
[1:18 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
through mmk?
[1:20 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: The chariot
analogy is enough...but the diamond splitter, neither one nor many...all these
ways of ultimate analysis that see through essence can help also.
[1:20 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: But simple
looking and understanding the chariot analogy helps me a lot...it depends on
individual.
[1:21 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Then
authenticate it with your actual experience in anatta.
More from 2020:
[1:05 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Don't you find internal
as private?
[1:06 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Internal are like
thoughts, sensations, perceptions. External are like shape and size and colors
of objects, sounds and so on
[1:06 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Only to you...no one
else can see it
[1:06 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Which are seen to be
sourced from externally
[1:06 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah
[1:07 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: External is not private
to you
[1:07 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: your thoughts, your experiences
are internal
[1:07 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Private to you and not
know by anyone else right?
[1:07 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah
[1:09 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: External implies outside
as if seen by everyone
[1:09 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Somehow objective
correct when we talk about external
[1:10 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Internal is private to
only you and usually we are talking about mind events
[1:10 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Don't we
[1:11 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah.. i would say
even all my sense perceptions are internal mind events, they are not shared..
but the qualities of sensory experience (like colors, shapes, etc) can be seen
as being sourced externally so they are “external” [post anatta prior to
emptiness]
[1:12 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Yes
[1:13 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: The division of an
internal and external is not as simple...when you investigate deeper and
deeper...one gets confused like hall of mirrors, like solipsism...
[1:13 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: But I am not going into
that
[1:15 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: For the current world
especially ruled by a scientific thought, we assumed a true objective world
right?
[1:15 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Now I am asking you,
post anatta how is this different?
[1:16 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Immediately after
anatta even without going through emptiness, one no longer experience in terms
subject and object
[1:16 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: In relation to internal
and external, what happened?
[1:17 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: No subject and no
object, is it the same as no internal and no external?
[1:17 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: No, since external
world may be seen to be inherent
[1:17 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: No means?
[1:17 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Not the same
[1:18 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: So post anatta, what
difference arise in your understanding of internal and external?
[1:20 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: How you feel about
external?
[1:20 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: First you must
understand, it doesn't change anything....experience still remains the same
[1:21 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: But we are talking about
perception change
[1:22 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: When you look at
external world post anatta, what happened to external world?
[1:22 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: you realize what?
[1:23 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: you realized what you thought
to be external, all characteristics suddenly turns very private right
[1:23 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah
[1:24 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: They are private and
is luminous mind.. yet characteristics of it (like redness of rose) can still
subtly be seen to be sourced externally
[1:24 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Now you must
differentiate, inner world from conceptual world...
[1:26 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: We have divided the
world oddly into an internal world of mind and external world of matter....
[1:26 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: The mind through a set
of learned knowledged understand from these lens.
[1:27 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: So when you see the
world as luminous and everything turns alive, what do you mean?
[1:28 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Due to realising
anatta the reification of background/foreground gone, luminosity is tasted as
aggregates Directly, gaplessly
[1:29 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Everything becomes
vivid, alive, brilliant, intense, etc
[1:30 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: No division
[1:30 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Or at least there is a
first realization of how seeing through constructs is like
[1:31 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[1:32 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: So when you say no sense
of internal/external what you mean?
[1:34 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: The anatta one is more
on no division and no subject object.. but emptiness is more relevant to
dissolving mind/matter inherency
[1:35 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Look into the
experience, internal and external....in anatta, no mind, some felt internal turns
external...because they are led to the foreground
[1:36 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: They are suddenly led to
the manifold of what we called the external world
[1:43 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[1:43 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: So when we say no
internal/external what we meant is something different
[1:58 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: If one subsume,
everything will turn internal because we are analysing everything from certain
standpoint, in this case from a "privacy" standpoint...
[8:51 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[10:23 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: In the case of actual
freedom its more like since self dissolve and everything turns objective, even
internal mind events are the exertion of an infinite universe being aware of
itself through a brain, as a flesh and blood body
[10:24 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: So its not that they
do not see internal and external, but the internal are subsumed as epiphenomena
of the external.. at least what i think
[10:27 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: you must come out your own
understanding of the what you call the view of the world post that...what
describes best...when your view does not sync or work with your experience,
such a desync cannot result in effortless and spacious freedom
[10:28 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Is it like indra-net,
is it like mind/matter, is it like DO/emptiness...what best described your insights,
your experiences
[10:29 AM, 6/1/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Hmm was writing about
indra net before you wrote lol
[10:29 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: All are different
descriptions
[10:30 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: So which suits best and
what is lacking
[10:30 AM, 6/1/2020] John Tan: Think about it
“On
solipsism, as pointed out by John before based on his own experience (that is,
he too faced this tendency of solipsism after an initial breakthrough to
nondual decades ago), the danger of someone going into nondual or even
emptiness without the taste of total interpenetration is that one can easily
fall into the extreme of solipsism. If we are directly experiencing our reality
like in Vipassana, what we see are endless dependencies - seamless and
intricate, in such a case there is no danger of falling into the view of
solipsism.
As
I wrote in my article Dharma Body last year: "...(Note: Dharma as simply a
unit of experience dependently originating - not implying any inherently
existing material universe [as the universe/dharma body here is seen as
marvelous activities/phenomena dependently originating seamlessly without
center or boundaries], nor is this dharma body in any sense a subjective body
at all [if it is subjectively self-existent then causes and conditions will not
be incorporated nor necessary for any given manifestation])..." - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2013/09/dharma-body.html
Also,
as Piotr shared last month, "...what Soh told me in the past, if we apply
Buddha's deconstruction from sound example from sutra, then clarity I call
visual form right now of this laptop, letters is no more "mine" than
any of secondary conditions right now, and Buddha's teaching about not-mine and
other teachings sealed possibility of solipsism permanently for me. Somehow
[solipsism] for me it's a non-issue."
He's
referring to what I told him many months ago:
"John
wrote "you see, when we say there is no self or other, we can still not
see in terms of DO."
I
commented: this is very important.. and lately I'm seeing it more as well. To
overcome all sense of I, me, and even mine, D.O. has to step in. Many people
talk about no I, no background, but still there is sense of mine... and there
are also those that say everything is 'the manifestation of my mind or my
nature'.. that is subtly subsuming everything to mind. Even if there is no
duality.
In
dependent origination you totally see the entire formation of
interdependencies... not in words but directly taste the totality of its
workings forming every moment of experience. When the drum beat sounds you don't
see it as just 'the manifestation of my mind' but you see it as the person
hitting, the drum, the vibration, the ears etc... all in total exertion... how
can that have anything to do with I or mine? It is not 'mine' anymore than it
is the person hitting, the drum's, the vibration's... etc. It is not only that
there is no hearer behind sound... not only no I but no mine at all.. the sound
itself does not belong to anyone... it is the entire universe in total exertion
so to speak.. but it is not understood in logic. You have to see the whole
process and interdependencies directly. Breathing is like this... walking is
like this... every action every experience is like this. This is the path to
dissolve I, me, mine... only through D.O. is the release thorough.
Not
'everything is just consciousness' or 'everything is my consciousness'...
consciousness isn't that special or important. It does not have a special,
independent, ontological status. Rather it is the interdependencies the
workings of D.O. through which that moment of consciousness/experience is in
total exertion. The true turning point is when mind is completely separated
from mine.. I, me, mine.. the dualistic and inherent tendency must be dissolved
and replaced with the wisdom of D.O."
Some
conversations with John back in 2012 are quite illuminating on this subject:
John:
To me is just is "Soh" an eternal being...that's all. No denial of
Soh as a conventional self. All is just him is an inference too. There is no
other is also an assumption.
Soh:
That's what I said, lol. He didn't see it.
John:
But other mindstreams is a more valid assumption. Don't you think so? And
verifiable.
Soh:
Yeah.
John:
Whatever in conventional reality still remain, only that reification is seen
through. Get it? The centre is seen through be it "subject" or
"object", they are imputed mental constructs. Only the additional
"ghostly something" is seen through. Not construing and reifying.
Nothing that "subject" does not exist. This seeing through itself led
to implicit non-dual experience.
Soh:
"Nothing that "subject" does not exist." - what you mean?
John:
Not "subject" or "object" does not exist. Or dissolving object
into subject or subject into object…
etc. That "extra" imputation is seen through. Conventional reality
still remain as it is. By the way, focus more on practice in releasing any
holdings.... do not keep engaging on all these.
Soh:
I see.. Conventional reality are just names imposed on non-inherent aggregates,
right.
John:
Yes. That led to releasing of the mind from holding...no subsuming of anything.
What you wrote is unclear. Do you get what I mean? Doesn't mean Soh does not exist… lol. Or I am you or you are
me. Just not construing and reifying.
Soh:
I see. Nondual is collapsing objects to self, thus I am you. Anatta simply sees
through reification, but conventionally I am I, you are you.
John:
Or collapsing subject into object. You are still unclear about this and mixed
up. Seeing through the reification of "subject", "object",
"self", "now", "here". Get it? Seeing through
"self" led to implicit non-dual experience. Because experience turns
direct without reification. In seeing, just scenery. Like you see through the
word "weather". That weather-Ness. Be it
subject/object/weather/...etc. That is mind free of seeing "things"
existing inherently. Experience turns vivid direct and releasing. But I don't
want you to keep participating idle talk and neglect practice…
always over emphasizing unnecessarily. What happens to experience?
Soh:
you mean after anatta? Direct, luminous, but no ground of abiding (like some
inherent awareness).
John:
And what do you mean by that?
Soh:
Means there are only transient six sense streams experience, in seen just seen,
etc. Nothing extra.
John:
Six stream experiences is just a convenient raft. Nothing ultimate. Not only
must you see that there is no Seer + seeing + seen… you must see the immense
connectedness. Implicit Non-dual in experience in anatta to you means what?” -
Soh, 2014
“Buddha
never used the term "self" to refer to an unconditioned, permanent,
ultimate entity. He also never asserted that there was no conventional
"self," the subject of transactional discourse. So, it is very clear
in the sutras that the Buddha negated an ultimate self and did not negate a
conventional self.” – Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith, 2020
“Anatman
is the negation of an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity that moves from
one temporary body to another. It is not the negation of "Sam,"
"Fred," or "Jane" used as a conventional designation for a
collection of aggregates. Since the Buddha clearly states in many Mahāyāna sūtras,
"all phenomena" are not self, and since everything is included there,
including buddhahood, therefore, there are no phenomena that can be called a
self, and since there are nothing outside of all phenomena, a "self,"
other than an arbitrary designation, does not exist.”
-
Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith
More
on the teaching of conventional self:
“
https://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Shobogenzo/Shobogenzo%20complete.pdf
Underlying the whole of Dōgen’s presentation is his own experience of no longer
being attached to any sense of a personal self that exists independent of time
and of other beings, an experience which is part and parcel of his ‘dropping
off of body and mind’. From this perspective of his, anything having
existence—which includes every thought and thing—is inextricably bound to time,
indeed, can be said to ‘be time’, for there is no thought or thing that exists
independent of time. Time and being are but two aspects of the same thing,
which is the interrelationship of anicca, ‘the ever-changing flow of time’ and
anatta, ‘the absence of any permanent self existing within or independent of
this flow of time’. Dōgen has already voiced this perspective in Discourse 1: A
Discourse on Doing One’s Utmost in Practicing the Way of the Buddhas (Bendōwa),
and in Discourse 3: On the Spiritual Question as It Manifests Before Your Very
Eyes (Genjō Kōan), where he discussed the Shrenikan view of an ‘eternal self ’
and the Buddhist perception of ‘no permanent self ’.
In
the present discourse, Dōgen uses as his central text a poem by Great Master
Yakusan Igen, the Ninth Chinese Ancestor in the Sōtō Zen lineage. In the
Chinese version, each line of this poem begins with the word uji, which
functions to introduce a set of couplets describing temporary conditions that
appear to be contrastive, but which, in reality, do not stand against each
other. These conditions comprise what might be referred to as ‘an I at some
moment of time’; this is a use of the word ‘I’ that does not refer to some
‘permanent self ’, abiding unchanged over time (as the Shrenikans maintained)
but to a particular set of transient conditions at a particular time. In other
words, there is no permanent, unchanging ‘Yakusan’, only a series of
ever-changing conditions, one segment of which is perceived as ‘a sentient
being’, which is, for convenience, conventionally referred to as ‘Yakusan’.
Both Yakusan and Dōgen understand uji (in its sense of ‘that which exists at
some time’) as a useful way of expressing the condition of anatta, and in this
sense it is used to refer to a state of ‘being’ that is neither a ‘permanent self
’ nor something separate from ‘other’; it is the ‘I’ referred to in one
description of a kenshō experience (that is, the experiencing of one’s Buddha
Nature) as ‘the whole universe becoming I’. Hence, when the false notion of
‘having a permanent self ’ is abandoned, then what remains is just uji, ‘the
time when some form of being persists’.
After
presenting Yakusan’s poem, Dōgen focuses on that aspect of the poem that does
not deal with metaphors, images, symbols, etc., and which is the one element in
the poem that readers are most likely to pay small heed to: the phrase uji
itself. His opening statement encapsulates the whole of what he is talking
about in this text, namely: “The phrase ‘for the time being’ implies that time
in its totality is what existence is, and that existence in all its occurrences
is what time is.”
“Why
do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?
Māra,
is this your theory?
This
is just a pile of conditions,
you
won’t find a sentient being here.
When
the parts are assembled
we
use the word ‘chariot’.
So
too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient
being’ is the convention we use.
But
it’s only suffering that comes to be,
lasts
a while, then disappears.
Naught
but suffering comes to be,
naught
but suffering ceases.” - Vajira Sutta
John
Tan, 2007: “No-self does not need observation. No-self is a form of realisation.
To observe is to track the 'self': where is it, what is it - that 'sense of
self', who, where and what... till we thoroughly understood it is an illusion, till
we know there is awareness, but there never was a 'Self/self'. Isn't awareness
'self'? Well, you can say so if you insist...ehehhe
(1:59
PM) Thusness: if there is non-dual, no
background, no mine and 'I', impermanence, not a form of entity and yet we
still want to call it 'Self', so be it. :P
(1:59
PM) Thusness: its okie...
(1:59
PM) Thusness: lol”
John
Tan, 2020: “Brahman or not doesn't matter as long Brahman is not any
transpersonal being in a wonderland, but is the very relative phenomena that we
misunderstood.”
When
asked about the difference between an ultimate and inherently existing Self and
the Buddhist view of “mindstreams”, Soh replied with a quotation from Ven.
Hui-feng: “Venerable Hui-Feng nicely explains the difference between the view
of "atman" and "mindstream" (as taught by Buddha):
In short:
"self" = "atman"
/ "pudgala" / "purisa" / etc.
--> permanent, blissful,
autonomous entity, totally unaffected by any conditioned phenomena
"mind" = "citta"
/ "manas" / "vijnana" / etc.
--> stream of momentarily arising and
ceasing states of consciousness, thus not an entity, each of which is
conditioned by sense organ, sense object and preceding mental states
Neither are material.
That's a brief overview, lot's of things to
nit pick at, but otherwise it'll require a 1000 page monograph to make everyone
happy.
You'll need to study up on
"dependent origination" (pratitya-samutpada) to get into any depth to
answer your questions.”
“[9:56
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: This is nondual https://www.spiritualteachers.org/what-is-enlightenment/
[10:00
AM, 4/16/2021] William Lim: Thanks... it was useful to focus and unpack one
topic at a time. Yesterday topic of "not seperate but yet distinct"
was interesting.
[10:13
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: In anatta the all differentiations remain
[10:13
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: There is not subsuming into some oneness
[10:14
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: “...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not
contain the myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad
forms themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of
Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all Buddhas
are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are enlightenment”
which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature or mind.”
[10:14
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: - ted biringer
[10:15
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: All mindstreams are likewise differentiated, they
are not subsumed into one universal consciousness like advaita
[10:15
AM, 4/16/2021] William Lim: All mindstreams are distinct and yet there are no
seperation?
[10:15
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: But there is not subject object, agency-action,
perceiver perceived duality
[10:16
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: In hearing, hearing is just sound, no hearer
[10:16
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Etc
[10:16
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Its not one universal consciousness arising as a
sound, i dont have such concepts
[10:16
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: That is stage 4.. or stage 1 to 4
[10:17
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Even steven norquist havent really gone beyond stage
4 but his is nondual. Stage 4
[10:17
AM, 4/16/2021] William Lim: If there is no subject-object, how can there be
"another" midstream?
[10:19
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: There is no subject object, but all differentiations
remain. There is no hearer and no hearing besides sound, but sound is not the
same as scenery, not the same as thought
[10:19
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: There is no consciousness besides manifestation and
manifestation is always differentiated
[10:19
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: So even in experience everything is differentiated,
why can’t there be different mindstreams?
[10:20
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Under differing conditions, different manifestations
appear
[10:20
AM, 4/16/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Therefore dependent origination
[10:20
AM, 4/16/2021] William Lim: This is good clarification”
“RESPONDENT: I’m just here more or less alone, I guess.
RICHARD: Each
and every human being is on their own as a flesh and blood body ... dependent
upon no one; autonomous. Being ‘alone’
or lonely is a feature of being a self: ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body
looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening
through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue,
touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through
‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for
‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world ... the world
as-it-is.
RESPONDENT: I didn’t mean lonely by alone.
RICHARD: One
of the hallmarks of self-realisation is to no longer feel the common or garden
variety of loneliness but to experience the utter aloneness of being ‘The One
With No Other’; the mystical literature abounds with descriptions of the master
being alone ... in its root meaning of ‘all+one’ (ME ‘al one’ from ‘al ane’
from OE ‘al ana’ from ‘al an’ where ‘al’=‘all’ and ‘ana’/‘an’=‘one’).
And I am not necessarily being pedagogic by digging around in the dictionaries
... for example:
•
[Spiritual Seeker]: ‘Contrary to what you
have said, Krishnamurti never says that he has a Soul, a Self.
•
[Richard]: ‘I beg to differ: [quote]: ‘I
maintain that the only spirituality is the incorruptibility of the self which
is eternal ... this is the absolute, unconditioned Truth which is Life itself’.
[end quote].
•
[Spiritual Seeker]: ‘His use of ‘sacred’
and ‘holy’ do not make him so, though you use the dictionary to establish your point.
Krishnamurti often departed from the dictionary meaning and substituted another
meaning. For example, ‘alone’ he made to mean ‘all one’.
•
[Richard]: ‘Once again, I beg to differ: he did not make ‘alone’ mean ‘all one’ at
all ... etymologically it already means ‘all one’.
The
mystical quality applied to ‘alone’ has popularly come to mean ‘we are all one’
... but the master is indeed alone in the sense of being solitary. In solipsism
[1:59 PM, 12/6/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Kyle Dixon in
Nonsectarian Dzogchen Atiyoga & Mahamudra:
"The real difference is that in Dzogchen,
appearances are 'non-existent clear appearances' [med par gsal snang].
Not mind because they are ultimately unfindable,
and then distinct on the level of convention."
[5:44 PM, 12/6/2019] John Tan: Meaning?
[7:15 PM, 12/6/2019] Soh Wei Yu: To dzogchen, mind
and appearance are ultimately unfindable, but distinct conventionally.
Therefore they are not same in dzogchen
[7:55 PM, 12/6/2019] John Tan: That is correct and
accurate. Actually when we say appearance is mind, it is an experiential
taste. Conventionally it should treated
as distinct and DO [dependently originating]. However even saying they are
different is incorrect. Language cannot define this relationship appropriately…
Therefore 2 truth [conventional and ultimate]. Also it is true to talk about
emptiness. Appear and not-found. Rather than to talk about it as if we're
talking about One Mind.”
