[17/6/23, 11:34:30 AM] John Tan: The explanation about the taste of no mirror reflecting and illusory reflection as empty clarity = 一枚宝镜 is good.👍 (Soh: referring to audio recording I sent which contains excerpts from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2017/01/excerpts-from-jewel-mirror-samadhi.html )

However,
1.  insubstantial non-dual must be understood from

2.  DO emptiness before freeing both mind and phenomena

3.  into freedom from all elaborations.

4. As natural state of the basis.
[17/6/23, 11:36:41 AM] John Tan: When some one hit a "bell", sentient being felt it is "external" but is it?  If it is not then is it "internal"?  If it isn't both "internal" and "external", then what does it mean?
[17/6/23, 11:57:39 AM] John Tan: Do take note that ur X is also talking about that, but y is it so different?
[17/6/23, 3:49:49 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Internal and external are both subsets of inherent existence view. In the case of one mind and i am, subjectivity is inherent.. in the case of AF, subjectivity is seen through but externality is inherent.

If instead its like chariot and parts, everything is dependently designated in the presence of the parts and conditions and these parts and conditions do not amount to anything inherently existing or produced apart from that mere name designated in dependence, then we do not have such views where subject or object or externality needs to be inherent. Mind is name only and so is phenomena.. nothing has core or essence or intrinsic existence
[17/6/23, 3:50:33 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Imo she skips to freedom from all elaborations and natural state of no mind without going through insights of anatta, dependent origination or emptiness clearly
[17/6/23, 3:50:48 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Just say silence all conventionalities into state of no mind
[17/6/23, 3:50:52 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Insight isnt clear
[17/6/23, 3:50:57 PM] Soh Wei Yu: I doubt she is clear even about anatta
[17/6/23, 3:52:28 PM] Yin Ling: Hwa shang Mahayana
[17/6/23, 4:55:53 PM] John Tan: "Hwa Shang" is a bad translation of "和尚“ Moheyan of northern Buddhism in China.  Gelug and Tsongkhapa are attacking strawman and making him a stereotype for non-mentation of Zen practice.  We know that this is not true.  Zen is nothing like that.
[17/6/23, 4:56:53 PM] Yin Ling: I see
[17/6/23, 4:57:21 PM] Yin Ling: That’s kinda mean 😂
[17/6/23, 5:00:04 PM] John Tan: Here u r talking about "inherent existence" but X isn't.  In fact many are not.  That is y non-inherent experience and dependent origination are extremely crucial for right understanding.  It is not just doing away with conventionalities and conceptualities.  But it involves several critical insights.  So what r the differences, why jumping to freedom of all elaborations this way resulted in such a different experience and understanding?
[17/6/23, 5:00:48 PM] John Tan: Tibetan has this bad habit
[17/6/23, 5:34:19 PM] Yin Ling: The object of inherent existence is left unnegated if straight jump. It’s almost impossible to liberate theoretically , just dissociate .
[17/6/23, 5:34:47 PM] Yin Ling: Maybe they debate too much 😂 everyday debate
[17/6/23, 5:36:54 PM] John Tan: Yes.  This idea of inherent existence in which "anatta" is just part of the entire spectrum is an all together insight that is made explicitly clear only by Tsongkhapa although gelug tend to turn extremely analytical.
[17/6/23, 5:41:33 PM] John Tan: Both see through conceptual conceptual constructs, but they r different.  But difference in what sense is not easy to see.  As we become clearer and used to it, we will realize that the entire mmk is actually emphasizing this particular insight.  Mmk is not just saying the conceptual layering must be eliminated like non-mentation.  When we integrate into practice, we become clearer and have more confidence.  Both mind and phenomena are both released, conventionalities r released but differently.  I have been trying to bring out the taste of this aspect on my posts in FB "weight of thoughts"...lol.
[17/6/23, 5:51:30 PM] Yin Ling: Yeah not just concepts but the whole referent itself is the conceptualisation. It’s hard for me to actualised yet lol
[17/6/23, 6:01:50 PM] John Tan: 1. A referent is a reified mental construct or "named things".  We din realize that.  We thought it is real.

2.  If we see through this, what happened?
[17/6/23, 6:17:30 PM] Yin Ling: If we see through then nothing “real” is there. 😂
[17/6/23, 6:17:43 PM] Yin Ling: Then the mind can stop elaborating and be at peace
[17/6/23, 11:55:03 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Quietening the mind actually doesnt see through the referents. Like ramana maharshi talks about silence. But the Self is seen as truly existing and solid and real. AF sees through self/Self and resides in nonconceptual pce but the referent of world as solid and real and ultimate is still there
[17/6/23, 11:55:38 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Samadhi etc, quietness doesnt necessarily release the very realness and solidness or inherency of Self and phenomena
[17/6/23, 11:55:58 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Even if one can have peak experience of no mind it is not the same as having an insight that sees through self
[18/6/23, 12:15:41 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Imo true insight of emptiness should lead to an equipoise of in the seen only the seen as med par gsal snang a “nonexistent clear appearance” or a “clearly apparent nonexistent,” , thus no seer, no seeing and nothing seen
[18/6/23, 12:15:58 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Otherwise resting in nonconceptual presence can still be a state of alaya
[18/6/23, 12:17:15 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Otherwise even if one says all conventionalities are silenced it may not be the same thing
[18/6/23, 12:19:56 AM] Yin Ling: Ya this is very difficult actually even after understanding
[18/6/23, 12:20:13 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Its actually the realness and inherentness thats released not merely mentation or labelling
[18/6/23, 12:21:38 AM] Yin Ling: Ya even the person writing on instagram“talking to higher self” is sort of holding onto Alaya in his sleep and practice
[18/6/23, 12:21:58 AM] Yin Ling: Not sure though. Just my feeling
[18/6/23, 12:23:29 AM] Soh Wei Yu: I thought so too
[18/6/23, 12:23:44 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Thats why i sent him the 7 stages but i think not easy to understand la haha
[18/6/23, 12:23:52 AM] Soh Wei Yu: But some of his stuff are interesting
[18/6/23, 12:27:35 AM] Yin Ling: Did u? Lol
[18/6/23, 12:28:06 AM] Yin Ling: Must not be easy because his practice is so mature
[18/6/23, 12:28:36 AM] Yin Ling: I mean practice for a long time
[18/6/23, 12:46:14 AM] Soh Wei Yu: I sent everybody i think can benefit 🤣
[18/6/23, 12:46:24 AM] Soh Wei Yu: In 2006 i sent eckhart tolle 🤣
[18/6/23, 12:46:38 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah
[18/6/23, 12:46:47 AM] Yin Ling: Did he reply you lol
[18/6/23, 12:49:29 AM] Soh Wei Yu: That time i sent in envelope or cd i think.. or maybe email I forgot. He didnt reply
[18/6/23, 12:49:36 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Recent one someone replied for him
[18/6/23, 12:49:38 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Sam M, Jun 24, 2022, 9:30 AM MDT:
Hello Soh,
 
Thank you for contacting Eckhart Teachings. We are deeply touched and moved by the many people that write into Eckhart and Kim, leaving no doubt there is an unprecedented shift in consciousness happening around us. Unfortunately, Eckhart is not able to send personal replies or accept gifts but sends his deepest gratitude to you for wanting to share with him.
 
We thank you for reaching out to Eckhart and wish you the very best in your journey.
Sam M | Customer Care
Eckhart Teachings | Toll Free 1-844-595-3316
support@eckharttolle.com
Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5:00 pm MT
[18/6/23, 12:51:13 AM] Yin Ling: Wow epic
[18/6/23, 12:51:35 AM] Yin Ling: Customer service 🤦🏻‍♀️
[18/6/23, 12:58:07 AM] John Tan: U have a serious addiction for sending the phases of insights.
[18/6/23, 1:07:21 AM] John Tan: 👍
No seer, no seeing, nothing seen means freedom from all elaborations into the natural state -- spontaneously presents and naturally perfected.

A state free from conceptual elaborations can be non-mentation like what Tsongkhapa said, there is no wisdom and insight involved.  Insight of non-inherentness will result in direct taste non-existence clear appearances.
‎[18/6/23, 11:42:13 AM] Yin Ling: ‎image omitted
[18/6/23, 11:42:13 AM] Yin Ling: 😅

———-

P.s. just recalled some nice excerpts on equipoise I shared from years ago:

Sonam Thakchoe (The Two Truths Debate: Tsongkhapa and Gorampa on the Middle Way):

"Tsongkhapa regards the nondual realization of ultimate truth as an epistemic event... ...Tsongkhapa does not hold the achievement of nondual wisdom as equivalent to the cessation of cognitive activity...

Tsongkhapa's description of the way the meditator arrives at nondual understanding is as follows. The cognitive agent experiences a fusion of subjectivity and its object, which refer here not to self and outside world but rather to elements within the meditator's own psychophysical aggregates. The meditator remains introspective, not engaging the outside world, but the outside world as such does not disappear. What occurs is instead a total cessation of the dualities between subject I and object mine, between thinker and thought, between feeler and feelings, between mind and body, between seeing and seen, and so forth. Initially a meditator perceives, for instance, that in each act of seeing, two factors are always present: the object seen and the act of seeing it. While each single act of seeing involves dissolution, the object seen and the act of seeing actually consist of numerous physical and mental processes that are seen to dissolve serially and successively. Eventually, the meditator also notices the dissolution of the dissolution itself.

In other words, the meditator first realizes the fluctuating and transitory character of the five aggregates, which is then followed by further realization of the aggregates as empty and selfless, and finally by the realization of the emptiness of even the empty and selfless phenomena. Nondual knowledge is thus arrived at, in Tsongkhapa's view, through the direct experience of seeing the truths within one's own aggregates, rather than being convinced of the truth of certain abstractions through rational argument or persuasion. Since the process here is a cognitive experience that operates entirely within the domain of one's psychophysical aggregates, it is therefore an epistemic but not a metaphysical nonduality.

This is how, according to Tsongkhapa, an arya has direct nonconceptual and nondual access to the transcendent nature of his own five psychophysical aggregates during meditative equipoise. In the wake of meditative equipoise, an arya engages with dualistic worldly activities, such as taking part in philosophical discourse, practicing different social conventions, and so on. The arya will thus make use of socio-linguistic conventions, but since the arya has eradicated all reifying tendencies, even these worldly dualistic engagements will be seen as consistent with nondual wisdom. Both non-dual and dual wisdoms, especially in the case of a buddha, Tsongkhapa argues, are fully commensurate."

"Both Tsong khapa and Go rampa describe non-dual knowledge as being like a process of mixing water. They argue that the fusion between subjectivity and objectivity, from the meditator's point of view, reaches its climax in their non-dual state in a way that is like mixing clean water from two different jars by pouring it all into one jar. Tsong khapa for example argues: "from the vantage point of the wisdom that directly realises ultimate reality, there is not even the slightest duality between object and the object-possessing consciousness. Like mixing water with water, [yogi] dwells in the meditative equipoise".' Tsongkhapa insists, however, that this metaphor should not be taken too far or too literally. It refers only to the cognitive process that occurs in total dissolution, and to the experience associated with that process, and must not be taken to represent the achivement of a metaphysical unity."

“So, as far as Tsong khapa is concerned, there is no contradiction in claiming that, from the empirical standpoint, on the one hand, non-dual wisdom constitutes the subjective pole of consciousnesses with ultimate truth as its objective counterpart; from the ultimate vantage point, on the other hand, non-dual wisdom and ultimate truth, "are free from the duality of act (bya ba) and object acted upon (byed pa)".

In the non-dual state, even the cognitive interplay between subject and object appears, from the meditator's point of view, completely to cease. This is because, as Tsong khapa points out, "duality of act and object acted upon is posited strictly from the perspective of empirical cognition".

Although the dual appearances of subject and object completely dissolve from the perspective of non-dual wisdom, and thus the meditator does not experience the mutual interaction between distinct and separate elements—between the seer and the seen—the meditator nonetheless engages in an act of 'mere seeing'. As the Buddha explains to Bahiya:

In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the

heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In

reference to the cognised, only the cognised. That is how you should

train yourself [Ud I. 10]... then Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that.

When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there

is no you there, you are neither here not yonder nor between the two.

This, just this, is the end of stress [Ud I. 101.

The experience of 'mere seeing' in a non-dual form is valid only when it is empirically grounded and when there is cognitive activity occurring between non-dual wisdom and non-dual ultimate truth.”

"Although all empirically given truths such as the aggregate of form, feelings etc., are contingently produced and have diverse conventional characters, all of them, according to Tsong khapa, are ultimately empty of the inherent arising. They share the universal characteristic (ro gcig, eka-rasa), literally, the same 'taste'. The Buddha, for example, makes this statement: "just as the great ocean has but one taste, the taste of salt, even so does this dharma and discipline have but one taste, the taste of release" [AN VIII.19].

The Samadhirajasatra (ting nge 'dzin rgyal po'i mdo) tells us: "By knowing one all are known. And by seeing one all are seen. Despite many things are said about [ultimate truth] in the conventional terms, no haughtiness should arise from it",' and furthermore, "Just as you have recognised ('du shes) personality, even so you should apply the same insight with respect to all [phenomena]. All phenomena are of the [same] nature like a clear space".

In the Gaganagamjasamadhi (Nam mkha'i mdzod kyi ting nge 'dzin), it is stated that: "Whoever by meditating on one phenomenon knows all phenomena as apprehensible like illusions and mirages, and knows them as hollow, false and ephemeral will before long reach the summum bonum (snying po) of enlightenment".

And Aryadeva also tells us that "whosoever sees one is said to see all. That which is emptiness of one is the emptiness of all" [VIII:191].

Referring to this last passage from Aryadeva, Candrakirti has this to say:

The emptiness of the essence of form is itself the emptinesses of the essences of aggregates such as feeling. Similarly, the emptiness of the essence of eye-source is itself the emptinesses of the essences of all twelve sources. Likewise, the emptiness of the essence of eye-constituent is itself the emptinesses of the essences of all eighteen constituents. Equally so are [the emptinesses of the essences of] the infinite categories of things due to the distinct divisions in things, spaces, times and references. For whatever is the emptiness of the essence of one thing, is itself the emptinesses of the essences of all things. In spite of the fact that jars and bowls for example are distinct, space is not distinct. While things such as form are distinct, insofar as they all lack of essential arising of the form etc., they are not distinct. By understanding the lack the essential arising of merely one phenomenon, one understands the lack of the essential arising of all phenomena.'

Since all phenomena are empty of any substance or essence, they are all dependently arisen and relational entities. Tsong khapa agrees.' Yet to endorse the claim that the ultimate nature of all phenomena is fundamentally the same does not, in Tsong khapa's view, make one a monist. While accepting this account of the ultimate nature of things, Tsongkhapa remains committed to a pluralistic view. "A pluralistic view of the world", as Kalupahana puts it, "is not incompatible with dependent arising (pratityasamputpada).

Pluralism in the context of dependent arising does not imply the existence of self-contradictory truths. It need not necessarily lead to a notion of an Absolute that transcends such self-contradictory truths. As far as Tsong khapa is concerned, the ultimate reality of, for instance, the table in front of my eyes, cannot be treated as simply identical with the ultimate reality pertaining to the chair that I am sitting on. The empty table cannot be the taken as identical with the empty chair since the emptiness of the table is constitutive, not only of the empty table, but of the empty conceptual-linguistic conventions imposed upon it as well. Those conventions belong exclusively to the ultimate truth of the table and are not present in the chair.

According to Tsong khapa, however, conceding this much does not prevent one from arguing for the universality of ultimate truth. Just as different objects occupy different spaces, and yet the space those objects occupy has the same 'non-obstructive' characteristic, so the ultimate realities of both table and chair are different, notwithstanding the fact that two ultimate realities have identical natures—they share 'the same taste'. Both of these emptinesses imply insubstantiality and essenceless in the negative sense, as well as dependently arisen and relational nature in the affirmative sense."