Posts
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M12.162 7.338c.176.123.338.245.338.674 0 .43-.229.604-.474.725a.73.73 0 01.089.546c-.077.344-.392.611-.672.69.121.194.159.385.015.62-.185.295-.346.407-1.058.407H7.5c-.988 0-1.5-.546-1.5-1V7.665c0-1.23 1.467-2.275 1.467-3.13L7.361 3.47c-.005-.065.008-.224.058-.27.08-.079.301-.2.635-.2.218 0 .363.041.534.123.581.277.732.978.732 1.542 0 .271-.414 1.083-.47 1.364 0 0 .867-.192 1.879-.199 1.061-.006 1.749.19 1.749.842 0 .261-.219.523-.316.666zM3.6 7h.8a.6.6 0 01.6.6v3.8a.6.6 0 01-.6.6h-.8a.6.6 0 01-.6-.6V7.6a.6.6 0 01.6-.6z'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
Hide 27 Replies
Matt Packard
Anurag Jain Just for clarity for others reading - these are verses are from the Mandukya Karika - Gaudapada's commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad.
This Karika is, in a sense, a seed of much of later Advaita Vedanta, and somewhat interestingly, Gaudapada has been accused of being a closet Buddhist. Though there are obviously some differences, it's very clear that Gaudapada was conversant with Buddhist thought and has a deeply unsubstantialist viewpoint.
It's a very pure text.
2
Like
Reply
20h
Edited
Active
Anurag Jain
Matt Packard yes.Gaudapada preceded Shankara, though he came after Nagarjuna.
Like
Reply
12h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Matt Packard Anurag and I had many discussions and debates about this, but having seen the text I never got the impression that it is a non-substantialist text. Greg Goode agrees with me on this. I also cited many citations from that text which clearly established an eternal Self
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu Greg Goode DOES NOT AGREE TO YOU!
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu those who are not well versed with the teaching methodology of Advaita, do not know that Advaita follows the methodology of superimposition and negation. An eternal Witness Self is posited or superimposed on reality as opposed to objects. And then the objects are also shown to be empty.
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain I don't speak without a basis.
Greg Goode: Oh, another thing - Advaitins don't see (what we're calling) susbstantialism or essentialism as a bad thing. For them, it is the only thing. Since Brahman = truth, being and freedom from suffering, it makes no sense to be without it. One needs it even to deny it, is the thinking there. So even the standards of evaluation are different. Not to mention the varna/caste system, which is defended on upanishadic, doctrinal grounds. Oops, I just mentioned it!
February 10 at 12:33pm · Like · 3
Greg Goode: I love the Mandukya Upanishad and the Gaudapada Karika. I think it is effective and profound, and like many views, doesn't need to be reconciled with other views. I know that some Advaitins shy away from that Upanishad because of gossip about G's Buddhist influences. I studied that text for a few years, and it never felt subversive to me...
February 10 at 12:43pm · Like · 4
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain I didn't say Advaita's endpoint is eternal witness. That is samkhya. But AFAIK it never got beyond one mind
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu does Greg Goode say anywhere that Mandukya is substantial dualism?
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Anurag Jain
A substantial non dualism cannot do away with cause and effect, as in a substantial ist version of non duality phenomena are a real transformation of the supposed cause.
There is a substantial non dualist school in Vedanta which Shankara has disputed. It is called Bhedabheda Vedanta by Bhaskara.
The Mandukya clearly does away with cause and effect.
Like
Reply
8h
Edited
Matt Packard
Soh Wei Yu In chapter 4 he acknowledges Ajativada - non-origination. It is also my impression that for him (and certainly other vedantins) Brahman is totally without any characteristics or qualities. I'd argue that substance is a quality.
Ha, didn't mean to start an argument here lol.
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu at any rate, you make your livelihood by showing Advaita as inferior to Buddhist non duality.
I am not interested in any such enterprise. I am only interested in letting people know the REAL Advaita freed from propagandists like you. On my part I never speak about Buddhism in any inferior light. I respect both paths equally, not just because of some idealism but because I KNOW what both paths speak about.
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
" you make your livelihood by showing Advaita"
This is silly. I have a fully time job as a software engineer, I lose money by hosting AtR, there is no money earned whatsoever.
Like
Reply
7h
Edited
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Greg is not a perennialist unlike you.
Greg Goode: I agree about the different paradigms. I have talked to many, many people who are very resistant to the idea that different paths might not be talking about "the same thing," or taking a person to "the same place." It can bring up a lot of anxiety, because then people believe they have to investigate and in advance, determine which is true and which is false. I think this tension underlies a lot of perennialism. Which could be summed up crudely as "All paths lead to the same thing - the thing that I happen to be talking about." Or, "Deep down, your path is actually my path." Or, "My path is the essence of all paths."
To my own way of thinking, this gestalt has ethical problems and lacks compassion. It removes a person's right to speak for their own path, and puts one's own characteriization over theirs.
February 11 at 7:29am · Edited · Like · 6
Like
Reply
7h
Edited
Active
Anurag Jain
I used the word "livelihood" in a metaphorical sense. I know you are a software engineer. I do criticize you but not in a wholesale way dear!
Like
Reply
7h
Edited
Matt Packard
This is a good point, but IMO there is certainly a special case between Advaita and Buddhism. And per my cursory understanding of the AtR 'method', the IAM is just as important as No-self.
I think *practically speaking* many practitioners utilize Shunyata and Brahman in a similar conceptual way. One errs towards nihilism, the other towards essence, but they are both attempting to point to ultimate reality.
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Matt Packard Even the Dolpopa (not most modern versions) Shentong, like Advaita, says Buddha-nature is inexpressible, formless, etc, but subtly asserts the true existence.
Therefore it is not right to make such equation.
See https://www.byomakusuma.org/VedantaVisAVisShentong.html
And as Mipham wrote, "Mipham:
Although traditions may claim to be free from extremes, in the end since they constantly depend upon a conceptual reference for a Self, or Brahma, and so forth, how could this manner be the Middle Way? . . . The Great Perfection is the culmination of extreme profundity, so it is difficult to realize. Most who cultivate idiot meditation—those who do not fully eliminate superimpositions182 regarding the abiding reality through study and contemplation, or who lack the key points of the quintessential instructions—wind up [making a] similar [mistake]. Without gaining certainty in primordial purity, a mere impassioned thought of a ground that is neither existent nor nonexistent will bring you nowhere. If you hold on to such a ground, which is empty of both existence and nonexistence, as separate and established by its own essence, whether it is called the inconceivable Self, Brahma, Viṣṇu, Īśvara, wisdom, etc., it is merely a different name for a similar [mistaken] meaning. The abiding reality that is free from the four extremes183—the luminous clarity of the Great Perfection which is realized reflexively—is not at all like that. Therefore, it is important to rely on the authentic path and teacher. Although [we share] mere words such as “illusory,” “nonentity,” and “freedom from constructs,” it does not help if you do not know through a firm conclusion, with certainty induced by reason, how Buddhist emptiness is superior to the limited emptiness of non-Buddhists. If you do know, you understand that what the Buddha taught has not been experienced in the slightest by those [non-Buddhists] such as Viṣṇu, and you know that the traditions of “Awareness” and “the Middle Way” they describe are mere words. Although the words may be similar, Buddhists and non-Buddhists cannot be separated by words; the difference, which is like the earth and space, is in the profound essential point. —WORDS THAT DELIGHT GURU MAÑJUGHOṢA, 470–72
Duckworth, Douglas; Mipam, Jamgon. Jamgon Mipam: His Life and Teachings (pp. 146-147). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.
....
Bötrül’s teacher and Mipam’s student, Khenpo Künpel,
states as follows in his commentary on Mipam’s Beacon of Certainty:
In general, if the essence of Buddha-nature were not empty, it
would not be different from the permanent Self of the non-Buddhists;
therefore, the nature of the three gates of liberation was
taught. Also, if the wisdom of luminous clarity did not exist, being
an utterly void emptiness like space, there would be no difference
from the Nirgrantha; therefore, the unconditioned wisdom of
luminous clarity was taught. Thus, the definitive scriptures of the
middle and last Word of the teacher show the empty essence and
the natural clarity.66
"
BYOMAKUSUMA.ORG
Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha
Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha
Like
Reply
Remove Preview
7h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Anyway I'll bow out of this conversation as I don't want to repeat myself over and over again, and especially with Anurag the convo can be never ending. Like literally you can look up the past chats with him, it can span hundreds of pages in a day or something like that lol
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Matt Packard idk if you seen this part in the atr guide:
[24/3/19, 11:17:05 PM] John Tan: From the perspective of clarity, it is true that Buddhism anatta and emptiness is more profound and deep… lol. But still good to caution about respecting all religions and practice. Why empty clarity is only pointed out in buddhism. So although it is true about all points to pure consciousness, it is realizing the emptiness that is the prajna eye to allow us to clearly see the empty nature of clarity. Otherwise we will most likely land in alaya or [be] required to still in deep stillness of samadhi.
(On this point, I was reminded of something John Tan said back in I think 2012:
"Every religion is talking about consciousness. It is the nature of consciousness that is important. It is like talking about “Soh'' from different people. Of course all is pointing to "Soh" but when someone say he is an American, has 10 sisters and is now studying in India… we cannot say that he is correct and it is the same because ultimately we are talking about "Soh".")”
“Yes sahaja samadhi but that remain as "experience". Just like in taoism, it is all about naturalness 自然 and non-action (action without agent) though there are overlaps but they are different in praxis and view essentially. There is no need to forcefully integrate the various religions into one, that is just more attachment.
Although there is no monopoly over truth as ultimately all is/are talking about one's primordial nature but there are those that much clearer and precise in their system of practice. If the views and philosophies are 90% inherent and dualistic, the result from such a system will at best be a stage to be achieved albeit the emphasis of “natural state”.
As I said before, if someone were to say "Soh is a malay, a speckie, used to be a c# programmer, 1.9m tall and has a sister", obviously some informations are correct and some are misleading. Even if you were to stand right in front of him, he will not be able to recognize you. Therefore although all are talking about the natural condition of pristine consciousness, some are exceptionally clearer than others.” – John Tan, 2020
Like
Reply
7h
Matt Packard
Soh Wei Yu Yeah sorry for stirring the pot lol.
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu true the dialogue with me can span to hundreds of comments. It would be quite convenient that no one stands in the way of your propoganda of Buddhism as the most superior path. Isn't it?
If someone is out there to show that Advaita of Mandukya Upanishad is not substantialist dualism in its ultimate message, I wonder why it hurts you.
Like
Reply
7h
Matt Packard
Soh Wei Yu I'm gaining a ton of clarity from Buddhist related stuff lately, after years of Vedanta. I don't know that it's 'better', but certainly filling in some missing pieces
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain We have gone through these discussions before, there is no need to repeat. And I have a 1800 member group to take care of. I have dozens of unreplied messages from different people.. and I can't even handle that anymore, generally I don't write replies anymore I just copy and paste from my collection of past replies. That's why I'm called an 'anatta bot' now
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Anurag Jain
John Tan thinks sahaja samadhi is an experience? Lol!
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is an experience that comes and goes.
Sahaja samadhi is based on insight. It's not something that comes and goes. It's about realizing the ever existent non dual nature of reality.
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu Who gave you the idea that I am a perrennialist?
I am not one.
I am not at all disturbed that different paths can be pointing to different things. In fact they most certainly do.
I am only saying that Mandukya's Advaita is not pointing to any substantialist non duality. Heck, even the Advaita in other texts followed by Shankara does not point to substantial non dualism.
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu lastly I did not mean to disturb the 'anatta bot'. You do not need to respond to my comments. I know you keep quite busy with your noble work. Just let my comments be so that others can check up on what I write, and if they would really like to, make an unbiased decision on what Mandukya says.
You don't need to be too anxious to convert people to your interpretation of Mandukya.
Like
Reply
7h
Edited
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Sure, I heartily recommend people to read up Mandukya, then study Buddhism from proper and reliable sources, and then they can compare and make up their own mind.
Like
Reply
7h
Edited
Active
Anurag Jain
Just a clarification to some of the things Soh has quoted. Brahman is not any "ground". Brahman is the ultimate non-dual and inconceivable NATURE of reality. Brahman as a ground is a penultimate and provisional teaching of Advaita and is deconstructed.
Like
Reply
7h
Anurag Jain Just for clarity for others reading - these are verses are from the Mandukya Karika - Gaudapada's commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad.
This Karika is, in a sense, a seed of much of later Advaita Vedanta, and somewhat interestingly, Gaudapada has been accused of being a closet Buddhist. Though there are obviously some differences, it's very clear that Gaudapada was conversant with Buddhist thought and has a deeply unsubstantialist viewpoint.
It's a very pure text.
2
Like
Reply
20h
Edited
Active
Anurag Jain
Matt Packard yes.Gaudapada preceded Shankara, though he came after Nagarjuna.
Like
Reply
12h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Matt Packard Anurag and I had many discussions and debates about this, but having seen the text I never got the impression that it is a non-substantialist text. Greg Goode agrees with me on this. I also cited many citations from that text which clearly established an eternal Self
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu Greg Goode DOES NOT AGREE TO YOU!
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu those who are not well versed with the teaching methodology of Advaita, do not know that Advaita follows the methodology of superimposition and negation. An eternal Witness Self is posited or superimposed on reality as opposed to objects. And then the objects are also shown to be empty.
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain I don't speak without a basis.
Greg Goode: Oh, another thing - Advaitins don't see (what we're calling) susbstantialism or essentialism as a bad thing. For them, it is the only thing. Since Brahman = truth, being and freedom from suffering, it makes no sense to be without it. One needs it even to deny it, is the thinking there. So even the standards of evaluation are different. Not to mention the varna/caste system, which is defended on upanishadic, doctrinal grounds. Oops, I just mentioned it!
February 10 at 12:33pm · Like · 3
Greg Goode: I love the Mandukya Upanishad and the Gaudapada Karika. I think it is effective and profound, and like many views, doesn't need to be reconciled with other views. I know that some Advaitins shy away from that Upanishad because of gossip about G's Buddhist influences. I studied that text for a few years, and it never felt subversive to me...
February 10 at 12:43pm · Like · 4
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain I didn't say Advaita's endpoint is eternal witness. That is samkhya. But AFAIK it never got beyond one mind
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu does Greg Goode say anywhere that Mandukya is substantial dualism?
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Anurag Jain
A substantial non dualism cannot do away with cause and effect, as in a substantial ist version of non duality phenomena are a real transformation of the supposed cause.
There is a substantial non dualist school in Vedanta which Shankara has disputed. It is called Bhedabheda Vedanta by Bhaskara.
The Mandukya clearly does away with cause and effect.
Like
Reply
8h
Edited
Matt Packard
Soh Wei Yu In chapter 4 he acknowledges Ajativada - non-origination. It is also my impression that for him (and certainly other vedantins) Brahman is totally without any characteristics or qualities. I'd argue that substance is a quality.
Ha, didn't mean to start an argument here lol.
Like
Reply
8h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu at any rate, you make your livelihood by showing Advaita as inferior to Buddhist non duality.
I am not interested in any such enterprise. I am only interested in letting people know the REAL Advaita freed from propagandists like you. On my part I never speak about Buddhism in any inferior light. I respect both paths equally, not just because of some idealism but because I KNOW what both paths speak about.
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
" you make your livelihood by showing Advaita"
This is silly. I have a fully time job as a software engineer, I lose money by hosting AtR, there is no money earned whatsoever.
Like
Reply
7h
Edited
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Greg is not a perennialist unlike you.
Greg Goode: I agree about the different paradigms. I have talked to many, many people who are very resistant to the idea that different paths might not be talking about "the same thing," or taking a person to "the same place." It can bring up a lot of anxiety, because then people believe they have to investigate and in advance, determine which is true and which is false. I think this tension underlies a lot of perennialism. Which could be summed up crudely as "All paths lead to the same thing - the thing that I happen to be talking about." Or, "Deep down, your path is actually my path." Or, "My path is the essence of all paths."
To my own way of thinking, this gestalt has ethical problems and lacks compassion. It removes a person's right to speak for their own path, and puts one's own characteriization over theirs.
February 11 at 7:29am · Edited · Like · 6
Like
Reply
7h
Edited
Active
Anurag Jain
I used the word "livelihood" in a metaphorical sense. I know you are a software engineer. I do criticize you but not in a wholesale way dear!
Like
Reply
7h
Edited
Matt Packard
This is a good point, but IMO there is certainly a special case between Advaita and Buddhism. And per my cursory understanding of the AtR 'method', the IAM is just as important as No-self.
I think *practically speaking* many practitioners utilize Shunyata and Brahman in a similar conceptual way. One errs towards nihilism, the other towards essence, but they are both attempting to point to ultimate reality.
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Matt Packard Even the Dolpopa (not most modern versions) Shentong, like Advaita, says Buddha-nature is inexpressible, formless, etc, but subtly asserts the true existence.
Therefore it is not right to make such equation.
See https://www.byomakusuma.org/VedantaVisAVisShentong.html
And as Mipham wrote, "Mipham:
Although traditions may claim to be free from extremes, in the end since they constantly depend upon a conceptual reference for a Self, or Brahma, and so forth, how could this manner be the Middle Way? . . . The Great Perfection is the culmination of extreme profundity, so it is difficult to realize. Most who cultivate idiot meditation—those who do not fully eliminate superimpositions182 regarding the abiding reality through study and contemplation, or who lack the key points of the quintessential instructions—wind up [making a] similar [mistake]. Without gaining certainty in primordial purity, a mere impassioned thought of a ground that is neither existent nor nonexistent will bring you nowhere. If you hold on to such a ground, which is empty of both existence and nonexistence, as separate and established by its own essence, whether it is called the inconceivable Self, Brahma, Viṣṇu, Īśvara, wisdom, etc., it is merely a different name for a similar [mistaken] meaning. The abiding reality that is free from the four extremes183—the luminous clarity of the Great Perfection which is realized reflexively—is not at all like that. Therefore, it is important to rely on the authentic path and teacher. Although [we share] mere words such as “illusory,” “nonentity,” and “freedom from constructs,” it does not help if you do not know through a firm conclusion, with certainty induced by reason, how Buddhist emptiness is superior to the limited emptiness of non-Buddhists. If you do know, you understand that what the Buddha taught has not been experienced in the slightest by those [non-Buddhists] such as Viṣṇu, and you know that the traditions of “Awareness” and “the Middle Way” they describe are mere words. Although the words may be similar, Buddhists and non-Buddhists cannot be separated by words; the difference, which is like the earth and space, is in the profound essential point. —WORDS THAT DELIGHT GURU MAÑJUGHOṢA, 470–72
Duckworth, Douglas; Mipam, Jamgon. Jamgon Mipam: His Life and Teachings (pp. 146-147). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.
....
Bötrül’s teacher and Mipam’s student, Khenpo Künpel,
states as follows in his commentary on Mipam’s Beacon of Certainty:
In general, if the essence of Buddha-nature were not empty, it
would not be different from the permanent Self of the non-Buddhists;
therefore, the nature of the three gates of liberation was
taught. Also, if the wisdom of luminous clarity did not exist, being
an utterly void emptiness like space, there would be no difference
from the Nirgrantha; therefore, the unconditioned wisdom of
luminous clarity was taught. Thus, the definitive scriptures of the
middle and last Word of the teacher show the empty essence and
the natural clarity.66
"
BYOMAKUSUMA.ORG
Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha
Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha
Like
Reply
Remove Preview
7h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Anyway I'll bow out of this conversation as I don't want to repeat myself over and over again, and especially with Anurag the convo can be never ending. Like literally you can look up the past chats with him, it can span hundreds of pages in a day or something like that lol
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Matt Packard idk if you seen this part in the atr guide:
[24/3/19, 11:17:05 PM] John Tan: From the perspective of clarity, it is true that Buddhism anatta and emptiness is more profound and deep… lol. But still good to caution about respecting all religions and practice. Why empty clarity is only pointed out in buddhism. So although it is true about all points to pure consciousness, it is realizing the emptiness that is the prajna eye to allow us to clearly see the empty nature of clarity. Otherwise we will most likely land in alaya or [be] required to still in deep stillness of samadhi.
(On this point, I was reminded of something John Tan said back in I think 2012:
"Every religion is talking about consciousness. It is the nature of consciousness that is important. It is like talking about “Soh'' from different people. Of course all is pointing to "Soh" but when someone say he is an American, has 10 sisters and is now studying in India… we cannot say that he is correct and it is the same because ultimately we are talking about "Soh".")”
“Yes sahaja samadhi but that remain as "experience". Just like in taoism, it is all about naturalness 自然 and non-action (action without agent) though there are overlaps but they are different in praxis and view essentially. There is no need to forcefully integrate the various religions into one, that is just more attachment.
Although there is no monopoly over truth as ultimately all is/are talking about one's primordial nature but there are those that much clearer and precise in their system of practice. If the views and philosophies are 90% inherent and dualistic, the result from such a system will at best be a stage to be achieved albeit the emphasis of “natural state”.
As I said before, if someone were to say "Soh is a malay, a speckie, used to be a c# programmer, 1.9m tall and has a sister", obviously some informations are correct and some are misleading. Even if you were to stand right in front of him, he will not be able to recognize you. Therefore although all are talking about the natural condition of pristine consciousness, some are exceptionally clearer than others.” – John Tan, 2020
Like
Reply
7h
Matt Packard
Soh Wei Yu Yeah sorry for stirring the pot lol.
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu true the dialogue with me can span to hundreds of comments. It would be quite convenient that no one stands in the way of your propoganda of Buddhism as the most superior path. Isn't it?
If someone is out there to show that Advaita of Mandukya Upanishad is not substantialist dualism in its ultimate message, I wonder why it hurts you.
Like
Reply
7h
Matt Packard
Soh Wei Yu I'm gaining a ton of clarity from Buddhist related stuff lately, after years of Vedanta. I don't know that it's 'better', but certainly filling in some missing pieces
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain We have gone through these discussions before, there is no need to repeat. And I have a 1800 member group to take care of. I have dozens of unreplied messages from different people.. and I can't even handle that anymore, generally I don't write replies anymore I just copy and paste from my collection of past replies. That's why I'm called an 'anatta bot' now
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Anurag Jain
John Tan thinks sahaja samadhi is an experience? Lol!
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is an experience that comes and goes.
Sahaja samadhi is based on insight. It's not something that comes and goes. It's about realizing the ever existent non dual nature of reality.
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu Who gave you the idea that I am a perrennialist?
I am not one.
I am not at all disturbed that different paths can be pointing to different things. In fact they most certainly do.
I am only saying that Mandukya's Advaita is not pointing to any substantialist non duality. Heck, even the Advaita in other texts followed by Shankara does not point to substantial non dualism.
Like
Reply
7h
Active
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu lastly I did not mean to disturb the 'anatta bot'. You do not need to respond to my comments. I know you keep quite busy with your noble work. Just let my comments be so that others can check up on what I write, and if they would really like to, make an unbiased decision on what Mandukya says.
You don't need to be too anxious to convert people to your interpretation of Mandukya.
Like
Reply
7h
Edited
Active
Soh Wei Yu
Sure, I heartily recommend people to read up Mandukya, then study Buddhism from proper and reliable sources, and then they can compare and make up their own mind.
Like
Reply
7h
Edited
Active
Anurag Jain
Just a clarification to some of the things Soh has quoted. Brahman is not any "ground". Brahman is the ultimate non-dual and inconceivable NATURE of reality. Brahman as a ground is a penultimate and provisional teaching of Advaita and is deconstructed.
Like
Reply
7h
Love Koh
Anurag Jain just humble opinion , same or different is in your mind , Brahman is certainty the Nonduality for sure , but if you fixates or grasps at this supreme Nonduality as having an naturally ' Self existing ' ' ' inherent existent ' for you to grasps at , then you're not totally liberated because there is something for you to grasps at , in this case , it is the grasping of the supreme ' Nonduality ' , the final moksha ' Liberation ' is when there is nothing for you to fixates or grasps at , where there is totally without any fixation or grasping or clinging ,
Buddha said ' Liberation is when one is not attach to nor grasps at anything whatsoever ' ,
but if you go one more step further into the final step of realising the Brahman or Supreme ' Nonduality ' as having no inherent existent , then that is the ultimate true ' Nonduality ' where even ' Nonduality ' could not be found , beyond every mentally labelling labels , thinking , thoughts , fixation , grasping , clinging , where every speech & thinking could not reach , this can only be reach by realising the ultimate Truth of no inherent existent , even the Supreme ' Nonduality ' has no inherent existent , even the so called ' No Inherent Existent ' also has no inherent existent , then there is nothing there to labels , to clings , to grasps , then you're liberated , the key is ' no inherent existent ' ,
The ' selfless/ Selfless Nondual Emptiness ' in Buddhism is not the ' selfless/ Selfless Nondual Emptiness ' with inherent existent as ' selfless/ Selfless Nondual Emptiness ' , the so called ' selfless/ Selfless Nondual Emptiness ' in Buddhism is the ' selfless/ Selfless Nondual Emptiness ' which has no inherent existent , so there is ultimately nothing to attain , nothing to cling , nothing to grasps , this is the true ultimate Liberation ,
Buddhist Heart Sutra said ; ' There's no attainment ' ,
It's helpful to read the Buddhist ' Diamond sutra ' & ' Heart Sutra '
Reply
7h
Edited
Anurag Jain
Love Koh Advaita talks about Self only in the penultimate stage. In the ultimate stage Advaita talks about all phenomena/world being inconceivable Brahman.
The problem is that people do not know the ultimate stage of Advaita. They pick up the more prevalent penultimate stage and consider it to be final. The methodology of Advaita is that it superimposes attributes to reality as per the level of understanding of the seeker and then negates them through inquiry till nothing graspable remains. Brahman is not an ontological existent in the final stage. Brahman is the inconceivable nature of the world/phenomena.
I think it to be a peculiar form of arrogance to make judgements about a school without having really undergone the whole path with a teacher. Just reading Advaita books, like one reads philosophy is not the way one can understand Advaita. It is not mere philosophy, but a soteriological path with a sophisticated methodology which cannot be grasped just by reading books, more so, when you are reading through the lens of another system.
I have had numerous discussions with Soh Wei Yu on this matter with no success as he is stuck to his version of Advaita as substantial non dualism. Substantial non-dualism is based on parinamavada or the world being a real effect of Brahman. The examples given are the sun and the rays, the ocean and the waves etc. This school of substantial dualism is called Bhedabheda Vedanta - a school which Shankara has amply criticized in his works, even though these concepts are introduced to Advaita students at lower stages of practice, only to be negated later
And regarding your "no attainment" which you have underscored throughout, I shall let Gaudapada of Mandukya speak to you.
Verse 4.91: All Dharmās (phenomena) by their nature are well determined as enlightened from the very beginning (adibuddha). One who has such self-sufficiency is fit for the deathless state.
Verse 4.92: All Dharmās indeed are quiescent from the very beginning, unoriginated, and happy by nature itself, homogeneous, and non-separate, [reality is] fearless and unoriginated sameness.
These verses also talk about non-attainment.
Reply
5h
Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain
I just saw a post by Kyle Dixon half an hour ago:
Author: krodha
Date: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Content:
That is debatable. An Advaita teacher I know said that he’s only encountered a single master of
Advaita state that even Brahman or consciousness is not found at the end of the Advaitin path.
According to him this position is incredibly novel and he theorizes that this master must have refined
his insight to a degree that others have not.
This statement was also not published publicly, perhaps because of its controversial nature.
Reply
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain cause and effect can be deconstructed before nondual or anatta.
As i posted in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/p/msg-to-mp.html
Msg to M.P
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Msg to M.P
Msg to M.P
Reply
Remove Preview
5h
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu waves and water is an example of cause and effect or not? Answer me this.
Reply
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain it need not be.
[4:01 PM, 1/1/2021] John Tan: In subsuming there is no container-contained relationship, there is only Awareness.
— this is one mind
Reply
5h
Edited
Anurag Jain
Isn't your understanding of Advaita that Brahman/Awareness is the base of world phenomena just like gold ornaments are made of gold?
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu lol. How is the wave not an effect of the ocean? The ocean can exist without a wave but a wave cannot exist without an ocean.
Reply
5h
Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain
The final end point of Advaita is not as a background of phenomena (I AM) but one mind as described by John above.
Reply
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Also one can deconstruct physicality, objectivity, cause and effect to some degree of depth even before nondual. This is the transparent witness phase vs opaque witness in DP.
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
One mind means that all phenomena are made of Awareness like gold ornaments made of gold. Right?
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu lol. Now you are talking of DP too. Without knowing that path too? 🙂
Anyways let's just stick to what I am talking about. Answer my question on one mind.
Reply
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain in one mind, there is no ocean as container of wave, there is only water — Awareness.
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
Yes. But the wave/phenomena are made of water right?
Reply
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain in one mind, there is no notion of objective phenomena. Just like a snake was seen through and realised to be ever a rope. It makes no sense to think whether the snake is made of rope or not as snake is seen as non originated.
But ropeness (here the singular pure nondual consciousness without a division into consciousness and appearances, observer and observed) is seen to be truly existing.
It is a bit analogous to this:
“
Mipham Rinpoche, one of the most influential masters of the Nyingma school wrote http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../madhyamaka... :
...Why, then, do the Mādhyamika masters refute the Cittamātra tenet system? Because self-styled proponents of the Cittamātra tenets, when speaking of mind-only, say that there are no external objects but that the mind exists substantially—like a rope that is devoid of snakeness, but not devoid of ropeness. Having failed to understand that such statements are asserted from the conventional point of view, they believe the nondual consciousness to be truly existent on the ultimate level. It is this tenet that the Mādhyamikas repudiate. But, they say, we do not refute the thinking of Ārya Asaṅga, who correctly realized the mind-only path taught by the Buddha...
...So, if this so-called “self-illuminating nondual consciousness” asserted by the Cittamātrins is understood to be a consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses, and it is merely that its subject and object are inexpressible, and if such a consciousness is understood to be truly existent and not intrinsically empty, then it is something that has to be refuted. If, on the other hand, that consciousness is understood to be unborn from the very beginning (i.e. empty), to be directly experienced by reflexive awareness, and to be self-illuminating gnosis without subject or object, it is something to be established. Both the Madhyamaka and Mantrayāna have to accept this...””
Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism
Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism
Reply
Remove Preview
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Hence
"Yes. Subject and object can both collapsed into pure seeing but it is only when this pure seeing is also dropped/exhausted that natural spontaneity and effortlessness can begin to function marvelously. That is y it has to be thorough and all the "emphasis". But I think he gets it, so u don't have to keep nagging 🤣." - John Tan
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
You are not answering my question Soh Wei Yu . By definition, Awareness is free of all attributes but phenomena are replete with various attributes. So how is it that attributeless Awareness gives rise to phenomena that are full of attributes.
In the rope and snake example, once the snake is refuted only the rope is seen but this is not the case with non dual realization. The "world of phenomena"/snake is still seen. It does not vanish like the snake.
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
The chittamatra school (which by the way, is refuted in Mandukya) posits a non-dual consciousness behind the dualistic consciousness. See what you wrote:
"self-illuminating non dual consciousness" asserted by the Chittamatrins is *understood to be the consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses".
Reply
4h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain in one mind, the construct of awareness as a formless subject like I AM is seen through and deconstructed, along with the notion that appearances are on the objective pole. As mentioned above, there is no division between consciousness and appearance
Reply
4h
Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain what disappears is subject and object dichotomy, not appearances per se
Reply
4h
Edited
Anurag Jain
But the appearances are said to be made of Awareness, isn't it?
Reply
4h
Anurag Jain
Aren't you talking of examples like wave and ocean? Wave (object) is seen as Ocean (subject). Both subject and object being Awareness (water)?
Reply
4h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain
In one mind there is no ocean and waves in a container contained relationship. Appearances, be it so called ocean and waves are only Awareness. There is only awareness, no perceiver and perceived, subject and object dichotomy.
But realising nondual awareness as one mind is still not the anatman insight into the emptiness of intrinsic existence of one mind
Reply
4h
Edited
Anurag Jain
I dont get what you are telling different from me. I too am saying that there is only water. Waves and ocean are both seen as water. And THIS IS NOT WHAT ADVAITA TALKS AS THE FINAL STAGE. Because it still talks of arisings......waves arising from ocean. Phenomena being seen as arisings of Awareness...
Reply
4h
Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain
No, phenomena arising from awareness is the I AM understanding.
In one mind waves are not contained within ocean. There is only awareness
Reply
4h
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu if there is only Awareness then how do you explain the arising and dissolving of phenomena that is seen?
Reply
4h
Anurag Jain
I dont know which theory of One Mind you are concocting. This is a quote from Rigpa Wiki on what is the "One Mind" school and it says EXACTLY what I have been saying.
The Chittamatra (Skt. Cittamātra; Tib. སེམས་ཙམ་པ་, Semtsampa, Wyl. sems tsam pa) or 'Mind Only' School is a Mahayana school founded by Asanga in the 4th century AD. Its followers say that all phenomena are merely mind (Skt. vijñaptimātra)—the all-ground consciousness manifesting as environment, objects and the physical body, as a result of habitual tendencies stored within the all-ground.
This school is also known under the names of Yogachara, Vijñānavāda and Vijñānaptimātra.
Reply
4h
Edited
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu in the above quote, specifically read "the all ground consciousness manifesting as environment, objects and the physical body..."
Reply
4h
Love Koh
Soh Wei Yu well said , very true 👍💟🙏
Reply
3h
Anurag Jain
Love Koh I already quoted what is 'One Mind" school according to Rigpa Wiki to Soh Wei Yuh. For your sake I am quoting another one from Wikipedia.
The term also appears in Asaṅga's classic work, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (no Sanskrit original, trans. from Tibetan):
These representations (vijñapti) are mere representations (vijñapti-mātra), because there is no [corresponding] thing/object (artha)...Just as in a dream there appear, even without a thing/object (artha), just in the mind alone, forms/images of all kinds of things/objects like visibles, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, houses, forests, land, and mountains, and yet there are no [such] things/objects at all in that [place]. MSg II.6[19]
Please read the words "in the mind alone forms objects of all kinds"
This is what I have been saying all the while..... That One Mind is about objects being representations of Mind/Awareness.
And Advaita refutes this too.....
Reply
3h
Edited
Love Koh
Anurag Jain Mr Soh is describing ' One Mind ' from the experiential point of view , not from the theoretical conceptual point of view ,
The example of ocean & waves is merely the conceptual point of view , the ' container & contained ' point of view , ocean is the ' container ' of water , water is ' contained ' within the ocean , in the nondualistic One Mind , there is only Awareness , there's no ' container ' ( ocean ) & no ' contained ' ( waves ,) , because both the 'container ' & the ' contained ' are discovered to be just the fabrication of the mind , the fabrication of thinking , just labels ( notion , thoughts ) created by thinking , just merely concepts created by thinking , when all thinking ceases & left only with the thinkingless ( thoughtless ) Nondual Awareness , where is the so called ' container ' ( ocean ) & the ' contained ' ( waves ) ? both could not be found , if both the ' container ' ( ocean ) & the ' contained ' ( waves ) could still be found in the mind , then the person is still lost in the illusive conceptual realm of thinking ( thoughts ) & conceptualising ( mental fabrication ) without realising it , then he is not in the thoughtless Nondual Awareness ( One Mind ) , The so called ' One Mind ' mentioned by Mr Soh if I'm not wrong , is refering to the Nondual Awareness without the mental notion of subject ( Awareness as subject , ocean ( the ' container ' ) ) & without the mental notion of object ( the manifested universe as object , waves ( the ' contained ' ) ) , this is why John Tan & Mr Soh said ' in One Mind , there's no container & no contained , there is only Awareness , because John Tan & Mr Soh Wei Yu , both had gone beyond the theoretical conceptual understanding into the genuine true experiential understanding from deep genuine insight beyond the thinking mind , they really knows indepth what they're talking about from their personal genuine experiential understanding
Reply
3h
Edited
Anurag Jain
I think you are talking to yourself. Please address what I wrote.
Do you think I am talking only conceptually? Without insight?
You are not able to see and answer what I am saying objectively because you are a blind follower of Soh and John. How do you know that they have got a non-conceptual insight, in the first place? Reversely, how do you know I don't have a non-conceptual insight?
"Thoughtless non-dual awareness" you say......
Please ask Soh and John if they are referring to a thoughtless state.
Sir, you are completely off the mark !
What you are talking is nirvikalpa samadhi.
Reply
2h
Edited
Anurag Jain
Forget ocean and waves example, I am talking only about phenomena being representations of mind as they are in dream state. Is this not what One Mind is all about?
This is also refuted in Advaita.
Reply
2h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain Alayavijnana is not 'one mind'.
Glossary (from http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/Yogacara_glossary.html):
*Alaya-vijnana, or "store consciousness" -- one of the central technical terms of Yogacara (Vijnanavada, Vijnaptimatra) philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. Early Buddhists taught about existence of six-fold consciousness, that is the conciousness of five types of perception (visual, audial, etc.) and of "mind" (manovijnana). The Yogacarins analysing the source of consciousness added two more kinds of consciousness. They are: klistamanovijnana, or manas, that is the ego-centre of an empirical personality, and alaya-vijnana which is the source of other kinds of consciousness. Alaya-vijnana is above subject-object opposition but it is not a kind of absolute mind: alaya-vijnana is momentary and non-substantial. Every sentient being with the corresponding to this being "objective" world can be reduced to its "own" alaya-vijnana. Therefore, classical Yogacara states the existence of many alayas.
The Alaya-vijnana is a receptacle and container of the so-called "seeds" (bija), or elementary units of past experiences. These bijas project themselves as an illusionary world of empirical subjects and corresponding objects. All other seven types of consciousness are but transformations (parinama) of alaya-vijnana. In the course of its yogic practice a Yogacarin must empty alaya-vijnana of its contents. Thus the Yogacarin puts an end to the tendency of external projections of alaya-vijnana changing it into non-dual (advaya) wisdom (jnana) of Enlightened mind.
KHEPER.NET
Page not found - Kheper
Page not found - Kheper
Reply
Remove Preview
2h
Soh Wei Yu
Love Koh Yes, but even that is just one mind. I'm further pointing out that even one mind is to be realized to be empty of any true existence or inherent existence.. that is the beginning of the anatman realization. Not just nondual, which can still be seen as having essence, unchanging, like an unchanging nondual absolute.
Reply
2h
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu I did not talk of alaya vijnana !
Reply
2h
Love Koh
Anurag Jain thankyou , well said , ' in the mind alone forms objects of all kinds ' is really true , this is right thinking , right understanding & right view ,👍, but this is still within the realm of theoretical conceptual understanding which is understood by the mind with the help of thoughts , labels , thinking , concepts , because there's still the mental fabrication of labels such as ' in ' , ' mind ' , ' alone ' , ' forms ' , ' objects ' , ' of ' , ' all ' , ' kinds ,,' or ' the universe ' , ' is ' , ' manifestations ' , ' of ' , ' Consciousness ' , ' or ' , ' Awareness ' , all these right theoretical understanding is still within the realm of theoretical conceptual understanding form by thinking in the thinking mind , in experiential understanding , where every thoughts ceases where only the thoughtless Nondual Awareness Alone remains , there is no such thing as ' in ' , ' mind ' , ' alone ' , ' forms ' , ' objects ' , ' of ' , ' all ' , ' kinds ,,' or ' the universe ' , ' is ' , ' manifestations ' , ' of ' , ' Consciousness ' , ' or ' , ' Awareness ' because they're just thoughts , just labels fabricated by thinking , just thinking , just concepts ,
experiential understanding is beyond thoughts , labels , thinking , concepts , there is only selfless/ Selfless Nondual Awareness which has no inherent existent , with nothing to think of , nothing to label , nothing to name , nothing to explains , nothing to describe , nothing to conceptualise , nothing to grasps , nothing to cling , nothing to wants , nothing to do ( mentally ) because there's no inherent existent
Reply
2h
Anurag Jain
Well Soh Wei Yu you may please answer Love Koh, on whether your are talking of any thoughtless state. Lol, he is terribly confused about you 😀
Reply
2h
Edited
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu you talked about no inherent existence of mind. Now see what Gaudapada says:
"There was never born - neither the mind nor the objects perceived by the mind. Those who perceive such births may as well try to perceive the footprints of birds in the sky"
~ Mandukya, verse 4.28
Reply
2h
Soh Wei Yu
Oh on that part... I think Love Koh should read https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-disease-of-non...
And also excerpts from the AtR guide:
No-Self is Not Associated with a State of No Thoughts
"The association of anatta (no-self) to the cessation of thoughts is due to a lack of insight that anatta is a seal, not a stage of attainment. In thinking there are always only thoughts, no thinker. In fact it is the realization that the continual arising and ceasing of thoughts without a thinker that is precious. The 2 important qualities that must be experienced are non-dual and spontaneity. Thoughts can slow down or even completely ceased but it has nothing to do with the insight of anatta."
- John Tan, 2009
“[commenting on some posts misinterpreting freedom as a state of thoughtlessness]
[9:51 PM, 9/15/2020] John Tan: I dunno what to say and dont want to comment. It is just seeing through reification that results in pristineness of appearance free from imputations... that is thought free wakefulness. There is clear intuitive discernment that is boundless and spontaneously free.
[9:53 PM, 9/15/2020] John Tan: One should first have the experiential insight of anatta as it is the exhaustion of the background self as the reified construct. To just say free of thoughts or to say it is a blank state that one can't differentiate left from right is just nonsense and pure ignorance.
[9:55 PM, 9/15/2020] John Tan: I think even taoism i ching has more clarity if understood correctly.
[9:57 PM, 9/15/2020] John Tan: Buddhism provides such clarity but I just don't understand why is it presented or misunderstood to this extent... maybe I am wrong...lol.
[9:59 PM, 9/15/2020] John Tan: But since I am out of all these idle talks, I just don't want people to disturb me unless condition is there. No point to keep engaging in fruitless idle talk. You too, be sincere and practice.”
"Pure clarity has a strict no-face - the face of non-conceptuality.
Empty clarity has a thousand faces, every face is brilliance and new."
- John Tan, 2014
The Disease of Non-Conceptuality
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
The Disease of Non-Conceptuality
The Disease of Non-Conceptuality
Reply
Remove Preview
2h
Soh Wei Yu
"The process of eradicating avidyā (ignorance) is conceived… not as a mere stopping of thought, but as the active realization of the opposite of what ignorance misconceives. Avidyā is not a mere absence of knowledge, but a specific misconception, and it must be removed by realization of its opposite. In this vein, Tsongkhapa says that one cannot get rid of the misconception of 'inherent existence' merely by stopping conceptuality any more than one can get rid of the idea that there is a demon in a darkened cave merely by trying not to think about it. Just as one must hold a lamp and see that there is no demon there, so the illumination of wisdom is needed to clear away the darkness of ignorance." - Napper, Elizabeth, 2003, p. 103"
Reply
2h
Soh Wei Yu
Someone at the I AM phase told me this week, “I have a hard time seeing foreground [appearance] as "awareness." Probably just equating "awareness" and "background" in my mind.” I told him thats because he has some definition of awareness that is blocking him. He told me “So forget definition of awareness and just see the radical aliveness of "foreground." That is enough, yeah?” I told him “No, not just forget definition of awareness. You need to deeply look into it, challenge it, investigate it”. I also sent him some texts I sent to another person earlier and said “Having an experience without background [as an experience of no mind] is not the same as realizing there never was a background subject or a seer or a seeing besides or behind the seen. The latter must arise as a realization. So you need to analyse in direct experience.
Khamtrul Rinpoche on the realization of anatta in the Mahamudra text:
"At that point, is the observer—awareness—other than the observed—stillness and movement—or is it actually that stillness and movement itself? By investigating with the gaze of your own awareness, you come to understand that that which is investigating itself is also no other than stillness and movement. Once this happens you will experience lucid emptiness as the naturally luminous self-knowing awareness. Ultimately, whether we say nature and radiance, undesirable and antidote, observer and observed, mindfulness and thoughts, stillness and movement, etc., you should know that the terms of each pair are no different from one another; by receiving the blessing of the guru, properly ascertain that they are inseparable. Ultimately, to arrive at the expanse free of observer and observed is the realization of the true meaning and the culmination of all analyses. This is called “the view transcending concepts,” which is free of conceptualization, or “the vajra mind view.”
"Fruition vipashyana is the correct realization of the final conviction of the nonduality of observer and observed."
What Khamtrul Rinpoche said above is not just mere experience. It sees through the conventions and analysis and realized the emptiness of these conventions.
In buddhism, non analytical cessations like states of no-mind and samadhi does not liberate. Only analytical cessation based on wisdom that penetrates and sees through the wrong view of inherent existence is able to liberate. The prajna wisdom that realizes there originally never was a self (anatman), dependent origination, and emptiness.”
Therefore, I think it is important to stress on anatta as a realisation of dharma seal, which is to say, in seeing just the seen, never has there been a seer. This is not a stage where the sense of a seer dissolve into just the seen, as this can just be a stage without the prajna wisdom that pierces and sees through the construct of an internal reference point of a perceiver/inherently existing perceiving, as fundamentally illusory and empty. Having an experience of no-mind is not very difficult nor uncommon, it is actually much more rare to have the realisation of anatta, even though the realisation of anatta is also just another start along the path to Buddhahood. Many focus on the experience, and there is a lack of clarity to penetrate the differences. It is rare to find practitioners and teachers that truly realized anatta. Most people that has nondual experience take "in the seen just the seen" as simply a state of no mind, rather than the more important realization that sees through the referencepoint of an inherently existing self, perceiver, agent, awareness, perceiving that could exist in and of itself apart from manifestation, seeing that always already, there never was a seer or even a seeing besides the seen, always already so."
Reply
2h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain Since 'mind' and 'objects' are often seen as relative stuff in contrast to the absolute truth in Advaita, the equivalent of anatman insight should be when 'Brahman', ultimate reality, pure nondual consciousness, and the likes is realised as utterly empty of its own existence, unfindable and authenticated as mere luminous appearances only. (I do not accept Brahman is the Universe as similar to this insight)
Reply
2h
Edited
Love Koh
Soh Wei Yu Hi Mr Soh 🙏 , well said 👍 , you're right , absolutely agree 👍 , what you've just mentioned is the most important part of the entire path of practise , which is the realisation of ' no inherent existent ' , this realisation is the most important 👍 , it's the Gem 💎 on the crown 👑 , thankyou very much for your generous selfless Compassion in sharing & teaching selflessly 💟🙏
Reply
2h
Love Koh
Soh Wei Yu Hi Mr Soh 🙏 , well said 👍 , you're right , absolutely agree 👍 , what you've just mentioned is the most important part of the entire path of practise , which is the realisation of ' no inherent existent ' , this realisation is the most important 👍 , it's the Gem 💎 on the crown 👑 , thankyou very much for your generous selfless Compassion in sharing & teaching selflessly 💟🙏
Reply
2h
Love Koh
Soh Wei Yu Hi Mr Soh 🙏 Thankyou very much for your sharing & teaching 👍💟🙏
Reply
2h
Love Koh
Soh Wei Yu well said & good metaphor 💟🙏
Reply
2h
Anurag Jain just humble opinion , same or different is in your mind , Brahman is certainty the Nonduality for sure , but if you fixates or grasps at this supreme Nonduality as having an naturally ' Self existing ' ' ' inherent existent ' for you to grasps at , then you're not totally liberated because there is something for you to grasps at , in this case , it is the grasping of the supreme ' Nonduality ' , the final moksha ' Liberation ' is when there is nothing for you to fixates or grasps at , where there is totally without any fixation or grasping or clinging ,
Buddha said ' Liberation is when one is not attach to nor grasps at anything whatsoever ' ,
but if you go one more step further into the final step of realising the Brahman or Supreme ' Nonduality ' as having no inherent existent , then that is the ultimate true ' Nonduality ' where even ' Nonduality ' could not be found , beyond every mentally labelling labels , thinking , thoughts , fixation , grasping , clinging , where every speech & thinking could not reach , this can only be reach by realising the ultimate Truth of no inherent existent , even the Supreme ' Nonduality ' has no inherent existent , even the so called ' No Inherent Existent ' also has no inherent existent , then there is nothing there to labels , to clings , to grasps , then you're liberated , the key is ' no inherent existent ' ,
The ' selfless/ Selfless Nondual Emptiness ' in Buddhism is not the ' selfless/ Selfless Nondual Emptiness ' with inherent existent as ' selfless/ Selfless Nondual Emptiness ' , the so called ' selfless/ Selfless Nondual Emptiness ' in Buddhism is the ' selfless/ Selfless Nondual Emptiness ' which has no inherent existent , so there is ultimately nothing to attain , nothing to cling , nothing to grasps , this is the true ultimate Liberation ,
Buddhist Heart Sutra said ; ' There's no attainment ' ,
It's helpful to read the Buddhist ' Diamond sutra ' & ' Heart Sutra '
Reply
7h
Edited
Anurag Jain
Love Koh Advaita talks about Self only in the penultimate stage. In the ultimate stage Advaita talks about all phenomena/world being inconceivable Brahman.
The problem is that people do not know the ultimate stage of Advaita. They pick up the more prevalent penultimate stage and consider it to be final. The methodology of Advaita is that it superimposes attributes to reality as per the level of understanding of the seeker and then negates them through inquiry till nothing graspable remains. Brahman is not an ontological existent in the final stage. Brahman is the inconceivable nature of the world/phenomena.
I think it to be a peculiar form of arrogance to make judgements about a school without having really undergone the whole path with a teacher. Just reading Advaita books, like one reads philosophy is not the way one can understand Advaita. It is not mere philosophy, but a soteriological path with a sophisticated methodology which cannot be grasped just by reading books, more so, when you are reading through the lens of another system.
I have had numerous discussions with Soh Wei Yu on this matter with no success as he is stuck to his version of Advaita as substantial non dualism. Substantial non-dualism is based on parinamavada or the world being a real effect of Brahman. The examples given are the sun and the rays, the ocean and the waves etc. This school of substantial dualism is called Bhedabheda Vedanta - a school which Shankara has amply criticized in his works, even though these concepts are introduced to Advaita students at lower stages of practice, only to be negated later
And regarding your "no attainment" which you have underscored throughout, I shall let Gaudapada of Mandukya speak to you.
Verse 4.91: All Dharmās (phenomena) by their nature are well determined as enlightened from the very beginning (adibuddha). One who has such self-sufficiency is fit for the deathless state.
Verse 4.92: All Dharmās indeed are quiescent from the very beginning, unoriginated, and happy by nature itself, homogeneous, and non-separate, [reality is] fearless and unoriginated sameness.
These verses also talk about non-attainment.
Reply
5h
Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain
I just saw a post by Kyle Dixon half an hour ago:
Author: krodha
Date: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Content:
That is debatable. An Advaita teacher I know said that he’s only encountered a single master of
Advaita state that even Brahman or consciousness is not found at the end of the Advaitin path.
According to him this position is incredibly novel and he theorizes that this master must have refined
his insight to a degree that others have not.
This statement was also not published publicly, perhaps because of its controversial nature.
Reply
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain cause and effect can be deconstructed before nondual or anatta.
As i posted in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/p/msg-to-mp.html
Msg to M.P
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Msg to M.P
Msg to M.P
Reply
Remove Preview
5h
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu waves and water is an example of cause and effect or not? Answer me this.
Reply
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain it need not be.
[4:01 PM, 1/1/2021] John Tan: In subsuming there is no container-contained relationship, there is only Awareness.
— this is one mind
Reply
5h
Edited
Anurag Jain
Isn't your understanding of Advaita that Brahman/Awareness is the base of world phenomena just like gold ornaments are made of gold?
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu lol. How is the wave not an effect of the ocean? The ocean can exist without a wave but a wave cannot exist without an ocean.
Reply
5h
Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain
The final end point of Advaita is not as a background of phenomena (I AM) but one mind as described by John above.
Reply
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Also one can deconstruct physicality, objectivity, cause and effect to some degree of depth even before nondual. This is the transparent witness phase vs opaque witness in DP.
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
One mind means that all phenomena are made of Awareness like gold ornaments made of gold. Right?
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu lol. Now you are talking of DP too. Without knowing that path too? 🙂
Anyways let's just stick to what I am talking about. Answer my question on one mind.
Reply
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain in one mind, there is no ocean as container of wave, there is only water — Awareness.
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
Yes. But the wave/phenomena are made of water right?
Reply
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain in one mind, there is no notion of objective phenomena. Just like a snake was seen through and realised to be ever a rope. It makes no sense to think whether the snake is made of rope or not as snake is seen as non originated.
But ropeness (here the singular pure nondual consciousness without a division into consciousness and appearances, observer and observed) is seen to be truly existing.
It is a bit analogous to this:
“
Mipham Rinpoche, one of the most influential masters of the Nyingma school wrote http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../madhyamaka... :
...Why, then, do the Mādhyamika masters refute the Cittamātra tenet system? Because self-styled proponents of the Cittamātra tenets, when speaking of mind-only, say that there are no external objects but that the mind exists substantially—like a rope that is devoid of snakeness, but not devoid of ropeness. Having failed to understand that such statements are asserted from the conventional point of view, they believe the nondual consciousness to be truly existent on the ultimate level. It is this tenet that the Mādhyamikas repudiate. But, they say, we do not refute the thinking of Ārya Asaṅga, who correctly realized the mind-only path taught by the Buddha...
...So, if this so-called “self-illuminating nondual consciousness” asserted by the Cittamātrins is understood to be a consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses, and it is merely that its subject and object are inexpressible, and if such a consciousness is understood to be truly existent and not intrinsically empty, then it is something that has to be refuted. If, on the other hand, that consciousness is understood to be unborn from the very beginning (i.e. empty), to be directly experienced by reflexive awareness, and to be self-illuminating gnosis without subject or object, it is something to be established. Both the Madhyamaka and Mantrayāna have to accept this...””
Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism
Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism
Reply
Remove Preview
5h
Soh Wei Yu
Hence
"Yes. Subject and object can both collapsed into pure seeing but it is only when this pure seeing is also dropped/exhausted that natural spontaneity and effortlessness can begin to function marvelously. That is y it has to be thorough and all the "emphasis". But I think he gets it, so u don't have to keep nagging 🤣." - John Tan
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
You are not answering my question Soh Wei Yu . By definition, Awareness is free of all attributes but phenomena are replete with various attributes. So how is it that attributeless Awareness gives rise to phenomena that are full of attributes.
In the rope and snake example, once the snake is refuted only the rope is seen but this is not the case with non dual realization. The "world of phenomena"/snake is still seen. It does not vanish like the snake.
Reply
5h
Anurag Jain
The chittamatra school (which by the way, is refuted in Mandukya) posits a non-dual consciousness behind the dualistic consciousness. See what you wrote:
"self-illuminating non dual consciousness" asserted by the Chittamatrins is *understood to be the consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses".
Reply
4h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain in one mind, the construct of awareness as a formless subject like I AM is seen through and deconstructed, along with the notion that appearances are on the objective pole. As mentioned above, there is no division between consciousness and appearance
Reply
4h
Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain what disappears is subject and object dichotomy, not appearances per se
Reply
4h
Edited
Anurag Jain
But the appearances are said to be made of Awareness, isn't it?
Reply
4h
Anurag Jain
Aren't you talking of examples like wave and ocean? Wave (object) is seen as Ocean (subject). Both subject and object being Awareness (water)?
Reply
4h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain
In one mind there is no ocean and waves in a container contained relationship. Appearances, be it so called ocean and waves are only Awareness. There is only awareness, no perceiver and perceived, subject and object dichotomy.
But realising nondual awareness as one mind is still not the anatman insight into the emptiness of intrinsic existence of one mind
Reply
4h
Edited
Anurag Jain
I dont get what you are telling different from me. I too am saying that there is only water. Waves and ocean are both seen as water. And THIS IS NOT WHAT ADVAITA TALKS AS THE FINAL STAGE. Because it still talks of arisings......waves arising from ocean. Phenomena being seen as arisings of Awareness...
Reply
4h
Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain
No, phenomena arising from awareness is the I AM understanding.
In one mind waves are not contained within ocean. There is only awareness
Reply
4h
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu if there is only Awareness then how do you explain the arising and dissolving of phenomena that is seen?
Reply
4h
Anurag Jain
I dont know which theory of One Mind you are concocting. This is a quote from Rigpa Wiki on what is the "One Mind" school and it says EXACTLY what I have been saying.
The Chittamatra (Skt. Cittamātra; Tib. སེམས་ཙམ་པ་, Semtsampa, Wyl. sems tsam pa) or 'Mind Only' School is a Mahayana school founded by Asanga in the 4th century AD. Its followers say that all phenomena are merely mind (Skt. vijñaptimātra)—the all-ground consciousness manifesting as environment, objects and the physical body, as a result of habitual tendencies stored within the all-ground.
This school is also known under the names of Yogachara, Vijñānavāda and Vijñānaptimātra.
Reply
4h
Edited
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu in the above quote, specifically read "the all ground consciousness manifesting as environment, objects and the physical body..."
Reply
4h
Love Koh
Soh Wei Yu well said , very true 👍💟🙏
Reply
3h
Anurag Jain
Love Koh I already quoted what is 'One Mind" school according to Rigpa Wiki to Soh Wei Yuh. For your sake I am quoting another one from Wikipedia.
The term also appears in Asaṅga's classic work, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (no Sanskrit original, trans. from Tibetan):
These representations (vijñapti) are mere representations (vijñapti-mātra), because there is no [corresponding] thing/object (artha)...Just as in a dream there appear, even without a thing/object (artha), just in the mind alone, forms/images of all kinds of things/objects like visibles, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, houses, forests, land, and mountains, and yet there are no [such] things/objects at all in that [place]. MSg II.6[19]
Please read the words "in the mind alone forms objects of all kinds"
This is what I have been saying all the while..... That One Mind is about objects being representations of Mind/Awareness.
And Advaita refutes this too.....
Reply
3h
Edited
Love Koh
Anurag Jain Mr Soh is describing ' One Mind ' from the experiential point of view , not from the theoretical conceptual point of view ,
The example of ocean & waves is merely the conceptual point of view , the ' container & contained ' point of view , ocean is the ' container ' of water , water is ' contained ' within the ocean , in the nondualistic One Mind , there is only Awareness , there's no ' container ' ( ocean ) & no ' contained ' ( waves ,) , because both the 'container ' & the ' contained ' are discovered to be just the fabrication of the mind , the fabrication of thinking , just labels ( notion , thoughts ) created by thinking , just merely concepts created by thinking , when all thinking ceases & left only with the thinkingless ( thoughtless ) Nondual Awareness , where is the so called ' container ' ( ocean ) & the ' contained ' ( waves ) ? both could not be found , if both the ' container ' ( ocean ) & the ' contained ' ( waves ) could still be found in the mind , then the person is still lost in the illusive conceptual realm of thinking ( thoughts ) & conceptualising ( mental fabrication ) without realising it , then he is not in the thoughtless Nondual Awareness ( One Mind ) , The so called ' One Mind ' mentioned by Mr Soh if I'm not wrong , is refering to the Nondual Awareness without the mental notion of subject ( Awareness as subject , ocean ( the ' container ' ) ) & without the mental notion of object ( the manifested universe as object , waves ( the ' contained ' ) ) , this is why John Tan & Mr Soh said ' in One Mind , there's no container & no contained , there is only Awareness , because John Tan & Mr Soh Wei Yu , both had gone beyond the theoretical conceptual understanding into the genuine true experiential understanding from deep genuine insight beyond the thinking mind , they really knows indepth what they're talking about from their personal genuine experiential understanding
Reply
3h
Edited
Anurag Jain
I think you are talking to yourself. Please address what I wrote.
Do you think I am talking only conceptually? Without insight?
You are not able to see and answer what I am saying objectively because you are a blind follower of Soh and John. How do you know that they have got a non-conceptual insight, in the first place? Reversely, how do you know I don't have a non-conceptual insight?
"Thoughtless non-dual awareness" you say......
Please ask Soh and John if they are referring to a thoughtless state.
Sir, you are completely off the mark !
What you are talking is nirvikalpa samadhi.
Reply
2h
Edited
Anurag Jain
Forget ocean and waves example, I am talking only about phenomena being representations of mind as they are in dream state. Is this not what One Mind is all about?
This is also refuted in Advaita.
Reply
2h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain Alayavijnana is not 'one mind'.
Glossary (from http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/Yogacara_glossary.html):
*Alaya-vijnana, or "store consciousness" -- one of the central technical terms of Yogacara (Vijnanavada, Vijnaptimatra) philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. Early Buddhists taught about existence of six-fold consciousness, that is the conciousness of five types of perception (visual, audial, etc.) and of "mind" (manovijnana). The Yogacarins analysing the source of consciousness added two more kinds of consciousness. They are: klistamanovijnana, or manas, that is the ego-centre of an empirical personality, and alaya-vijnana which is the source of other kinds of consciousness. Alaya-vijnana is above subject-object opposition but it is not a kind of absolute mind: alaya-vijnana is momentary and non-substantial. Every sentient being with the corresponding to this being "objective" world can be reduced to its "own" alaya-vijnana. Therefore, classical Yogacara states the existence of many alayas.
The Alaya-vijnana is a receptacle and container of the so-called "seeds" (bija), or elementary units of past experiences. These bijas project themselves as an illusionary world of empirical subjects and corresponding objects. All other seven types of consciousness are but transformations (parinama) of alaya-vijnana. In the course of its yogic practice a Yogacarin must empty alaya-vijnana of its contents. Thus the Yogacarin puts an end to the tendency of external projections of alaya-vijnana changing it into non-dual (advaya) wisdom (jnana) of Enlightened mind.
KHEPER.NET
Page not found - Kheper
Page not found - Kheper
Reply
Remove Preview
2h
Soh Wei Yu
Love Koh Yes, but even that is just one mind. I'm further pointing out that even one mind is to be realized to be empty of any true existence or inherent existence.. that is the beginning of the anatman realization. Not just nondual, which can still be seen as having essence, unchanging, like an unchanging nondual absolute.
Reply
2h
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu I did not talk of alaya vijnana !
Reply
2h
Love Koh
Anurag Jain thankyou , well said , ' in the mind alone forms objects of all kinds ' is really true , this is right thinking , right understanding & right view ,👍, but this is still within the realm of theoretical conceptual understanding which is understood by the mind with the help of thoughts , labels , thinking , concepts , because there's still the mental fabrication of labels such as ' in ' , ' mind ' , ' alone ' , ' forms ' , ' objects ' , ' of ' , ' all ' , ' kinds ,,' or ' the universe ' , ' is ' , ' manifestations ' , ' of ' , ' Consciousness ' , ' or ' , ' Awareness ' , all these right theoretical understanding is still within the realm of theoretical conceptual understanding form by thinking in the thinking mind , in experiential understanding , where every thoughts ceases where only the thoughtless Nondual Awareness Alone remains , there is no such thing as ' in ' , ' mind ' , ' alone ' , ' forms ' , ' objects ' , ' of ' , ' all ' , ' kinds ,,' or ' the universe ' , ' is ' , ' manifestations ' , ' of ' , ' Consciousness ' , ' or ' , ' Awareness ' because they're just thoughts , just labels fabricated by thinking , just thinking , just concepts ,
experiential understanding is beyond thoughts , labels , thinking , concepts , there is only selfless/ Selfless Nondual Awareness which has no inherent existent , with nothing to think of , nothing to label , nothing to name , nothing to explains , nothing to describe , nothing to conceptualise , nothing to grasps , nothing to cling , nothing to wants , nothing to do ( mentally ) because there's no inherent existent
Reply
2h
Anurag Jain
Well Soh Wei Yu you may please answer Love Koh, on whether your are talking of any thoughtless state. Lol, he is terribly confused about you 😀
Reply
2h
Edited
Anurag Jain
Soh Wei Yu you talked about no inherent existence of mind. Now see what Gaudapada says:
"There was never born - neither the mind nor the objects perceived by the mind. Those who perceive such births may as well try to perceive the footprints of birds in the sky"
~ Mandukya, verse 4.28
Reply
2h
Soh Wei Yu
Oh on that part... I think Love Koh should read https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-disease-of-non...
And also excerpts from the AtR guide:
No-Self is Not Associated with a State of No Thoughts
"The association of anatta (no-self) to the cessation of thoughts is due to a lack of insight that anatta is a seal, not a stage of attainment. In thinking there are always only thoughts, no thinker. In fact it is the realization that the continual arising and ceasing of thoughts without a thinker that is precious. The 2 important qualities that must be experienced are non-dual and spontaneity. Thoughts can slow down or even completely ceased but it has nothing to do with the insight of anatta."
- John Tan, 2009
“[commenting on some posts misinterpreting freedom as a state of thoughtlessness]
[9:51 PM, 9/15/2020] John Tan: I dunno what to say and dont want to comment. It is just seeing through reification that results in pristineness of appearance free from imputations... that is thought free wakefulness. There is clear intuitive discernment that is boundless and spontaneously free.
[9:53 PM, 9/15/2020] John Tan: One should first have the experiential insight of anatta as it is the exhaustion of the background self as the reified construct. To just say free of thoughts or to say it is a blank state that one can't differentiate left from right is just nonsense and pure ignorance.
[9:55 PM, 9/15/2020] John Tan: I think even taoism i ching has more clarity if understood correctly.
[9:57 PM, 9/15/2020] John Tan: Buddhism provides such clarity but I just don't understand why is it presented or misunderstood to this extent... maybe I am wrong...lol.
[9:59 PM, 9/15/2020] John Tan: But since I am out of all these idle talks, I just don't want people to disturb me unless condition is there. No point to keep engaging in fruitless idle talk. You too, be sincere and practice.”
"Pure clarity has a strict no-face - the face of non-conceptuality.
Empty clarity has a thousand faces, every face is brilliance and new."
- John Tan, 2014
The Disease of Non-Conceptuality
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
The Disease of Non-Conceptuality
The Disease of Non-Conceptuality
Reply
Remove Preview
2h
Soh Wei Yu
"The process of eradicating avidyā (ignorance) is conceived… not as a mere stopping of thought, but as the active realization of the opposite of what ignorance misconceives. Avidyā is not a mere absence of knowledge, but a specific misconception, and it must be removed by realization of its opposite. In this vein, Tsongkhapa says that one cannot get rid of the misconception of 'inherent existence' merely by stopping conceptuality any more than one can get rid of the idea that there is a demon in a darkened cave merely by trying not to think about it. Just as one must hold a lamp and see that there is no demon there, so the illumination of wisdom is needed to clear away the darkness of ignorance." - Napper, Elizabeth, 2003, p. 103"
Reply
2h
Soh Wei Yu
Someone at the I AM phase told me this week, “I have a hard time seeing foreground [appearance] as "awareness." Probably just equating "awareness" and "background" in my mind.” I told him thats because he has some definition of awareness that is blocking him. He told me “So forget definition of awareness and just see the radical aliveness of "foreground." That is enough, yeah?” I told him “No, not just forget definition of awareness. You need to deeply look into it, challenge it, investigate it”. I also sent him some texts I sent to another person earlier and said “Having an experience without background [as an experience of no mind] is not the same as realizing there never was a background subject or a seer or a seeing besides or behind the seen. The latter must arise as a realization. So you need to analyse in direct experience.
Khamtrul Rinpoche on the realization of anatta in the Mahamudra text:
"At that point, is the observer—awareness—other than the observed—stillness and movement—or is it actually that stillness and movement itself? By investigating with the gaze of your own awareness, you come to understand that that which is investigating itself is also no other than stillness and movement. Once this happens you will experience lucid emptiness as the naturally luminous self-knowing awareness. Ultimately, whether we say nature and radiance, undesirable and antidote, observer and observed, mindfulness and thoughts, stillness and movement, etc., you should know that the terms of each pair are no different from one another; by receiving the blessing of the guru, properly ascertain that they are inseparable. Ultimately, to arrive at the expanse free of observer and observed is the realization of the true meaning and the culmination of all analyses. This is called “the view transcending concepts,” which is free of conceptualization, or “the vajra mind view.”
"Fruition vipashyana is the correct realization of the final conviction of the nonduality of observer and observed."
What Khamtrul Rinpoche said above is not just mere experience. It sees through the conventions and analysis and realized the emptiness of these conventions.
In buddhism, non analytical cessations like states of no-mind and samadhi does not liberate. Only analytical cessation based on wisdom that penetrates and sees through the wrong view of inherent existence is able to liberate. The prajna wisdom that realizes there originally never was a self (anatman), dependent origination, and emptiness.”
Therefore, I think it is important to stress on anatta as a realisation of dharma seal, which is to say, in seeing just the seen, never has there been a seer. This is not a stage where the sense of a seer dissolve into just the seen, as this can just be a stage without the prajna wisdom that pierces and sees through the construct of an internal reference point of a perceiver/inherently existing perceiving, as fundamentally illusory and empty. Having an experience of no-mind is not very difficult nor uncommon, it is actually much more rare to have the realisation of anatta, even though the realisation of anatta is also just another start along the path to Buddhahood. Many focus on the experience, and there is a lack of clarity to penetrate the differences. It is rare to find practitioners and teachers that truly realized anatta. Most people that has nondual experience take "in the seen just the seen" as simply a state of no mind, rather than the more important realization that sees through the referencepoint of an inherently existing self, perceiver, agent, awareness, perceiving that could exist in and of itself apart from manifestation, seeing that always already, there never was a seer or even a seeing besides the seen, always already so."
Reply
2h
Soh Wei Yu
Anurag Jain Since 'mind' and 'objects' are often seen as relative stuff in contrast to the absolute truth in Advaita, the equivalent of anatman insight should be when 'Brahman', ultimate reality, pure nondual consciousness, and the likes is realised as utterly empty of its own existence, unfindable and authenticated as mere luminous appearances only. (I do not accept Brahman is the Universe as similar to this insight)
Reply
2h
Edited
Love Koh
Soh Wei Yu Hi Mr Soh 🙏 , well said 👍 , you're right , absolutely agree 👍 , what you've just mentioned is the most important part of the entire path of practise , which is the realisation of ' no inherent existent ' , this realisation is the most important 👍 , it's the Gem 💎 on the crown 👑 , thankyou very much for your generous selfless Compassion in sharing & teaching selflessly 💟🙏
Reply
2h
Love Koh
Soh Wei Yu Hi Mr Soh 🙏 , well said 👍 , you're right , absolutely agree 👍 , what you've just mentioned is the most important part of the entire path of practise , which is the realisation of ' no inherent existent ' , this realisation is the most important 👍 , it's the Gem 💎 on the crown 👑 , thankyou very much for your generous selfless Compassion in sharing & teaching selflessly 💟🙏
Reply
2h
Love Koh
Soh Wei Yu Hi Mr Soh 🙏 Thankyou very much for your sharing & teaching 👍💟🙏
Reply
2h
Love Koh
Soh Wei Yu well said & good metaphor 💟🙏
Reply
2h
|
