Someone told me about mind not being an appearance.

I replied:

it is in this sense that mind is not an appearance: John Tan wrote before, “That light is just alaya, not the nature of mind (imo). There is no form whatsoever that can be grasped. Signlessness therefore appearances are possible.”

it does not mean that there is an objective appearance apart from mind

there is no mind apart from appearance and no appearance apart from mind

Likewise, Krodha also said in 2014, "'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness." - Kyle..."


there is also no mind apart from appearance

The cognizer perceives the cognizable;
Without the cognizable there is no cognition;
Therefore why do you not admit
That neither object nor subject exists [at all]?

The mind is but a mere name;
Apart from it's name it exists as nothing;
So view consciousness as a mere name;
Name too has no intrinsic nature.

Either within or likewise without,
Or somewhere in between the two,
The conquerors have never found the mind;
So the mind has the nature of an illusion.

The distinctions of colors and shapes,
Or that of object and subject,
Of male, female and the neuter -
The mind has no such fixed forms.

In brief the Buddhas have never seen
Nor will they ever see [such a mind];
So how can they see it as intrinsic nature
That which is devoid of intrinsic nature?

"Entity" is a conceptualization;
Absence of conceptualization is emptiness;
Where conceptualization occurs,
How can there be emptiness?

The mind in terms of perceived and perceiver,
This the Tathagatas have never seen;
Where there is the perceived and perceiver,
There is no enlightenment.

Devoid of characteristics and origination,
Devoid of substantiative reality and transcending speech,
Space, awakening mind and enlightenment
Possess the characteristics of non-duality.

- Nagarjuna"


No Mind, No Appearances and No Apparent Objects


[8:17 am, 07/11/2021] John Tan: Apparent objects are not mind, appearances are mind.
[8:26 am, 07/11/2021] John Tan: And then from that,
further exhaust mind, appearances, apparent objects.
No mind, no appearances and no apparent objects

Soh: no appearances as in not no appearances but presence is empty right

John Tan:
No appearances just mean the conceptual notions of mind, appearances and external objects are all deconstructed.
It doesn't mean a blank nothing.
Vivid Appearances will unfailingly manifest, that is what Mipham meant by coalescence of appearance and emptiness.

From the perspective of mind (alaya), negation is non-affirming and thorough.
From the non-conceptual gnosis standpoint, nothing is obstructed nor denied.
What appears is unconditioned, spontaneous, natural and beyond elaborations.
Labels: Emptiness |


All is Mind, No Mind, Dependent Origination
"All is mind must also be deconstructed by DO and emptiness.

Otherwise you end up subsuming.  When practitioners express all is mind, they are not to be taken literally, they are expressing a deep non-dual experiential taste.  Not as a view.

We go through all process of deconstructions and taste the luminous appearances then adopt the view of DO [dependent origination] and emptiness for the conventional world.

That is why DO and emptiness is the enlightened view."

"[9:09 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: I understand what dzogchen meant. Imo,  DO and emptiness is the spontaneous presence and natural perfection expression in the conventional world. (Soh: also related, Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination )
[9:14 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: But I do not know dzogchen so no comment.

It is just how I see. The beauty of DO and emptiness in expressing the luminous appearance for the conventional world."

- John Tan, 2020

"[8:16 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: It is the direct taste that is important.
[8:18 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: In the direct taste freeing of the background, what is left is the obviousness.
[8:21 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: The luminous display is free from all elaborations.  Neither mind nor not mind, phenomena nor not phenomena.

So can one b free from all proliferations and see clearly this luminous display and how is this to b expressed comventionally?
[8:22 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: Post all these deconstructions, do u still need to talk about mind at all?  Do u still see object?"

"[8:25 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: That is not important imo
[8:26 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: It is how the mind is freed from all proliferated views or religions or any form of conditioning first.
[8:28 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: The freeing is most crucial but not discarding the validity of how they provide explanations for the functioning of the world.
[8:28 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: So first in anatta, the deconstruction of the background self. That perhaps is the most important deconstruction.
[8:31 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: Then we look at object, how do we even come to the idea that phenomena possess characteristics at all?  Why  redness seem to stick to a red flower?
[8:36 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: Then we look deeper into duality and look at how the dualistic structure is constructed...we see objectivity and subjectivity, do we clearly see and understand that the very feeling of objectivity can only arise because of an innate feeling of subjectivity?  Can we feel this understanding in our bone and marrow or just a knowledge?  The idea of self and other...this deep conditioning is often over look.
[8:37 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: Like no suffering, no no suffering...
[8:39 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: Then when we picks up all these conventions, views,  we have no issues with them for they provide a way of explaining and accounting how the world and universe functions.  How well they explain the world.
[8:41 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: U can see how the world is totally make up of energetic vibration also and practice accordingly as long the path can guide u and it works and functions, but ultimately empty."

"[10:32 AM, 7/25/2020] John Tan: The only truth is to see the emptiness of the conventional.  Equipoise strictly speaking is free from all elaborations.  That is exactly the experiential insight and taste of anatta, in the seen just the seen, therefore no seer, no seeing, nothing seen.

[10:38 AM, 7/25/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[10:42 AM, 7/25/2020] Soh Wei Yu: like kalaka sutta

Labels: All is Mind, Dependent Origination |





Not mind or other than mind
[27/10/19, 1:14:30 PM] Soh Wei Yu: All appearances are appearance of oneself in dzogchen but not cosmic consciousness
[27/10/19, 1:49:11 PM] John Tan: Quite good youtube. Who is he?
[27/10/19, 1:52:33 PM] John Tan: All appearances are one's radiance clarity. However since both object and subject are seen through, it cannot be said to be mind or other than mind.
[27/10/19, 1:53:56 PM] Soh Wei Yu: He is a quite famous dzogchen teacher i think
[27/10/19, 1:54:00 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[27/10/19, 1:54:07 PM] John Tan: What appears are neither in here nor out there.
[27/10/19, 1:54:53 PM] John Tan: The very idea of in or out, me and other are conceptually designated.
[27/10/19, 1:56:31 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. i think he is trying to point out non solipsism and non cosmic consciousness.. different mindstreams. In another video he said how his view is not solipsism
[27/10/19, 1:58:04 PM] John Tan: The "neither this nor that" of freedom from extremes is not the same as "neither this nor that" of non-conceptuality.
[27/10/19, 1:58:10 PM] Soh Wei Yu: _______
[27/10/19, 1:58:15 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[27/10/19, 1:58:22 PM] John Tan: Can provide the link.
[27/10/19, 1:58:47 PM] John Tan: He is ______?
[27/10/19, 1:59:01 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah
[27/10/19, 1:59:26 PM] John Tan: His lecture seems to be better than his
[27/10/19, 1:59:32 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Lol
[27/10/19, 1:59:37 PM] Soh Wei Yu: you read his writings before?
[27/10/19, 1:59:50 PM] John Tan: But still a subtle sense of awareness
[27/10/19, 1:59:55 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..
[27/10/19, 2:02:47 PM] John Tan: He is using simple mind is the creator which is no good
[27/10/19, 2:03:27 PM] Soh Wei Yu: you mean book or lecture
[27/10/19, 2:03:43 PM] John Tan: Both
[27/10/19, 2:04:31 PM] John Tan: His lectures link that you sent me but explanation is quite good.  However the taste of anatta is not there.
[27/10/19, 2:05:08 PM] John Tan: Means it can still be an explanation of non-dual.
[27/10/19, 2:09:03 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. ya i get the impression of one mind from his old writings
[27/10/19, 2:11:12 PM] John Tan: For anatta to be clear, that background is gone that is why experiences become direct. It has to because there is nothing there to dualify as simple as need li li loh loh (be longwinded)...
[27/10/19, 2:11:36 PM] John Tan: Grasper and grasped disappeared.
[27/10/19, 2:16:10 PM] John Tan: Now when there is no self, you are left with those aggregates.  What are those aggregates?
[27/10/19, 2:54:57 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Empty radiance in total exertion
Labels: Anatta |

0 Responses