Mr M:

Interesting. The Buddha as found in the four major Nikayas of the Pali Canon was not much inclined to positive terms like 'luminous' and 'radiance'. I think those concepts come from Dzogchen, and possibly from the pre-Buddhist Bon tradition.

I think the Buddha avoided positive terms for good reason, and your AI picture sums them up for me. The picture is seductive - that's what AI art is about. Saccharine, anodyne, New Age. It reaches the largest possible audience.

Now, I'm a big fan of Longchempa, and in his hands 'luminous' etc has the gravitas of the Pali Canon, even though he probably didn't know it, and is more indebted to Tibetan masters than to the Buddha.

To me then the challenge is to use the language of luminosity without making it attractive, seductive, saccharine, anodyne and New Age.



Soh Wei Yu replied:




For a very accurate explanation of what Nirvana is, do read

Nirvana is described in positive terms.

Not-fabricated (asaṅkhata) - Nibbāna is beyond constructed phenomena.

Not-inclined (anata) - It does not lean towards any condition or state.

Outflowless (anāsava) - Free from outflows or taints that perpetuate samsara.

Truth (sacca) - It represents the ultimate truth.

Farther shore (pāra) - Beyond the tumultuous river of samsaric existence.

Subtle (nipuṇa) - Refined and profound, difficult to grasp with ordinary mind.

Very hard to see (sududdasa) - Not easily perceived or understood.

Unaging (ajajjara) - Not subject to aging or decay.

Stable (dhuva) - Unchanging and permanent.

Undisintegrating (apalokita) - Does not break down or disintegrate.

Non-indicative (anidassana) - Not indicated by usual worldly signs.

Unproliferated (nippapañca) - Free from conceptual proliferation.

Peaceful (santa) - Utter peace and tranquility.

Death-free (amata) - Beyond death, immortal.

Sublime (paṇīta) - Of the highest quality or degree.

Auspicious (siva) - Auspicious and beneficial.

Secure (khema) - Safe and free from danger.

Elimination of craving (taṇhākkhaya) - End of craving.

Wonderful (acchariya) - Inspiring awe and wonder.

Amazing (abbhuta) - Marvelous and causing astonishment.

Calamity-free (anītika) - Free from disaster or calamity.

Dhamma free of calamity (anītikadhamma) - Teaching that is free from disaster.

Extinguishment (nibbāna) - The blowing out of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion.

Unafflicted (abyāpajjha) - Not afflicted by suffering or stress.

Dispassion (virāga) - Freedom from passion and desire.

Purity (suddhi) - Pure and untainted state.

Freedom (mutti) - Liberation from all bondage.

Unadhesive (anālaya) - Not clinging or adhering to anything.

Island (dīpa) - A place of solace and refuge.

Cave (leṇa) - A natural shelter and protection.

Shelter (tāṇa) - Provides protection and safety.

Refuge (saraṇa) - A place to turn to for safety.

Destination (parāyana) - The ultimate goal or end.

And so on.

Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings


Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings

Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings



Remove Preview

Soh Wei Yu



Buddha discussed luminosity in Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous

""Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}"



"'If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.'

"'Consciousness without surface,

endless, radiant all around,

has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'[9]"


DN 11:

"'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this:

Where do water, earth, fire, & wind

have no footing?

Where are long & short,

coarse & fine,

fair & foul,

name & form

brought to an end?

"'And the answer to that is:

Consciousness without feature,[1]

without end,

luminous all around:

Here water, earth, fire, & wind

have no footing.

Here long & short

coarse & fine

fair & foul

name & form

are all brought to an end.

With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness

each is here brought to an end.'"

Brahma-nimantanika Sutta: The Brahma Invitation


Brahma-nimantanika Sutta: The Brahma Invitation

Brahma-nimantanika Sutta: The Brahma Invitation



Remove Preview

Soh Wei Yu





What is Consciousness Without Feature (Viññanam anidassanam)

[1:46 AM, 11/8/2020] Soh: malcolm says this quote by buddha from the pali canon: "Viññanam anidassanam from the Kevatta sutta:

Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around"

[1:47 AM, 11/8/2020] Soh: is equivalent to dzogchen pristine consciousness

"Malcolm wrote:

The view is self-originated pristine consciousness, free from the extreme of the dualism of an apprehended object and an apprehending subject.

— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra"

[7:52 AM, 11/8/2020] John Tan: Yes. But how it is understood.

[8:01 AM, 11/8/2020] John Tan: Can be I AM, can be anatta.

[8:05 AM, 11/8/2020] John Tan: This I m aware all along. Malcolm doesn't understand zen, they r pointing to the same essence and nature. The only difference is Dzogchen is strong in view and clear about freedom from extremes and mmk.

[Comments by Soh: I don't think Malcolm is saying Zen is not pointing to the same realization, as Malcolm also stated, "There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction."]

[8:55 AM, 11/8/2020] John Tan: Once we r free subject-object duality, consciousness/appearance is without feature, without end and luminous all around. So is there realization about mere appearances is key otherwise It is just reification of consciousness.

p.s. another term in Dzogchen is Zang Thal:

Kyle Dixon, "The reality of mind for him is non-arising which would be anatta

The difference between gsal ba and zang thal is difference between clarity experienced as background subject and clarity totally freed from that through realizing anatta"

He also wrote,

"Cognitive clarity is your cognizance reified as a subject, a self, while zangthal is that same aspect totally freed of all extremes and conditions."


badge icon

Also, John Tan, 2014:

"It is also important that Buddha relates a description similar to consciousness without features in Bahiya sutta. This is what I told jax abt allowing the five elements to "kill u" when he asked me abt how I understand consciousness without features."

(Soh: referring to “ To Jax:

The place where there is no earth, fire, wind, space, water…

is the place where the earth, fire, wind, space and water kills “You” and fully shines as its own radiance, a complete taste of itself and fully itself.”)

"Consciousness without features. See how yor answer.

We must know that Buddha told the bhikkhu the way the question is phrased is invalid and must be understood not as a cessation of the 4 elements without remainder.

But I believe Stian is not seeing that way.

Therefore cessation/nirodha should b understood from the perspective of "no footing", the release without ground of the elements.

And a consciousness that is so is luminous without feature

Where the place without heat and cold

Not exactly no-mind but the featureless quality of groundlessness...that is u must understand the featureless quality in the experience."

"Just realized that kevatta consciousness without features is not the cessation of the 4 elements but the 4 elements having no footing.


Very often we say if there is no subject, how can there b object. This may sound logical but isn't verified as an experiential truth.

As we can c from the case of actual ism and two fold emptiness. Y is this so?



· 1m


badge icon

<--- my recent post just wrote about the groundlessness.[0]=AZWrPtqjTPEE9Le_LE86i4TEkOiHh1un-uZe5Ly-OOEM2duSSgWe0yYHgH9QxuAlEGEgYSbTmGCugG_Ri_AosV0l2liRqXHE99d7BHnOZPWBhQ1R2WlN7ghPfn83GcWDpOC8gtFix03PMCOMP5ytn-JsDo3pE61Wb-NBPLp32SqSadRuoaUEYv-1MG_NDvb2n0E&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R



· 1m


Leigh Brasington:

“So as quickly as a strong man could extend his arm or draw it back, that monk disappeared from the Brahmā realm and reappeared on

earth. He went to the Blessed One, saluted him, sat down at one side, and said: ‘Venerable sir, where do the four elements cease without

remainder?’ The Buddha replied, ‘You’ve been wandering around as far as the Brahmā realm asking this question. And now not finding

it, you come back to me. But, monk, you should not ask your question in that way – where do the four elements cease without

remainder? Instead, this is how the question should be put:

Where do earth, water, fire and air no footing find?

Where do long and short, small and great, beautiful and ugly -

Where do name-and-form completely come to an end?

And the answer is:

Where consciousness is signless, limitless, and all-illuminating.

That’s where earth, water, fire and air no footing find.

There both long and short, small and great, beautiful and ugly,

there name-and-form all come to an end.

With the cessation of consciousness, all this comes to an end.Ӡ

This is a bit cryptic. The wrong question is “Where do the four elements cease without remainder?” The right question is “Where do the

four elements no footing find?” This harkens back to the verses after the Bāhiya sutta, where the Buddha says where the four elements

no footing find, there dark and light don’t occur. Here, he expands the teaching to say it’s where consciousness is signless, limitless, and


What is Consciousness Without Feature (Viññanam anidassanam)


What is Consciousness Without Feature (Viññanam anidassanam)

What is Consciousness Without Feature (Viññanam anidassanam)



Remove Preview

Soh Wei Yu



When you see a table, you’re seeing the signs of a table. It’s got a flat top and legs holding it up off the ground. That’s how you know

it’s a table. You pick up the cues, the signs. So what does it mean that consciousness is signless? How about a consciousness that is,

well, in seeing is just seeing, in hearing is just hearing, in sensing is just sensing, in cognizing is just cognizing? How about a

consciousness that is not fabricating, not concocting a table, not giving birth to a table, not making this a table? It’s a way of

experiencing the world without fixating in any way on the objects or characteristics of any object being sensed – or on the one doing the

sensing. It's looking at the world from a non-dual perspective.

Nibbāna is not a thing. It doesn’t have ontological existence. It’s a realization. It’s a realization that there is nothing but streams of

dependently originated processes interacting, without even making a thing out of the streams. If you concoct “stream,” you still have not

quite gotten all the way to the point. Every thing is not a thing, it’s just dependent on other things which aren’t things. It’s a little hard to

talk about. You can see why the Buddha says it’s not this and it’s not that.

It’s consciousness that is signless. But it's not just your ordinary open awareness – which is also a form of consciousness that is signless.

Indeed open awareness/Bāhiya practice is certainly helpful in gaining this realization. But the realization of Nibbāna does seem to

require a breakthrough to a much deeper understanding – an understanding that is so profound that it permanently changes the way you

experience the world. The best totally inadequate simile I can offer is to ask you to remember what it was like when you found out there

was no Santa Claus (apologies to those of you who never believed in Santa Claus – it is an inadequate simile). I remember I saw the

world differently. There was fear – fear I wouldn't be getting any more of those really premium Christmas presents. But there was also a

different way of seeing the world and of relating to the big guy in the red suit. The world wasn't any different, but I was. The

breakthrough experience of Nibbāna is a realization so profound it permanently changes you and your relationship to the world. And a

very important component of what is experienced is signless consciousness.’”‡

When consciousness is signless, it’s also limitless. There can’t be any limits because a limit would be a sign. You’re not concocting the

end of this consciousness, it really is all-encompassing, and it’s all-illuminating. When viewing from this viewpoint, when realizing in

this way, nothing is hidden. Everything is experienced to be dependent on other things. Nothing stands alone. And nothing is a thing, it’s

all verbs, it’s all processes, but they aren’t individual processes. One gets this huge, giant picture of, I guess you could say, unfolding.

Not “the unfolding,” because that makes it a noun, a thing – there’s just unfolding. Can you experience the world like that? Can you

experience the inconstant, unsatisfactory, empty nature of phenomena, without resorting to dualities or even signs? Then your

consciousness is signless, limitless, and all-illuminating. That’s where earth, water, fire and air no footing find. There long and short,

small and great, beautiful and ugly; there name-and-form all come to an end.

The last line is really puzzling. “With the cessation of consciousness, all this comes to an end.” Does that mean you have to become

unconscious? The usual explanation is that, at a path moment – a momentary experience of Nibbāna – there’s a cessation experience

where everything stops, then it starts up again, only it’s really different on the other side. That turns out not to be what’s being talked

about here, because the idea of “path moments” is from the later commentaries and this is a sutta.

The word viññāṇa which we translate as “consciousness” literally means “divided knowing.” When divided knowing comes to an end,

all these dualities come to an end. When we stop chopping up the holistic unfolding into bits and pieces, then all this comes to an end.

As Ud 8.1 says, “Just this is the end of dukkha.”

This required holistic experience is expressed so very eloquently by Kitaro Nishida in his work The Nothingness Beyond God:

Pure experience is the beginning of Zen. It is awareness stripped of all thought, all conceptualization, all categorization, and all

distinctions between subject-as-having-an-experience and experience-as-having-been-had-by-a-subject. It is prior to all judgment.

Pure experience is without all distinction; it is pure no-thingness, pure no-this-or-that. It is empty of any and all distinctions. It is

absolutely no-thing at all. Yet its emptiness and nothingness is a chock-a-block fullness, for it is all experience-to-come. It is rose,

child, river, anger, death, pain, rocks, and cicada sounds. We carve these discrete events and entities out of a richer-yet-non-

distinct manifold of pure experience."


Continue reading at

What is Consciousness Without Feature (Viññanam anidassanam)


What is Consciousness Without Feature (Viññanam anidassanam)

What is Consciousness Without Feature (Viññanam anidassanam)



Remove Preview

Soh Wei Yu



Now, it is true that the Buddha didn't come here to teach us only the radiance clarity aspect of mind/consciousness. That is already taught in the Vedas and Upanishads but then reified into an ultimate Self:

Excerpt from

"“The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept 'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when you will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies. If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be confused.

When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness.” - John Tan, 2005

"What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage." - Lopon Malcolm

In January 2005, John Tan wrote:

“[19:21] <^john^> learn how to experience emptiness and no-selfness. 🙂

[19:22] <^john^> this is the only way to liberate.

[19:22] <^john^> not to dwell too deeply into the minor aspect of pure awareness.

[19:23] <^john^> of late i have been seeing songs and poems relating to the luminosity aspect of Pure Awareness.

[19:23] <^john^> uncreated, original, mirror bright, not lost in nirvana and samsara..etc

[19:23] <^john^> what use is there?

[19:24] <ZeN`n1th> oic...

[19:24] <^john^> we have from the very beginning so and yet lost for countless aeons of lives.

[19:25] <^john^> buddha did not come to tell only about the luminosity aspect of pure awareness.

[19:25] <^john^> this has already been expressed in vedas.

[19:25] <^john^> but it becomes Self.

[19:25] <^john^> the ultimate controller

[19:26] <^john^> the deathless

[19:26] <^john^> the supreme..etc

[19:26] <^john^> this is the problem.

[19:26] <^john^> this is not the ultimate nature of Pure Awareness.

[19:27] <^john^> for full enlightenment to take place, experience the clarity and emptiness. That's all.”"

And probably you agree with this, with what's being said above, luminosity is still important and is not neglected even in the Pali canon.

As John Tan also said before when the topic of the lack of emphasis in luminosity is brought up regarding the Pali canon, "I have told you that authenticating clarity and radiance is nothing new in ancient time and in awareness teaching, but whatever is authenticated will be misunderstood and conditioned to be "self/Self"."

The Buddha was 'raised' in an environment where the contemplatives were in search of the ultimate luminous Self. And in fact he learnt from such teachers prior to his full awakening. As I mentioned in another post, "Buddha realized the ultimate goal, attainment and mastered the samadhis of his two Samkhya teachers (Samkhya teachings is based on an ultimate self) but left unsatisfied and later on attained his final awakening which differed from his previous teachers."

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"

As for what is the definitive meaning of Buddha-Nature, the Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith wrote:

The term bdag nyid, atman, just means, in this case, "nature", i.e. referring to the nature of reality free from extremes as being permanent, blissful, pure and self. The luminosity of the mind is understood to be this.

There are various ways to interpret the Uttaratantra and tathāgatagarbha doctrine, one way is definitive in meaning, the other is provisional, according to Gorampa Sonam Senge, thus the tathāgatagarbha sutras become definitive or provisional depending on how they are understood. He states:

In the context of showing the faults of a literal [interpretation] – it's equivalence with the Non-Buddhist Self is that the assertion of unique eternal all pervading cognizing awareness of the Saṃkhya, the unique eternal pristine clarity of the Pashupattis, the unique all pervading intellect of the Vaiśnavas, the impermanent condition, the measure of one’s body, in the permanent self-nature of the Jains, and the white, brilliant, shining pellet the size of an atom, existing in each individual’s heart of the Vedantins are the same.

The definitive interpretation he renders as follows:

Therefor, the Sugatagarbha is defined as the union of clarity and emptiness but not simply emptiness without clarity, because that [kind of emptiness] is not suitable to be a basis for bondage and liberation. Also it is not simple clarity without emptiness, that is the conditioned part, because the Sugatagarbha is taught as unconditioned.

Khyentse Wangpo, often cited as a gzhan stong pa, basically says that the treatises of Maitreya elucidate the luminosity of the mind, i.e. its purity, whereas Nāgarjuna's treatises illustrate the empty nature of the mind, and that these two together, luminosity and emptiness free from extremes are to be understood as noncontradictory, which we can understand from the famous Prajñāpāramita citation "There is no mind in the mind, the nature of the mind is luminosity".




Soh Wei Yu



So a very pervasive problem in spirituality is that they realised the Radiance of Mind or pristine Consciousness but reified it as an ultimate Self. So they just get stuck at the I AM/One Mind stage with no pointers on how to deepen one's insights.

On the other hand, it is also a pervasive problem with many that a lot of people is that they realise only certain aspects of no-self with no realization of radiance at all.

I just shared the following with someone:

"[24/12/23, 9:29:05 PM] Yin Ling: I just finish reading a book by a practitioner using the “ten fetters” method by Kevin something..

everyone in that system assume they are arahants 😅 but all the writings seems to be pointing to the initial insight of no self only.

[24/12/23, 9:29:41 PM] Soh Wei Yu: yeah just initial anatta

[24/12/23, 9:29:45 PM] Soh Wei Yu: he's like dharma dan like that lol

[24/12/23, 9:29:53 PM] Soh Wei Yu: put initial anatta as arahant

[24/12/23, 9:29:54 PM] Yin Ling: It is mad the level of fabrications that can happen amongst modern ppl who wants to be better than the Buddha omg read until abit painful.

[24/12/23, 9:30:15 PM] Soh Wei Yu: the difference is dharma dan's 1st and 2nd path are cessation fruitions, for kevin, 1st and 2nd path are impersonality/non doership only, 3rd path is nondual (like daniel), 4th is anatta

[24/12/23, 9:30:29 PM] John Tan: Kelvin the author of which book?

[24/12/23, 9:30:39 PM] Soh Wei Yu: kevin shanilec

[24/12/23, 9:30:50 PM] Soh Wei Yu:

‎[24/12/23, 9:31:44 PM] Yin Ling: ‎image omitted

[24/12/23, 9:32:05 PM] Yin Ling: I was reading this. She’s a retired physician that’s why I was interested hahaha

[24/12/23, 9:34:22 PM] John Tan: Oh I saw some of her posts in fb b4

[24/12/23, 9:35:04 PM] Yin Ling: I think their teaching also veer towards only the negative of “no self” until the practitioner becomes so scared to “come out to engage”.. due to not seeing the radiance. I read until abit scared lol

[24/12/23, 9:35:16 PM] Yin Ling: Then meditate for awhile. It’s not like that 😅"


[24/10/23, 7:11:49 PM] John Tan: That is the ontological substance. Second idea of substance is entity not dependent on anything else.

[24/10/23, 7:13:38 PM] John Tan: Essence on the other hand means the essential characteristic that made thing as itself. Means without that essential characteristic, "thing" ceases to be that "thing".

[24/10/23, 7:14:45 PM] John Tan: Like "heat" is the essential characteristic of "fire". Wetness make water "water".

[24/10/23, 7:17:35 PM] Yin Ling: I see

[24/10/23, 7:18:07 PM] John Tan: It is this essential characteristic that made the "essence" of a given phenomenon. When we talk about "essential causality", we r referring to "thing" possessing this characteristic to "cause" an effect.

[24/10/23, 7:18:38 PM] Yin Ling: Sort of get it

[24/10/23, 7:19:55 PM] John Tan: Like knife has an essential characteristic of cutting. We actually sort of think like

[24/10/23, 7:20:03 PM] Yin Ling: Like when I feel cold wind, I feel a sensation coming on by itself yet it is through and through, that is substance or essence ?

[24/10/23, 7:20:43 PM] John Tan: Or the eyes Nagarjuna would say why doesn't the knife cut itself, y doesn't the eyes see itself.

[24/10/23, 7:20:56 PM] Yin Ling: Ok

[24/10/23, 7:22:11 PM] John Tan: svabhava can refer to these few meanings.

[24/10/23, 7:22:36 PM] Yin Ling: Yeah it’s a deep deep process of deconstruction haha

[24/10/23, 7:22:43 PM] John Tan: Yeah

[24/10/23, 7:24:07 PM] Yin Ling: Looking back, “Anatta “ seems so far away

[24/10/23, 7:24:29 PM] Yin Ling: Like one toe dip in water

[24/10/23, 7:24:30 PM] John Tan: Yeah...that is simplified version of de-construction

[24/10/23, 7:24:31 PM] John Tan: Lol

[24/10/23, 7:24:39 PM] Yin Ling: The front path .. becomes so long 🤣

[24/10/23, 7:24:45 PM] John Tan: Lol

[24/10/23, 8:23:15 PM] John Tan: But atr anatta is not just de-construction, it authenticate radiance directly and make us realized that appearances are radiance. This part is not pointed out in mmk.

[24/10/23, 8:26:33 PM] Yin Ling: Ya

[24/10/23, 8:32:56 PM] Yin Ling: Because the IAm is introduce at the start

[24/10/23, 8:35:28 PM] John Tan: Yes and for a practitioner that authenticate that from start, de-construction is not just dry analysis. However each level of de-construction opens up mind radiance that can be tasted.

[24/10/23, 8:36:48 PM] Yin Ling: yup


Such people will only skew towards the non doership aspect of no self and miss out the pellucid nondual luminosity, radiance of Mind and Mind as vivid appearances.

Simply The Seen


Simply The Seen

Simply The Seen



Remove Preview


Labels: | edit post
0 Responses