Hi AtR Group Members,

 Nafis shared  

"This person wrote a decent summary on their blog regarding Dogen's teachings:  

https://buddhism-thewayofemptiness.blog.nomagic.uk/dogen-uji-existence-time/  

https://buddhism-thewayofemptiness.blog.nomagic.uk/genjokoan-buddhist-teachings-from-three-sources-is-is-not-is/ 

"

Nice excerpts shared by Nafis.

John Tan: "This is very good and has a flavour of what I meant 👍"

John Tan: “Sentient beings in ignorance tend to seek truly existent entities to attribute causal efficacy to them. In their confusion, they wrongly conclude that since conceptual constructs do not exist inherently, they lack causal efficacy and significance. This view is inverted and in fact contradicts our daily experiences of how things function.The mind that grasps at substantiality fails to comprehend how phenomena, being empty of inherent existence, can still function and possess causal efficacy. This failure arises because the "framework of essentiality" obstructs the "logic" that only phenomena empty of inherent existence can arise dependently and thus have causal efficacy.”

Book: Candrakīrti's Introduction to the Middle Way: A Guide (OXFORD GUIDES TO PHILOSOPHY SERIES) by Jan Westerhoff (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/Candrak%C4%ABrtis-Introduction-Middle-Way-PHILOSOPHY/dp/0197612334

Excerpt:

Emptiness does not mean nonexistence

6:107 The opponent is concerned that if, according to Candrakīrti, everything is empty, and nothing ever really arises on the basis of any substantially real causal relation, even at the level of conventional reality, then all things turn out to be nonexistent even conventionally, like a round square, or a barren woman’s son. But since it is absurd to say that everything is nonexistent in this way, we have to conclude that some things are not empty.

6:108 However, even if all things are empty, this does not imply that we cannot differentiate between empty existent and empty nonexistent things. Consider the case of optical illusions. The visual phenomena that sufferers from optical illusions perceive (floating hairs, duplicate objects, mirages in the desert, etc.) are all equally illusory. But this does not mean that each is associated with every ophthalmological condition. The sufferer from floaters sees falling hairs, but no duplicate moons, and no sons of barren women either. In the same way, even though all things are empty, the roles they play relative to our perceptual faculties are not simply interchangeable: sons and squares do appear to them, but sons of barren women and square circles do not.

While there is a reason why specific things, but not others appear to those afflicted by optical illusions, and why specific things, but not others appear to ordinary beings afflicted by ignorance, this is not something the Mādhyamika is particularly interested in. Their aim is to get beyond these erroneous misconceptions, and to do so it is not necessary to understand all the specificities involved in the respective causes bringing them about. Moreover, when looking for the reason why specific things appear to the optically deluded, or to beings deluded by ignorance, we need to ask these beings, to which these appearances do indeed appear, and not the clear-sighted, or highly realized practitioners, to which they no longer appear. The source of the structure of conventional reality is to be found at the level of conventional reality, not at the level of ultimate reality.

6:109 In fact it is not even necessary to ask one suffering from vitreous floaters why he sees hairs, and no sons of barren women. Ubiquitous illusions familiar to anybody (dreams, mirages, reflections, and so forth) produce quite specific perceptions, but not others, even though the perceptions are all unreal. The hot sand in the desert produces the image of a shimmering lake, but no image of the son of a barren woman, even though lake and son are equally nonexistent. If all nonexistent objects are on a par, as the opponent suggests, then the son of a barren woman should actually be perceptible (as some nonexistent objects are), or all nonexistent objects should be equally imperceptible (as the son of a barren woman is).

6:110 There is no conflict between things being on the one hand insubstantial, illusory, and lacking existence ‘from their own side’ and, on the other hand, appearing vividly to our perceptions. While there are some things of this kind that do not even appear to perception (like sons of barren women, or triangular rectangles), not all are like this, and for this reason the opponent’s claim in 6:107, that because everything is empty and causally unproduced by any substantial causal relation, everything must fail to appear, is not true.

6:111 A barren woman’s son is obviously ultimately unreal, but he is also unreal at the level of conventional reality, since he does not appear in anyone’s perception. He is a mere description, and an inconsistent one at that. The same holds for hairs perceived by sufferers from floaters (they lack ultimate and conventional reality), the latter not because they fail to appear perceptually (they do) but because they only appear to a very restricted number of people afflicted by an ophthalmological condition. Their existence is not generally acknowledged by the world, unlike tables and chairs, for example, which lack ultimate, but possess conventional existence.

It is important to note that Candrakīrti here aligns existence by intrinsic nature with the ontological status of sons of barren women: both fail to exist ultimately and conventionally. This is usually regarded as a clear statement of the Prāsaṅgika interpretation of Madhyamaka, according to which Madhyamaka does not support an appearance/reality distinction in relation to entities with intrinsic natures.105 It is not the case that such entities exist conventionally, and fail to exist ultimately, rather they are wholly nonexistent at both the conventional and at the ultimate level.

6:112 Candrakīrti presents scriptural support for the claim that all things are pacified from the outset, intrinsically extinguished, and un-arisen. He interprets this as saying that there was never any time when things existed with intrinsic nature or were produced by a substantially real causal relation (e.g., prior to the realization of emptiness), nor is there any perspective from which they exist or are produced in this way (e.g., the perspective of the ordinary unenlightened being, as compared to that of the enlightened being). Intrinsic natures are neither something that first exists, and is then removed as the practitioner advances temporally from a time when he has no direct understanding of emptiness to a time when he does, nor is it removed when the practitioner advances in terms of levels of understanding from seeing the world in terms of conventional truth to seeing the world in terms of ultimate truth. All things are at all times and from all points of view devoid of intrinsic nature and therefore empty.

6:113 The difference between a barren woman’s son (which is ultimately and conventionally nonexistent) and a pot (which is ultimately nonexistent, though conventionally existent) is that the latter is accepted to exist by common consensus, and thereby forms part of ordinary interactions and exchanges between people. While there is not anything in the pot that exists with intrinsic nature, and therefore needs to be taken seriously at the level of fundamental ontology, pots are embedded in the network of conventions in a way that mere thought-constructions like sons of barren women are not, and it is this embedding that endows them with conventional reality.

In his autocommentary Candrakīrti points out that this picture does not change substantially when we consider the pot’s constituents, that is, the different bits of matter that constitute it. The Madhyamaka position is not that the pot, being only conventionally real, is a conceptual construction superimposed on these constituents, which are ultimately real (as the Ābhidharmikas argue), but that the same analysis is to be applied at the level of the constituents (and the constituents of the constituents—all the way down):106 these too exist only nominally, playing a specific role in our network of conventions, but are not grounded in any substantially real entities.

Benefits of realizing dependent origination

6:114 However, given that Candrakīrti denies substantial causal production at both the ultimate and the conventional level, how do we account for ordinary instances of causation, such as seeds producing sprouts? He responds that even though all the four kinds of causal production have been previously refuted, this does not rule out cause and effect arising in dependence. An important feature of this notion of dependent origination is the mutual dependence exhibited by the entities related by it. The scriptural sources Candrakīrti presents in his autocommentary illustrate this by reference to the mutual dependence of long and short, act and agent, and so on. The underlying view of origination is therefore quite different from the conceptions of causation Candrakīrti refutes, where causal powers are always taken to reside in specific objects, forming part of their intrinsic nature. But if any (or indeed all) objects are mutually dependent in this way, their causal powers cannot be intrinsic, because intrinsic properties cannot themselves depend on other properties. The notion of dependent origination thereby charts a middle course between a total absence of causal regularities in the world on the one hand, and the foundation of causal powers in the intrinsic natures of the causal relata on the other. Things arise in a structured manner at the level of conventional reality, but there is no ontologically weighty basis, either conventionally or ultimately, providing the ultimately real foundation of this arising.

6:115 Given dependent origination, all alternative theories Candrakīrti has so far examined turn out to be deficient, since they either assume the existence of some entity outside of the network of dependent origination (causal agents that have their causal nature in and of themselves in the case of the first three kinds of causal production) or clash with the observation that things arise in an ordered manner (in the case of the fourth kind, the absence of causal relations). Only the theory of dependent origination, Candrakīrti argues, is able to provide insight into the fact that no entity is able to ‘stand on its own’ while at the same time accounting for the fact that the way entities support each other and bring each other into existence is structured, not chaotic. In the same manner, dependent origination undermines a whole set of metaphysical views that either try to ground the world in some ultimate ontology or deny the presence of regularity, structure, or order anywhere in the world. Some examples Candrakīrti mentions include the view that some entities last forever, or that all objects, by their intrinsic nature, are only of a momentary nature, the view that some entities exist substantially, or that the view that everything fails to exist even at the level of conventional reality.

6:116 Once the idea of intrinsic natures has been refuted, none of these metaphysical views which presuppose such natures can be maintained, as there can be no fire without fuel. Once we realize that no entity exists ‘from its own side’ but that all things can only exist in a network of dependence relations involving mental entities, our own interests and concerns, those of others, and material entities,107 the desire to locate the ‘core’ of individual objects, their intrinsic nature, their haecceity, their svabhāva dissipates. As such, theories that ‘things as they are in themselves’ will continue to exist indefinitely, or will at some point be irretrievably destroyed, are objectively divided into mental and physical things, are intrinsically good or bad, and so on, will lose their explanatory appeal. Like a medicine applied to those suffering from floaters makes the appearance of hairs go away, without affecting in any way the nature of the imaginary hairs, so the view of dependent origination leads to the disappearance of metaphysical views committed to entities that are what they are, independent of their being perceived, or being conceptualized, or indeed independent of other things, without in any way changing the way things exist.

6:117 What keeps beings trapped in cyclic existence are conceptual constructions, and liberation is achieved through the elimination of these constructions. The term ‘conceptual construction’ does not refer to just any kind of reason-based mental activity, but specifically to the mental construction of substantially real entities with intrinsic natures. Since such entities do not exist, there are only their representational simulacra in the mind, and the attachment to them as if they were more than mind-made fictions causes the continuity of saṃsāra.108 These conceptual constructions are eliminated through the kind of analysis Candrakīrti has described so far, which shows the nonexistence of the types of substantial entities that form the object of metaphysical theories previously discussed.

6:118 It is therefore important to realize that even though Candrakīrti’s “Introduction to the Middle Way” and Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakārikā look like philosophical texts, they are not, at least as long as we assume that the principal aim of a philosophical text is to refute rival positions and to establish one’s own position. Madhyamaka texts, Candrakīrti argues, are not contributions to philosophical debates, but tools to be applied that help their students overcome conceptual constructions keeping them trapped in cyclic existence. They do so by means of reasoning, and thereby also refute other, contradictory theories. But this is a side effect of achieving a far more important cause than argumentative success, the liberation from existential suffering, as the production of ashes is a side effect of boiling water. Scoring dialectical points is not the primary goal of the Mādhyamika’s presentation of his philosophical position. This underlines the claim that Candrakīrti’s previous discussion of the Sāṃkhya, Yogācāra, Jain, and Cārvāka positions is not, or at least not in the first instance, meant to be a contribution to ancient Indian philosophical debates, but is taken up in order to demonstrate how to eliminate conceptual constructions that manifest in the form of specific philosophical views.

6:119 Not only is the successful defense of one’s own position in philosophical debates not the main purpose of Madhyamaka analysis, it would also be quite counterproductive to conceive of it in this way. Defense of one’s own position in a dialectical exchange can provide another source of attachment, attachment to one’s own view, and with it the pride of having defeated the opponent, the fear of being defeated in future encounters, and the reinforcement of the belief in a substantial self that holds the view we regard as our own. Yet these are manifestations and sources of the very form of existential suffering the Madhyamaka analysis is setting out to overcome, so turning the reasoned exposition of the Middle Way into further fuel for this suffering precisely undermines the purpose it is supposed to serve. This point constitutes one aspect of the claim that Mādhyamikas propound no views, made in some of the sources Candrakīrti quotes in his autocommentary. Another aspect is the reluctance to treat the Madhyamaka view of universal emptiness as something that is itself ultimately true.109 The two aspects are, of course, connected: if the Madhyamaka position is not itself ultimately true, attachment to it arising from the desire to align one’s own position with the ultimate truth about reality loses its foundation.

—-

The key difficulty Candrakīrti sees with non-Buddhist accounts of the self is that they conceive of it as causally unproduced. As for the Buddhists every object is part of the network of dependent origination,111 describing the self as unproduced groups it together with entities like sons of barren women—things that are fully nonexistent.112 Yet nonexistent things cannot carry out any function, and so, in particular, the self assumed by the non-Buddhist cannot act as the basis of our ordinary sense of self. Arguing that there are two types of self, one empirical one, that is reborn and suffers, and forms the basis of our ordinary sense of self, and one transcendent one, that is unborn, permanent, and beyond suffering,113 is unlikely to resolve this problem, for the two selves would have to be either distinct (in which case there is no unitary self), or identical (in which case the self has contradictory properties).

Moreover, the philosophical sense of self which regards it as substantially real, as transcendent, permanent, without qualities or activities and so forth, plays no role in our conventional cognitive, linguistic, or social practices involving selves. As such, besides any worries that the non-Buddhist notion of a self might not exist at the ultimate level, it is hard to see how, given its radical separation from any conventional practices, it could even be regarded as conventionally real.

6:123 Yet if the self is causally unproduced, and therefore nonexistent like a round square, it also cannot have any properties, since properties are had only by existent objects.114 In particular, a nonexistent self cannot have properties like the five qualities ascribed to it in the Sāṁkhya system, or those ascribed to it in other, non-Buddhist philosophical theories.

6:124 A self postulated by schools like Sāṁkhya would have to be wholly distinct from the psycho-physical aggregates, since we know these to be impermanent, as all parts of our body and mind are subject to constant and rapid change, while the opponent’s self is taken to be permanent. However, since we are not in any perceptual or cognitive contact with such a self that wholly transcends features of the psycho-physical aggregates, such as being connected with a body, perceiving, cogitating, and so on, it is not reasonable to believe that there is this kind of a self. The point is not that entities we cannot perceptually or cognitively apprehend cannot exist, but that entities of this type, even if they existed, would be unfit to play the role of a self.

Moreover, if our sense of self was in fact based on a transcendent, permanent entity separate from perception, thought, etc., as postulated by philosophical theorizing, this would fail to explain how the philosophically untrained could have a sense of self. Beings without training in Sāṁkhya or related philosophical systems evidently have a sense of self, a sense of self which cannot be based on the results of philosophical analysis concluding that there is some self-like entity radically distinct from any events we usually consider to constitute our cognitive lives.

6:125 Furthermore, animals and pre-linguistic children, as well as beings born in the other realms included in Buddhist cosmology, arguably have a sense of self, though they have not acquired it through reflection on the existence of a permanent, transcendent entity separate from the psycho-physical aggregates. As such, it is difficult to see how such a philosophical concept of self could provide the basis of the sense of self of beings of this kind.115

 John Tan wrote years ago:

Anatta is just the beginning of a profound refinement of one's view into freedom from extremes (freedom from all elaborations), dependent origination and emptiness.

We will continue to balance our extreme views via the middle path of dependent arising and emptiness until we can clearly "see" that DO and emptiness of the conventional does not contradict the ultimate, i.e, the natural state of spontaneous presence, primordially pure and naturally perfection.

Many cannot clearly understand the ultimate free from conceptual elaborations lack sameness or difference, is neither parts nor whole, neither one nor many is conventionally expressed as dependent origination and emptiness.  That is y as long as u see contradiction, u r not understanding the ultimate correctly.

They clung to the ultimate, either turning to monistic substratum or nihilistic view that there is nothing at all or there is no entity or conceptual notions, then there cannot be action, activities, no cause and effect..all sort of extreme views.

That is y it is crucial to see emptiness as empty of self-nature/inherent existence rather that freedom from "conceptualities".

Self-view does not mean there is no individual stream of consciousness, it means (imo) that the conceptual mind always perceive ghost images from abstraction and reification, mistakening them as real and primary.  Then the mind cannot understand lack of these entities, how is action originated and how happenings occur because they r trapped in the framework of duality and inherency.

Someone asked me, did Buddha practice devotion?

I said

Yes but not the hindu type.

Here are a bunch of quotes for your reference, hope it helps:

Acarya Malcolm Smith: “Depend on what Tibetan word. The Tibeten word most commonly translated as devotion is mos gus, or gus pa. 

Mos gus is combined term that does not have a real Sanskrit term underneath it. It combined from mos pa and gus pa. 

Mos pa only translates adhimokṣa and its various forms. It means confidence or interest. Gus pa translate two terms primarily, ādara and satkṛtya, both of which mean to pay respect.

Thus the terms we usually see translated as "devotion" really mean, "confident interest" and "respect". 

Thus, when we see the term "devotion" in a Tibetan Buddhist book, we should understand that it really has nothing to do with the English history of the word, which really means "formal vow." Devotion means "love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a person, activity, or cause:" Of these three, it is only the third definition, enthusiasm, which is really indicated by the term in its Buddhist sense. This does not bar us from having love for or loyalty to our gurus, teachers, etc. But just to be clear, we should expect love from our gurus, since the texts on the qualities of the guru all describe the guru as loving, and they in return should expect our interest and respect.”

Kyle Dixon (krodha) wrote in dharmawheel: 

“The question is whether "devotion" and "faith" in this context mean what you think they mean. You are projecting Christian-like characteristics onto these descriptions when I personally think "faith" and "devotion" simply mean genuine trust, interest, commitment, etc.

Essentially that if the buddhadharma and the teaching transmitted (along with the relationship with the teacher) are to have any actual potential one must be serious and have integrity. You won't have success unless you are devoted and have faith in the teacher and the teachings. 

But this doesn't mean some sort of bhākti like blessing-devotion and religious faith, like faith in a higher power etc., are involved.”

Malcolm: “”Hindu guru devotion is different that guru devotion in Buddhadharma. It's best not to confuse the two.”

“

For example, the Ratnānanta Sūtra says of the virtuous mentor:

One must have strong devotion for the virtuous mentor. They are never satisfied in seeking the Dharma. They have much hearing, and are diligent. They pure investigation into the treatises. They train in discernment. They train in discerning philosophical positions. They are expert in rites. One should be devoted to the guru. One must never deny the guru. One must never violate the word of the guru.”

“The Suvikrāntacinta-devaputra-paripṛcchā states:

Devaputra, if a bodhisattva is endowed with four Dharmas they will be a master for all. What are these four? Absence of pride, devotion to the guru, conscientiousness, and strong aspiration.”

“Chapter 13 of the Saddharmapundarika states:

The wise generate devotion to the guru.”

Malcolm: “

Dear Kathy:

You need a teacher. There are many qualified Nyingma masters who will teach qualified students the highest teaching of the Buddha, the complete path of Dzogchen, including Thogal. 

I suggest you make a connection with such a teacher. Qualified teachers like Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, Chokyi Nyima, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Pachog Rinpoche, Tulku Sangngag, HH Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche, Tulku Dakpa, and so on can be easily met and studied with. If you want to really practice Dzogchen, true devotion to a qualified guru is a necessary precondition. Following their instructions carefully is the next step. If you do this, you will undoubtedly receive such teachings. 

If you like Bonpo teachings, you can study with a number of Bonpo Lamas as well. They also teach a complete path of Dzogchen, and guru devotion is no less important in their school. 

M”

Malcolm: “Wrong view here specifically refers to not accepting dependent origination and karma with its results. 

There is also wrong devotion. What is that? Devotion which lacks wisdom is wrong devotion. Wisdom does not arise from outside oneself. 

As Nāgārjuna says:

Only those with the essentials of emptiness and compassion

accomplish awakening.

View is the basis of the path. WIthout a correct view, it is impossible for one's path to be correct.”

Malcolm: “”

The word Rongzom uses is "faith," dad pa or śraddhā. But we have to point out what śraddhā actually means. According to Vasubandhu, faith is the mental factor that brings clarity to the mind. So, "faith" is not belief, per se. In fact, it is one of the five faculties, which are part of the thirty-seven adjuncts to awakening. 

When we look at what the word means in Tibetan, the first definition is confidence (yid ches pa) (the second definition is joy (dga' ba) or attachment(chags pa)). Thus, the passage would be more accurately translated, "People with confidence in the Great Perfection approach realize and penetrate it through being shown this alone." Norbu Rinpoche tends to translate this term as "interest," thus the passage could also be rendered, "People interested in the Great Perfection approach realize and penetrate it through being shown this alone."

Dominic (a nice guy, very smart) also translated "tshul" as "approach," where as I would prefer here to say "principle", thus "People interested/confident in the principles of the Great Perfection realize and penetrate it through being shown this alone."

So yes, the phrase "belief is useless" is absolutely compatible with the above.”

Malcolm: “The context of the remark was one in which ChNN was contrasting "belief" against "direct experience." Hence his statement, "You can believe in anything." Beliefs are just concepts. They shift and change. One day you believe doing this practice is the best, the next day, you believe another is better. One day you believe America is a great place, the next day, you believe it sucks. 

But in Dzogchen, beliefs are useless. The only thing that counts is personal experience born out of direct perception.”

Malcolm: “I also want to point out that like the rest of Vajrayāna, Dzogchenpractice, path and realization completely depends on the Guru. Guru Yoga is absolutely central to Dzogchen. Without guru yoga and devotion to a realized master, no progress at all is possible in Dzogchen, none whatsoever.”

However he also said: “I am sure he has some idea since he has attended webcasts. He probably also knows that in the community, Norbu Rinpoche never stresses devotion as the key point of guru yoga, rather he stresses knowledge as the key point of guru yoga.”

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/aJjzmseiwoHom1jE/?

Update, new post:

Soh:

I just coincidentally read a quote by Acarya Malcolm days ago which I agree:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=606932

“There is no source, no pure love, or anything like it. The highest manifestation of consciousness is a person who has realized how things are 100%, in other words, a buddha. 

Now, to the extent that Buddhas are motivated by love, the wish that sentient beings be happy, we can say they are embodiments of love. But there is nothing at all mysterious about that, just as there is nothing mysterious about a mother’s love for an only child.”

“If things arose out of dharmakāya, we would all be awakened from the beginning. 

We say, in a general way, that "everything arises out of emptiness" as a metaphor for not being able to find a ultimate source for anything. As Nāgārjuna puts it, "empty things arise from things that are empty."”

If anything, love is simply part of the potentialities:

" - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../madhyamaka...

those who assert they are not nominal but truly existent has fallen into extreme views

as for the shentong views of intrinsic qualities, it can lend itself to substantialist views easily

instead one should see this way:

9/3/2012 11:38 PM: John: Namdrol pointed out diff between shentong and dzogchen... The potentiality and full form...cut and paste that as that is important.

9/3/2012 11:39 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Ok

9/3/2012 11:40 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Saved it in my email. Malcolm Smith

The problem with shentong, which CHNN has addressed many times, is that in Dzogchen the result exists as a potentiality of the basis; but in Shenton it is fully formed at all times. For this reason, in several retreats ChNN has declared that shentong is incompatible with Dzogchen.

...

9/4/2012 1:54 AM: John: His current practice of seeing awareness as a background

9/4/2012 1:54 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I see

9/4/2012 1:54 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I guess he won't see it as background anymore then

9/4/2012 1:54 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Doesn't seem compatible

9/4/2012 1:55 AM: John: So no awareness, whatever arises is

9/4/2012 1:55 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

9/4/2012 1:56 AM: John: U understand what namdrol mean?

9/4/2012 1:56 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Shentong? One is buddha nature is empty of any inherent attributes, manifesting according to conditions

9/4/2012 1:57 AM: Soh Wei Yu: The other is buddha nature is already replete with all the qualities of buddhahood and just needs to discove

9/4/2012 1:57 AM: John: No good...u r filling words not knowing the meaning

9/4/2012 1:58 AM: John: And what u said is completely out

9/4/2012 1:59 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I think its like what I wrote before

9/4/2012 1:59 AM: Soh Wei Yu: In the past I had the idea that there is an inherently existing Self waiting to be discovered

9/4/2012 2:00 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Now I see that everything is being "created" or actualized by conditions, nothing inherent

9/4/2012 2:00 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Including buddha-nature

9/4/2012 2:00 AM: John: How this relates to what namdrol said

9/4/2012 2:01 AM: John: Tell me line by line what he meant...u like to gross around

9/4/2012 2:09 AM: John: tell Christ, just joking...no offence.

9/4/2012 2:09 AM: John: Lol

9/4/2012 2:10 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Haha ok

9/4/2012 2:14 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm Smith

The problem with shentong, which CHNN has addressed many times, is that in Dzogchen the result exists as a potentiality of the basis; but in Shenton it is fully formed at all times. For this reason, in several retreats ChNN has declared that shentong is incompatible with Dzogchen.

59 minutes ago Like

9/4/2012 2:19 AM: Soh Wei Yu: in Dzogchen the result exists as a potentiality of the basis: means the result (buddha's qualities) arises as one of the possible appearance of luminous emptiness. But it is nothing inherently existing anywhere, merely manifest when conditions are there. It is in the form of actualizing buddha nature through conditions. "in Shenton it is fully formed at all times." The buddha qualities are inherently existing in ourselves, so there is no need for any conditions and it is only a matter of discovering something inherent. This teaching does not factor conditionality in terms of result and may have a danger of inherent view

9/4/2012 2:19 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Not sure if I'm right

9/4/2012 2:20 AM: John: Sort of

9/4/2012 2:20 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Arising as potentiality also means without conditions nothing manifest, nothing inherent

9/4/2012 2:20 AM: John: Yes

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”

——

Soh Wei Yu

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../this-heart...

This Heart (Suchness) Free from Taints

Geovani GeoJohn Tan

How incredible; how amazing; that emptiness is intertwined with compassion.

18 Comments

André A. Pais

Intertwined may not be the best term. It sounds like 2 things brought together.

Reply

1d

Geovani Geo

Which term would you use?

Reply

1d

André A. Pais

No term is perfect, but perhaps inseparable, one with, of one taste, etc. Intertwined is a very visual thing, like 2 strings spinning around each other. Imo. I'm not native of the English language.

Reply

1d

Edited

Geovani Geo

Neither am I.

Reply

1d

John Tan

Geovani Geo y incredible and amazing?

Reply

1d

Geovani Geo

John Tan, well.... I did not expect you to ask that... so lets say its a special koan just for you

Reply

1d

John Tan

Geovani Geo lol. Usually ppl only say it is "incredible" and "amazing" due to "inseparability" or "interwined" because it was once thought to be distinct and separated.

The buddhist term used is "non-arisen" in the sense that "separation" never existed in the first place; therefore compassion is not the result of realizing emptiness, not a cause-effect relationship.

Reply

1d

Edited

Geovani Geo

Maybe we mean the same although what you wrote sounds a bit too 'mental'. And whatever I could say will also sound 'mental', but...

Emptiness has a heart - amazing!

Reply

1d

John Tan

Geovani Geo Emptiness is for us to realize this heart (suchness) free from taints (essence, references) other than that, it has no purpose. It is not exactly a mental enterprise, quite contrary, it is the cessation of such proliferated activities.

The direct and simultaneity pointing to one's "heart" is another approach. The issue is when practitioners authenticate suchness pre-maturely with such approach without seeing through emptiness of "named phenomena", they ended up fooling and losing themselves in wonderland.

Reply

1d

Edited

Continued in comments below

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

This Heart (Suchness) Free from Taints

This Heart (Suchness) Free from Taints

• Reply
• Remove Preview

• 12h

  12 hours ago
• 
  

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

The Transient Universe has a Heart

The Transient Universe has a Heart

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Dzogchen: Beyond Cause and Effect

Dzogchen: Beyond Cause and Effect

• Reply
• Remove Preview

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Joel Agee: Appearances are Self-Illuminating

Joel Agee: Appearances are Self-Illuminating

• Reply
• Remove Preview

• 12h

  12 hours ago
• 
  

• Reply

......

Mr. AP 

Post stage 5, a universal mind is seen through as false reification. Meaning, we reject such advaita notions of a monist universal mind/consciousness as a true self, nor do we accept a theistic notion of an external creator like the dualists or monotheists. We have elaborated a lot on this before so unless you wish for url references which I can provide (such as https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/the-tendency-to-extrapolate-universal.html or https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/08/no-universal-mind.html )

Nonetheless if you wish to call the mind (personal) or potentiality god, that is ok (although I am not often inclined to use this term unless it suits a specific audience), although it is an empty convention as per what Acarya Malcolm also wrote:

“And this so-called "god" aka basis [gzhi] is just a nonexistent mere appearance, that is, our primordial potentiality also has no real existence, which is stated over and over again in countless Dzogchen tantras.

For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.

For those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.

-- Nāgārjuna.

...

Malcolm: This is completely inconsistent with the view of Dzogchen. The view of Dzogchen is that there is no basis or foundation at all. Also the doctrine of the two truths is absent in Dzogchen. Further, the view of Dzogchen is that everything, including buddhahood is completely equivalent to an illusion and therefore, uniform.

- https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=649959#p649959 “

——

The Heap of Jewels Tantra states:

From the nonexistent empty source of phenomena the primordial Adibuddha has always turned the wheel of Dharma as the intrinsic sound of empty dharmata through the special pristine consciousness of vidya without a beginning, middle, or an end.

——

Also, John Tan and I like this, very clear:

Malcolm’s translation of Longchenpa:

don de nges par rtogs 'dod na

dpe ni nam mkha' lta bur btag

don ni chos nyid skye ba med

rtags ni sems nyid 'gag pa med

If one wishes to ascertain the meaning of that,

the example is to examine "space-like."

The meaning is nonarising dharmatā. 

The proof is the unceasing mind-essence.

In the commentary on this last line, the Chos dbying mdzod is cited:

"The proof is arising as anything at all from the potential (rtsal).

At the time of arising, there is no place of arising and no agent of arising.

If one examines the mere name, 'arising,' it is like space,

including everything in a great, impartial uniformity.

——

The Dalai Lama also wrote before:

“I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.”

——

Mr. AP 

Devotion to a deity is ok like I wrote about Tara. 

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/02/tara-and-manifestation.html

And there are many levels of deity practice, from kriya to maha and anu and ati yoga. The perspective and practice gets subtler and more profound the higher up you go.

Mr. AP
Author

Top contributor
Soh Wei Yu
 You call devotion "okay" and I am saying it's crucial (for a
well-balanced realization). I'm not trying to change your mind about
this either, since I know you have your own path. But I still consider
it an oversight.

3h
3 hours ago


Reply





Soh Wei Yu
Admin

Group expert

Mr. AP  depends on person. I would not say it is an absolute necessity.
Acarya Malcolm and ChNN does not present Dzogchen as a devotional path either, it is primarily based on rigpa.
Shakyamuni Buddha also attained full enlightenment without focusing on devotional practices.

3h
3 hours ago


Reply





Soh Wei Yu
Admin

Group expert

I do Tara practice everyday. I have quite some devotion to Tara if you read my story above.
But, I do not put this as a key practice for everyone. It depends on person.
I shared this with my admins days ago:
I see. I think doing some deity practice or simple ones like the 21 praises to tara may help ward off negative influences.
I
 always have the feeling that buddhas and bodhisattvas are helping me
and had many miraculous encounters (waking state, not psychedelic
induced) including pleasant smells of other realms and telepathic
messages
Just
 the other day i had a really hard time finding a cockroach. For hours
it was hiding from me. Then after chanting the 21 praises i told tara
please let the cockroach come out cos the helper is coming to clean up
my place tomorrow, she is definitely going to kill it. As soon as i
finished that thought, the cockroach ran out towards my direction, so i
used wet tissue to take it out and release into the wild. I felt some
compassion for the cockroach when i saw it
Later
 on i re read the 21 praises and was reminded it mentioned that it wards
 of things like pestilence, negative entities and so on

3h
3 hours ago


Reply
Edited

——-

Mr. AP 

“Buddhism is nothing but replacing the 'Self' in Hinduism with Condition Arising. Keep the clarity, the presence, the luminosity and eliminate the ultimate 'Self', the controller, the supreme. Still you must taste, sense, eat, hear and see Pure Awareness in every authentication. And every authentication is Bliss.” - John Tan, 2004

“Understand immense intelligence not as if someone is there to act and direct, rather as total exertion of the universe to make this moment possible; then all appearances are miraculous and marvelous.” - John Tan, 2012

….

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 in March 2006, John Tan said:

    <^john^> the different between hinduism and buddhism is they return to the "I AM" and clings to it.

    <^john^> always "I" as the source.

    <ZeN`n1th> icic

    <^john^> but in buddhism it is being replaced by "emptiness nature", there is a purest, an entity, a stage to be gained or achieved is an illusion.

    <^john^> there is none. No self to be found. No identity to assumed. Nothing attained.

    <ZeN`n1th> oic..

    <^john^> this is truly the All.

    <^john^> so for a teaching that is so thorough and complete, why must it resort back to a "True Self"?

    <ZeN`n1th> hmm but i got a question about just now you say impermanent... but mahayana texts also say tathagathagarbha is permanent right?

    <^john^> yes but for other reasons.

    <ZeN`n1th> what kind of reasons

    <ZeN`n1th> wat you mean

    <^john^> first you must know that there is really a very subtle difference between pure subjectivity and emptiness nature.

    <ZeN`n1th> icic

    <^john^> for one that has experienced in full emptiness nature, does he/she need to create an extra "True Self"?

    <ZeN`n1th> so wat difference

    <ZeN`n1th> no

    <^john^> he already knows and experiences and completely understand the arising cause and conditions of why the "true self" was created...

    <^john^> will he still be confused?

    <^john^> he knows exactly what is happening, the reality of the 'self'.

    <ZeN`n1th> icic..

<^john^> i would say it is due to his compassion to let the other sects have a chance to understand the dharma that he said so.

    <^john^> this is what i think.

    <^john^> but there is no necessity to preach something extra.

    <ZeN`n1th> oic

    <^john^> in light of emptiness nature, "True Self" is not necessary.

    <ZeN`n1th> icic

    <^john^> the so called "purest" is already understood, there is no clinging.

    <^john^> there is hearing, no hearer...etc

    <^john^> is already beyond "True Self".

    <ZeN`n1th> oic

    <^john^> yet it exactly knows the stage of "True Self".

    <^john^> if there is no hearing...then something is wrong.

    <^john^>

    <^john^> but there is hearing but no hearer.

    <ZeN`n1th> hahaha

    <ZeN`n1th> oic

    <^john^> put your time into practice and understanding of no-self and emptiness.

    <^john^>

    <ZeN`n1th> ok

— excerpts from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/10/buddha-nature-vs-brahman.html

——-

2006:

(9:06 PM) John:    so i said extend it to the six senses, presence without self

(9:06 PM) John:    sound without hearer

(9:06 PM) John:    scenery without seer

(9:06 PM) AEN:    icic..

(9:06 PM) John:    everything to experience and understand anatta

(9:07 PM) AEN:    icic

(9:07 PM) John:    so that "AMness" presence is experienced in all moment without the need to fall back.

(9:07 PM) AEN:    oic

(9:07 PM) John:    how could there be movement then?

(9:08 PM) John:    it is just arising and ceasing

(9:08 PM) John:    because there is no moment that is not so.

(9:08 PM) AEN:    icic

(9:08 PM) AEN:    ya

(9:08 PM) AEN:    that is not wat?

(9:09 PM) John:    that is not arising and ceasing according to conditions and causes

(9:09 PM) John:    emptiness

(9:09 PM) John:    this must be understood after clarity

(9:09 PM) AEN:    oic

(9:10 PM) John:    but there cannot be any movement, because there is no moment that is not like that

(9:10 PM) AEN:    icic

(9:11 PM) John:    then from this complete clarity, emptiness, no movement, yet everything wonderfully arises and ceases, one experiences the spontaneous arising, the self-so, the unconditioned

(9:11 PM) John:    then there is true insight.

(9:11 PM) AEN:    icic..

(9:11 PM) John:    then karma will make sense

(9:12 PM) John:    because of arising without self

(9:12 PM) John:    arises with causes and condition without self

(9:12 PM) John:    therefore be serious about the deeds

(9:12 PM) AEN:    oic..

(9:13 PM) John:    in "AMness", how does karma step in?

(9:13 PM) John:    he will be confused because "AMness" in its ultimate sense is a controller.

(9:13 PM) AEN:    icic

(9:14 PM) John:    all these are words, it is the true experience that is most crucial.

— excerpt from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/07/this-is-impersonality-aspect-not-anatta.html

2006:

(11:00 PM) John: it rests sort of absorption yet awareness in the moment to moment

(11:01 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:01 PM) John: this is just the beginning of experiencing anatta in the correct sense

(11:01 PM) John: till this experience is stabilized

(11:01 PM) AEN: oic

(11:02 PM) John: then one becomes transparent

(11:02 PM) John: transparency is a very distinct experience

(11:02 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:02 PM) John: it is total vividness, clarity

(11:02 PM) AEN:

<^john^> in fact, ur master would want to experience that pure sensation resulting for differing condition

<^john^> but one should not over do it. :)

(11:03 PM) John: experiencing just the things

(11:03 PM) John: yes...it must come with realisation

(11:03 PM) John: not through will effort

(11:03 PM) AEN: oic

(11:03 PM) John: that is the realisation brings and carries us naturally to this experience

(11:04 PM) John: the realisation and experience of anatta...

(11:04 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:04 PM) John: if we forcefully do it, we will not be able to make it.

(11:04 PM) John: however it is a good practice

(11:05 PM) AEN: oic..

(11:05 PM) John: to reverse the habitual energy of continuous symbolizing

(11:06 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:06 PM) John: once transparency is experienced the first fruition of insight samadhi is experienced.

(11:06 PM) AEN: oic

(11:07 PM) John: this stage is important. :)

(11:07 PM) John: for now, i want to put it more clear to longchen later...

(11:07 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:07 PM) John: the part of stage 5 must be led forward by DO otherwise one will sink back to a source

(11:08 PM) John: very often, this is the case

(11:08 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:09 PM) John: so don't underestimate the simple sentence of "manifestation is the source"

(11:09 PM) AEN: ok

(11:09 PM) John: it is the key to non-duality then lead to DO.

(11:09 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:09 PM) John: it must be DO (dependent origination) that lead one out of the source.

(11:09 PM) AEN: oic..

(11:10 PM) John: then all broken pieces will slowly fall into place

(11:10 PM) John: otherwise we will have all those funny theories like reality is lila

(11:10 PM) John: a game plot of God.

(11:10 PM) AEN: oic

(11:10 PM) John: :)

(11:11 PM) John: that is because causes and conditions is not understood

(11:11 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:11 PM) John: and how awareness becomes causes and conditions

(11:11 PM) AEN: oic

(11:12 PM) John: when luminosity-emptiness is experienced in its total state, then it is dharmakaya

(11:12 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:12 PM) John: by experiencing the luminosity aspect itself is not enough

(11:13 PM) AEN: oic

(11:13 PM) John: it is at best not to tok about transcendental body

(11:13 PM) AEN: lol ok

(11:14 PM) John: and should not confuse ppl unnecessarily

(11:14 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:15 PM) John: actually my intention of toking about stage 5, manifestation is the source is only to longchen initially

(11:16 PM) John: and later JonLS.

(11:16 PM) AEN: oic..

(11:16 PM) John: not to others as it will only confuse them

(11:16 PM) AEN: icic

(11:17 PM) John: do u know that longchen almost gave up once?

(11:17 PM) AEN: haha how come

(11:17 PM) AEN: when

(11:17 PM) John: forgotten. :P

(11:17 PM) AEN: o i remember something like he doesnt want to be liberated.. or something

(11:17 PM) John: yeah

(11:17 PM) AEN: lol

(11:17 PM) AEN: icic

(11:17 PM) AEN: i remember

(11:18 PM) John: cause the time is not right and it will only have reverse effect

—-

2006:

(11:44 AM) John: there is another danger about just having the experience of our luminosity and anatta without placing emphasis on our emptiness nature.

(11:44 AM) John: life becomes just a manifestation of the divine

(11:44 AM) John: and the divine becomes like damn great...

(11:44 AM) AEN: oic..

(11:44 AM) John: actually the divine cannot do anything...lol

(11:44 AM) John: that is why there is never an 'I'. :P

(11:45 AM) AEN: icic..

(11:45 AM) John: and action is karma.

(11:45 AM) AEN: oic

(11:45 AM) John: and unwholesome action results in suffering

(11:45 AM) John: this must be known

(11:45 AM) AEN: icic..

(11:46 AM) John: i think this will gradually evolve and unfold.

——-

Mr. AP the texts i pasted is not pointing to devotion but how to overcome wrong reification of a source

——

Mr. AP devotion is more important for theistic and faith based paths like christianity.

For buddhism, wisdom is primary and key to liberation. Devotion is secondary but can still be an important factor of the path. Faith is an important factor even in the Theravada path and plays an even more crucial role in Mahayana and Vajrayana paths, although to varying degrees and is dependent on the type of practice involved.

But if you are of the highest calibre and can actualize self liberation all the time (and I am not saying this about myself) like Samantabhadra, you can be liberated without even the slightest devotion or virtue involved.

———-

Mr. AP ...At that moment do not be afraid of the yellow light, luminous and clear, sharp and bright, but recognize it as wisdom. Let your mind rest in it, relaxed, in a state of nonaction, and be drawn to it with longing. If you recognize it as the natural radiance of your own mind, even though you do not feel devotion and do not say the inspiration-prayer, all the forms and lights and rays will merge inseparably with you, and you will attain enlightenment...

~ Padmasambhava"

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/08/fearless-samadhi.html

Failing this recognition, down the bardo stages the practitioner is advised to have devotion and pray for rebirth in pure land based on a deity (like Amitabha) if I recall.

——-

Mr. AP 

Devotion is also important when you are practicing surrendering to a higher power. But as I wrote before, such practices are pre anatta practices and only lead to impersonality. That is one of the four aspects of I AM to be refined post the I AM realization.

Post anatta practice takes different form but you can still practice devotion.

“2009: 

(9:50 PM) AEN: icic..

but thats a form of practice rite

like surrendering

(9:50 PM) Thusness: nope

(9:51 PM) Thusness: surrendering requires u to have higher power

(9:51 PM) Thusness: requires to identify a higher subject for u to surrender to

it is an object of practice

(9:52 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:52 PM) Thusness: experience whatever is requires non-dual as pre-requisite

(9:52 PM) Thusness: there is just this empty luminosity

it is already whatever is

anything dual is not it

(9:53 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:53 PM) AEN: i remember david carse was saying surrendering is the way to experience non dual

something like that

(9:53 PM) Thusness: then it is surrendering

(9:53 PM) AEN: but he din say to a higher power or anything i tink

(9:54 PM) Thusness: whatever arises is mind that is why it is direct experience

(9:54 PM) Thusness: it is the highest form of insight

(9:54 PM) Thusness: u don't call surrendering self liberation

don't any mixed up

(9:56 PM) Thusness: when i experience whatever is, i breathe hard, i breathe soft, i rub my hands and legs

(9:56 PM) Thusness: what has that got to do with surrendering

surrender to what?

i eat, i blink my eyes

(9:56 PM) Thusness: what has that got to do with surrendering

don't anyhow say

(9:57 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:57 PM) Thusness: totally different

i walk, i jump

(9:57 PM) Thusness: all experiences are the ground

(9:58 PM) Thusness: all vividly present and spontaneous 'there'

carry water chop wood

(9:58 PM) Thusness: are all just marvellous activities

this is experiencing whatever arises

(9:59 PM) Thusness: nothing to do with surrendering

(9:59 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:59 PM) Thusness: swallowing saliva

(9:59 PM) Thusness: don't talk about spontaneous perfection

(10:00 PM) Thusness: it is because the mind is already non-dual and deep realisation that all is already the ground based on these 2 insights, all experiences becomes that

(10:01 PM) Thusness: because one has already penetrated to the deepest most of insight that is why he can in all actions and movements, he is one with Tao.

(10:01 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:01 PM) Thusness: not because there is something to surrender to, that is to the liberated still a form of illusion.

(10:01 PM) Thusness: but as a skilful means of practice.

(10:03 PM) Thusness: what i told u is to tell u that it is wrong to say that but i don't want u to go tell ppl it is like that

(10:03 PM) Thusness: this is the problem with sentient being

(10:03 PM) Thusness: what said and advice is not followed but what told not to say is spoken

(10:04 PM) Thusness: ended up misleading ppl

like zen

(10:04 PM) Thusness: becomes mouth talk and a path of highest profundity becomes mouth talk

(10:04 PM) AEN: icic..

(10:04 PM) Thusness: don't do that

(10:04 PM) AEN: ok

(10:06 PM) AEN: wat do u tink about this:

(10:07 PM) AEN: "Finally, ultimately, the surrender and the Understanding are the same, even if they are apparently, in perception or experience, separated chronologically. The very concept of 'the total Understanding' necessarily includes surrendering for it begins with the willingness, "Thy will be done", and ends in seeing that one is not."

(10:08 PM) AEN: by david carse

(10:09 PM) Thusness: that is surrendering the self when the self is not thoroughly seen through

it is a way of practice

—-

“Session Start: Saturday, 5 June, 2010

(11:27 PM) Thusness:    certainty of being when you focus on the 4 aspects till the peak and with right understanding, you will also have the same experience as anatta and emptiness. when you felt that the will of the source becomes your will, you become life itself, that is the same experience. actually all is the same experience except that buddhism provides the right understanding. in the experience of "I AM" and the article you posted about the divine, what is the peak of experience phase?

(11:48 PM) AEN:    which article about divine?

Hmm im not sure

(11:49 PM) Thusness:    the article about the source after "I AM"

(11:50 PM) AEN:    is it like the 'sacred will of the world'

i mean the peak of experience

(11:51 PM) Thusness:    after glimpses and realization of the source, when the divine will becomes your will. you must be able to experience every manifestation as the grace of divine will. so must understand this in terms of direct experience and right view. :) i will talk to you when we meet. do you know why there is the sensation of a 'divine will'?

(11:57 PM) AEN:    bcos the sense of self is being let go... and its seen that everything is spontaneously arising from the source

(11:58 PM) Thusness:    and what is this 'source' that seems to be doing the work?

(11:59 PM) AEN:    consciousness, life?

(11:59 PM) Thusness:    isn't "I AM" the consciousness?

(12:00 AM) AEN:    ya but at the beginning it still feels like an individuated sense of presence... but then later its seen as more impersonal, like everything is merely the expression of the source

(12:00 AM) Thusness:    first you must understand the separation is due to dualistic thought, thought separates. do you know what is the 'divine' will? the sensation due to "the sense of self is being let go... and its seen that everything is spontaneously arising from the source" causes the 'divine will'

(12:02 AM) AEN:    oic..

(12:03 AM) Thusness:    what is the divine will?

(12:03 AM) AEN:    it means its happening due to the divine source, nothing is happening due to an individual will/agent/doer

(12:04 AM) Thusness:    when someone hit the bell, anything due to divine will?

(12:05 AM) AEN:    its also divine will bcos there is ultimately no separate person who acts, and no separate person who experience.. everything is manifested by the divine will... including every action that is spontaneously arising

(12:05 AM) Thusness:    when someone hit the bell, anything so divine?

(12:05 AM) AEN:    it’s a manifestation of consciousness

(12:05 AM) Thusness:    no good no good. because of the lack of understanding of your nature. your nature is empty. what is this divine will? it is just DO [dependent origination]. because we think in terms of entity and the 'weight of this dualistic and inherent' tendencies makes us feel separate and inherent. instead of seeing 'DO', we see it as divine will. not knowing empty nature, we mistaken DO for divine will. not knowing no-self nature, we thought we are independent. when no-self is fully experienced and insight of anatta rises, you do not feel source as separated from 'you'

there is merely manifestation, empty luminosity. empty as in DO and therefore does not require 'divine will', yet all manifests due to empty nature, effortless and spontaneous. there is conditions that are required for manifestations. a 'divine will' is not necessary

(12:11 AM) AEN:    icic..

(12:12 AM) Thusness:    when a practitioner realizes no-self and anatta insight arises, he clearly sees conditions. there is no divine will to listen to, but whenever condition is, manifestation is. slowly understand this.  do not see DO as something dead. see it as direct manifestation of your breathe just like you experience everything as the grace of this divine will. feel this grace of life everywhere. letting go of yourself completely and feel this life

(12:18 AM) AEN:    oic.. i am writing my experience to lzls lol

(5:36 PM) Thusness:    Lol.  In Chinese

(6:12 PM) Thusness:    the second experience is more of 天地同根，万物同体. (tian di tong gen, wan wu tong ti: heaven and earth have one root, ten thousand phenomena have the same substance)

(6:12 PM) Thusness:    clouded by '我相' (wo xiang, self image, egoity)

(6:12 PM) AEN:    what do you mean

(6:13 PM) Thusness:    means the second experience is more of a realization on the same source.

much like ?

(6:13 PM) AEN:    oic..

why you said clouded by wo xiang

(6:15 PM) Thusness:    ?  (xiang, image) is simply a construct.  That is from a dualistic point of view, being 'connected' must always be the case.  When you de-contruct personality, you merely discover. a practitioner must also be aware of the 'weight' of these constructs. from an empty point of view, when the tendency is there, it is also not right to say that the interconnected state is always there, always the case.  Obviously 'you' are not 'connected'. when the 'construct' is strong, there is no such experience or when the 'personality' is there, there is no experience of '万物同体' (everything has the same substance/source).  Or 'personality' is that very experience of individuality and therefore cannot have any experience of same 'source'. get it?

(6:19 PM) AEN:    ic.. ya

(6:19 PM) Thusness:    the former does not realize the causes and conditions for any arising. when we say it is always 'there' we are having 'absolute view'.  If we cling to that, then that will prevent clear seeing.  So what is the experience of 'individuality' like?  it is the very experience of what practitioner before the 'connection' feel and understand. that is a state of reality, cannot be said to be determined or not.

(6:21 PM) AEN:    oic.. what you mean by that is a state of reality cannot be said to be determined or not

(6:22 PM) AEN:    hmm i think i get what you mean. so one must deconstruct the individuality otherwise there is no feeling of connection

(6:22 PM) Thusness:    yes. for personality is the very state of individuality. what i want you to understand is not to have a pre-determined state.

(6:26 PM) AEN:    ic... that means according to conditions we experience the connection, but its not always there?

(6:27 PM) Thusness:    yes it is better to understand that way

(6:28 PM) Thusness:    now when you experience certainty of being, you only experience the undeniability of your existence. doubtless, certain and present. but being connected to the source is different. it will also determine your later phase of practice. if you are attached to the Presence, what happened?

(6:31 PM) AEN:    hmm. you mean when you are attached to Presence you will have difficulty seeing the connection?

(6:31 PM) Thusness:    you wanted the state of Presence to transcend to the 3 states (waking, dreaming and sleeping) for you are only interested in that Certainty of Being. whereas when you realized the source, you don't do that. you are surrendering much like the christian. you are devoting. nothing is important besides serving the divine. sustaining the state of presence and devoting to a divine source is different. you sleep when it is time to sleep. whatever thy will is. in Presence, you still think of control, in surrendering, you realized you are being lived. Awareness is being done. it is almost the opposite, but then there is also the integration

(6:35 PM) AEN:    oic.. Actually i think if we let go of control completely the presence is also naturally there, there is no need to try to control presence

(6:36 PM) Thusness:    if you think that, that becomes a hindrance

(6:36 PM) AEN:    oic how come

(6:36 PM) Thusness:    coz you are torn in between. you are serving 2 masters. :P Presence and source. but then there is also the integration where divine will becomes your will. then in jacob ladder meditation, after realization and experience of the grace, it must be found everywhere. therefore you return to phase 1 of the ladder with new understanding. you are directly and intuitively experiencing all manifestations as the expression of life. where you and the divine become one, where phenomena and the divine becomes indistinguishable, as transient, as inner and outer world

(6:40 PM) AEN:    oic..

(6:40 PM) Thusness:    however that is because we are trying to express and understand this in an inherent and dualistic way. we speak in such a way because we are using a dualistic paradigm.  and the experience seems difficult to reconcile and become seamless. so you must arise insight. you realized, what you call Self/self is just a label. this is very difficult to understand. then you are not trapped in 'reconnection' or surrendering. 

You realized there is no-self (Soh: Thusness Stage 4 and 5). whatever experienced is vividly present and aliveness everywhere because what that 'blocks' is no more there through the arising insight. now how clear are you in directly experiencing sensation? in experiencing sound, color, sight, taste? the mind at present is more interested in the behind reality. so anatta transform the experience of individuality through insight, clear seeing. there is a difference in saying what you call Awareness has always been sight, sound, the scent of fragrance… and there is Awareness and there is sound, sight, taste… when you see and mature your insight of anatta, it is realized that wrong view is what that is causing the problem. however after that, you must practice directly

(6:48 PM) AEN:    what do you mean practice directly

(6:48 PM) Thusness:    means you don't think theoretically too much after the arising insight of anatta, there is a difference between thinking that a Weather truly exist and the changing clouds, the rain exist inside weather. get it? so when you took that to be real, it creates the problem of reification and intensifying the inherent existence of Self. if there is no-weight to the constructs, then there would be no problem. unfortunately, constructs are like spells. :)

(6:51 PM) AEN:    oic..

(6:52 PM) Thusness:    do you get what i meant? just experience first. feel this aliveness everywhere. in other words, what you realized is beyond ? (xiang4: [imputed] appearance), but you do not understand the impact of ? (xiang4: [imputed] appearance). anyway you can send your article to your lzls for comments. :)” - June, 2010

——

Mr. AP also the key to anatta is not just “not reifying source”

This is crucial:

2006

(10:55 PM) John: all along, the manifestation is really the source

(10:55 PM) AEN: icic..

(10:55 PM) John: once the extra source that is the habitual energy is given up, Presence is felt everywhere in all arising and ceasing

(10:56 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:56 PM) John: that is from moment to moment, Presence is experienced in varying conditions

(10:56 PM) AEN: icic..

(10:57 PM) John: from blinking eyes...moment to moment...in raising legs, standing up, feet touching ground...moment to moment...presence that is stage 1 is experience in all  

phenomena arising and ceasing

(10:57 PM) John: only the thinking, the hearing, the seeing...

(10:57 PM) John: moment to moment

(10:57 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:57 PM) John: conditions shifts and changes

(10:58 PM) AEN: icic..

(10:58 PM) John: this must be very thorough then the luminosity-emptiness without sinking back to a Source can be experienced

(10:58 PM) John: this is the whole purpose of mindfulness

(10:58 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:59 PM) John: but it becomes tedious for a mind that has not experience no-self or stage 5

(10:59 PM) AEN: icic...

(10:59 PM) John: but to a person that has experienced stage 5, he wants to know even the minutest details

(10:59 PM) John: of every single moment...this i told u before right?

——

Mr. AP 

Spend not even a thought moment for the source and dwell completely into the incredible realness of the phenomenal world (along with contemplating the two stanzas of anatta as seal, always already so), then you will breakthrough

2006:

(7:02 PM) John: the manifestation is the source, spend not even a moment of thought for the source.

(7:02 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:03 PM) John: the stage is the real within the apparent

(7:03 PM) AEN: oic...

(7:03 PM) AEN: eh

(7:04 PM) John: i think i wrote to u about telling longchen to dissolve the self in the incredible realness of the phenomenon

world right?

(7:04 PM) AEN: they never write correctly i tink

(7:04 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:04 PM) AEN: yea

(7:04 PM) AEN: by PM right?

(7:05 PM) John: hm...yeah....i wrote him another pm after he has a glimpse of it.

(7:05 PM) AEN: oh not sure whether u sent me

(7:05 PM) John: What about the unmanifested is the manifest?

(7:05 PM) John: din send u. :P

(7:05 PM) AEN: oic

(7:05 PM) AEN: manifest is unborn?

(7:05 PM) AEN: all dharmas are unborn

(7:06 PM) John: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unmanifested is the manifestation,

The no-thing of everything,

Completely still yet ever flowing,

This is the spontaneous arising nature of the source.

Simply Self-So.

Use self-so to overcome conceptualization.

Dwell completely into the incredible realness of the phenomenal world.

(7:06 PM) John: the last sentence is very important.

(7:06 PM) AEN: o icic

(7:07 PM) John: when is the part i told him about just the happening and spend not even a thought moment for the source?

——

2006:

(10:48 PM) John: when the mind turns away from the source and focus on manifestation, it forgoes images and realises its intimate relationship btw with the arising and ceasing

(10:48 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:48 PM) John: however it is not entirely clear yet due to habitual energy though the glimpse is strong

(10:48 PM) John: that it is the reality

(10:48 PM) John: but it is still not clear.

(10:48 PM) AEN: oic

(10:48 PM) John: this is a crucial state

(10:48 PM) John: very crucial in fact

(10:49 PM) John: in either sinking back to a source as in the advaita or buddhism anatta

…

…That is why “Manifestation is the Source” is crucial. When effort is not diverted to ‘returning to a source’  

which is another ‘karmic doing’, the mind cease

(11:22 PM) AEN: icic..

(11:23 PM) John: the mind ceases to be anything but only this the ever arising and ceasing phenomena that manifest according to causes and conditions. Then the initial experience of 

Pure Presence must be experienced in every moment of Arising and Ceasing in all its diversities and manifolds.

(11:23 PM) John: I refuse to talk about the One Reality for fear that it is mistaken as the Eternal Witness before the experience of no-self and emptiness nature due to the similarity 

in descriptions.

What is the crucial condition that gives rise to the experience of All is the One Reality?

(11:23 PM) John: It is the intense moment-to-moment experience of Presence in all manifestation that gives rise to this understanding. That is, it is the vivid Presence in All 

Phenomena Arising without entry and exit that serve as the condition. All descriptions pale when compared to the actual experience.

(11:24 PM) John: It is the same initial experience of Presence except that now it is experienced as the phenomena itself. This is the condition for the arising of noble wisdom to know 

our true nature. This is the transparency of the ‘Self’ that gives rise to wisdom to see the Dharmakaya -- The body of truth.

(11:24 PM) John: With the stability of this experience, it gives birth to the Transcendent Body that is characterized by blissfulness, clarity, vividness and vitality as the first 

level of fruition. There is no ending to this experience. May you experience the full truth of Dharma.

----

• 18m

  18 minutes ago
• 
  

• Reply
• Edited

 Tyler Jones

Top contributor

I completely agree that there are other dimensions to the spiritual path than the insights that the AtR model maps so well. (At the very least, those who believe in Buddhist maps will admit that arhatship or full Buddhahood is about more than this.) There are at least two different qualities that I want to tease out that are intertwined in your post: Unconditional-universal love and devotion. Devotion as a spiritual path is using the emotion of devotion directed toward something higher as rocket fuel for your path. One of my teachers speaks on the potential power of the devotional path, but clarifies that you have to have a certain disposition to follow it. It's no for everyone, in particular, it's not his path, and it doesn't seem that it was the path of the Buddha. Unconditional, universal love does not necessarily include this quality of devotion, but you don't need a certain disposition to access and make use of it. It can take you into jhana/samadhi territory and is recommend by the Buddha for numerous reasons as beneficial for the path.

• 1h

  about an hour ago
• Like
• Reply

Active

Aditya Prasad

Author

Top contributor

Tyler Jones Thanks for making this clarification. I find them to be closely related, even inseparable. The more I orient toward the intrinsic unconditional love of reality, the more my heart spontaneously opens to it in deep devotion. It appears to me that deeper knowledge about the "whys" and "hows" of reality creation is somehow connected to the development of this quality. I only bring it up now because I've recently spoken to a couple of other AtR members (who unlike me have deep insight per AtR) who have noticed something similar.

• 50m

  50 minutes ago
• Like
• Reply

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

Group expert

+1

Tyler Jones You are right. Buddha did not follow a path of devotion based on what I've read and he also did not teach a path of devotion in his early teachings. He did however teach metta (loving kindness), and it will be able to lead to the sort of experience Aditya is eluding to. And yes indeed, in my limited experience with metta practice, it leads to a love that emanates and pervades from the heart chakra which leads to all pervading piti/bliss and jhana. A somewhat different flavor from for example, anapanasati induced jhana.

I have not read this book but it might be relevant:

https://www.amazon.com/Heart.../dp/1611802350/ref=sr_1_1...

The Heart of Unconditional Love: A Powerful New Approach to Loving-Kindness Meditation Paperback – Illustrated, March 31, 2015

by Tulku Thondup (Author)

4.5 4.5 out of 5 stars 50 ratings

See all formats and editions

A new, four-stage approach to the popular Buddhist practice known as loving-kindness meditation, with the aim of finding unconditional love in our own hearts, in our relationships, and in our perception of the world around us.

The unconditional love that we all long for—in our own lives and in the world around us—can be awakened effectively with this unique approach to the Tibetan Buddhist practice of loving-kindness meditation. Tulku Thondup gives detailed guidance for meditation, prayers, and visualization in four simple stages that can be practiced in as little as thirty minutes a session. The four-stage format is a brand-new approach being presented for the first time in English, distilled from the author's lifelong study and practice of authentic, traditional teachings.

What if we could experience not only our own body, mind, and heart as a boundless source of loving-kindness, but every particle of the world around us as a beautiful realm filled with the blessing energies of the Buddhas and their celestial abodes? The whole environment would become a miraculous display of unconditional love, wisdom, and power, accompanied by the sweet music of holy prayers and inspirational teachings. This is not just a dream or a fantasy but an effective meditation practice that can bring relief from stress, healing to mind and body, healthier relationships, and a positive new outlook on the world around you.

Loving-kindness meditations are a highly effective way to generate positive causation, bring true peace and love into our lives, and release ourselves from habitual suffering. When we train ourselves to desire the happiness and well-being of others, with the unconditional love of a mother who cares wholeheartedly for her little ones, we find our whole world pervaded by the positive qualities of joy, peace, and beauty. The training can be compared to sunbathing. As our body absorbs the sun's heat, it becomes warm and gradually emanates that warmth into our surroundings. In the same way, through devotion and trust in the Buddha of Loving-Kindness, we immerse our mind in his unconditional love, which we then radiate to those around us.

The Heart of Unconditional Love presents this meditation in a new, four-stage format distilled from the author's lifelong study and practice of authentic, traditional teachings. The meditation can be practiced in as little as thirty minutes a session:

• In the Outer Buddha Stage, we open our heart with trust and devotion to the Buddha of Loving-Kindness and enjoy his unconditional love.

• In the Inner Buddha Stage, we experience the Buddha's unconditional love within and for ourselves.

• In the Universal Buddha Stage, we learn to see, hear, and feel the world around us as a blessed realm of unconditional love.

• In the Ultimate Buddha Stage, we rest in the awareness of unconditional love free from conceptual thinking.

Designed to be accessible to newcomers as well as experienced meditators, this presentation is a brand-new approach to loving-kindness meditation, being published in English for the first time.

AMAZON.COM

The Heart of Unconditional Love: A Powerful New Approach to Loving-Kindness Meditation

The Heart of Unconditional Love: A Powerful New Approach to Loving-Kindness Meditation

• 2m

  2 minutes ago
• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview
• Edited

Reply to Tyler Jones