Looks like Abhinavagupta got it 🙂

Soh: Not necessarily... you can't just pick one phrase and say he got it. You have to read everything. It can still be substantialist nondual. Kashmir Shaivism generally is mainly substantialist nondual or a "One Mind" teaching.

Soh: [Excerpt from my article: Different Degrees of No-Self] https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/04/different-degress-of-no-self-non.html

In the past, many years ago, I visited a Zen center in Geylang many times, whose master is a very famous Korean Zen master with many established dharma centers throughout the world, who passed away in the early 2000s. I found his writings quite resonating because he was able to express simply and articulately the state of no-mind. I read many books by him. He even said things like, "your true self has no outside, no inside. Sound is clear mind, clear mind is sound. Sound and hearing are not separate, there is only sound.", and so on.

However, I was dismayed to find out later that he was having the experience of no-mind but the view of one mind, meaning that he has not had the realisation of anatman that penetrated the view of inherent existence. As a result, despite his nondual experience, he was still unable to overcome the view of an inherently existing one substance modulating as many, which is the view of substantiated nonduality (nondual based on substance or essence view). I only realised this after reading in more details his views and writings and found an article where he expressed that Dharma-nature is the universal substance which everything in the universe is composed, is an unchanging substance that is formless like H2O but can appear as rain, snow, fog, vapor, river, sea, sleet, and ice, and everything is different forms of the same universal and unchanging substance.

It is clear to me that he experiences nondual and no-mind, but what he said above is still precisely reifying an ontological, universal, one, indivisible and unchanging source and substratum that is the "one without a second" manifesting as many. This is having a view of inherent existence pertaining to a metaphysical source and substratum even though it is nondual with phenomena.

I informed John Tan the above in 2018 and he replied, “To me yes. Mistaken experience due to lack of view. That is Zen's problem imo. No mind is an experience. Insight of anatta must arise, then refine one's view." (This is a general trend but there are many Zen masters with clear view and deep realisations too).

Another American Zen writer, whose books I have enjoyed reading and found to be quite resonating in many ways, because he was able to express the experience of no-mind and what I call Maha total exertion. He wrote that the Buddha mind is mountains, rivers, and the earth, the sun, moon, and stars. And that "In the state of authentic practice and enlightenment, the cold kills you, and there is only cold in the whole universe. The heat kills you, and there is only heat in the whole universe. The fragrance of incense kills you, and there is only the fragrance of incense in the whole universe. The sound of the bell kills you, and there is only “boooong” in the whole universe…" This is a good expression of no mind.

However, later on, upon further reading, I was disappointed to find out that he is still lacking realization into anatman, and hence did not go beyond the view of one mind yet having no mind experience. He continued to assert that "Objects of mind come and go in an endless stream, contents of awareness arise and cease – mind or awareness is the unchanging realm in which objects come and go, the immutable dimension wherein the contents of awareness arise and cease", and although he sees awareness as unchanging while all phenomena are changing, he insists awareness is nondual with phenomena: "In short, reality is nondual (not-two), thus everything in reality is an intrinsic aspect or element of that one reality."

It is clear that despite his nondual experience up to no mind, the view of inherent existence is very strong, and subtly dual. The desync between view and experience persists. It is having the atman view of an unchanging and inherently existing one reality yet being nondual with everything. I could go on and on and cite countless other teachers and practitioners, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist, that are having this problem, because it is very common.

This is why anatta is not just the experience of no-mind, or a nondual experience, or even the realisation of the non-division between subject and object, perceiver and perceived, hearing and sound. Many practitioners and teachers unfortunately mistaken it to be so. It should instead be a realization that sees throughs, cuts through the view of inherent existence of a source/substratum/awareness. It is the realization that only vivid luminous manifestation knows and rolls without ever a knower or an agent, much like there is no wind that is the agent of blowing or lightning that is the agent of flash (both are just dependent designations and mere names）, and also there is no ontological or metaphysical essence that exists in any way or form.

So after breakthrough from I AM to nondual, it is crucial to get out of “one substance” view and phase through the realization of anatman. Even this is just a start.

In recent weeks more people realized anatman in my blog and I have been guiding them into deeper insights into dependent origination and emptiness. However, genuine insights of emptiness and dependent origination cannot be understood without deep understanding of our consciousness, our empty clarity. I generally do not confuse people too much on dependent origination and emptiness until they are thoroughly clear about the realization of anatta through the two stanzas, the 2 authentications of anatta, because that is the base. Everything is empty of inherent existence but vividly clear and radiant, everything appears because it is all radiance of clarity. Therefore to have deep insight, the direct authentication of one's radiance and clarity is crucial. Anatman realization is key.

In the first stanza, the background subject, agent, watcher, doer is seen through, everything is spontaneous arising. In the second stanza, seeing is just the seen, one’s radiance clarity and presence-awareness is directly authenticated as all appearances, as all mountains, rivers, the great earth.

Both stanzas are equally important. Lacking this direct authentication of radiance as all vivid appearance, this powerful taste and insight of all transience as Presence-Awareness, is not what I call an authentic realization of anatman. It can be either an intellectual understanding, or still skewed towards non-doership, not yet nondual and anatta. Yet even if one has the realization of awareness as vivid appearance, it can still fall into substantialist nondual, so one must be careful to deepen insight and see through any remaining views and sense of an inherently existing and unchanging awareness.

The two authentications of anatta are like what I wrote earlier:

Stanza 1

There is thinking, no thinker

There is hearing, no hearer

There is seeing, no seer

Stanza 2

In thinking, just thoughts

In hearing, just sounds

In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.

This must be recognized as a dharma seal. The insight that "anatta" is not merely a stage but the very seal of dharma must arise to progress further into the effortless mode. In other words, anatta is the nature of all experiences and has always been so—there is no "I." In seeing, there is only what is seen; in hearing, only sound; and in thinking, only thoughts. No effort is required, and there has never been an "I."

Therefore, it is important to emphasize anatta as the realization of a dharma seal—in seeing, only the seen appears, with no underlying seer. This is not merely a stage where the sense of a seer dissolves into mere appearances; such a stage may occur without the prajñā wisdom that penetrates and sees through the illusory construct of an internal reference point, the notion of an inherently existing perceiver. Experiencing no-mind is not particularly difficult or uncommon, yet truly realizing anatta is much rarer—even though it is only the beginning on the path to Buddhahood. Many focus on the experience, missing the clarity needed to discern the differences. It is rare to find practitioners and teachers who have truly realized anatta. Most people with nondual experiences take "in the seen, only the seen" as simply a state of no-mind, rather than the more profound realization that perceives the fundamental emptiness of a self, a perceiver, or any independent agent, or an ultimate awareness, perceiving, or a perceiver that exists apart from manifestation. In truth, there has always never been a seer nor an inherently existing seeing or awareness apart from what is seen/sensed/cognized, and this is a truth that is to be directly realized as always already been the case, not a transient stage of experience.

Soh: I think Malcolm's Kashmir Shaivist interviewer is also at that one mind~no mind phase.

Mr. A: Christopher Wallis? Who was the American Zen master btw?

Soh: The Korean Zen teacher is Seung Sahn. The American Zen writer is Ted Biringer. I'm not familiar with Christopher Wallis, but it's a very common trend.

Soh: [Quoting Abhinavagupta]

"The existence or non-existence of phenomena within the domain of the empirical (iha) cannot be established unless they rest within consciousness. In fact, phenomena which rest within consciousness are apparent (prakasamana). And the fact of their appearing is itself their oneness {abheda) with consciousness because consciousness is nothing but the fact of appearing (prakasa). If one were to say that they were separate from the light of [that consciousness] and that they appeared [it would be tantamount to saying that] 'blue' is separate from its own nature. However, [insofar as it appears and is known as such] one says: 'this is blue'. Thus, in this sense, [phenomena] rest in consciousness; they are not separate from consciousness.

...

The universe and consciousness are two aspects of the whole, just as quality and substance constitute two aspects of a single entity. The universe is an attribute (dharma) of consciousness which bears (dharmiri) it as its substance.

...

Thus consciousness contains everything in the sense that it is the ground or basis (adhara) of all things, their very being (satta) and substance from which they are made. But, unlike the Brahman of the Advaita Vedanta, it is not the real basis (adhisthana) of an unreal projection or illusion. Consciousness and its contents are essentially identical and equally real. They are two forms of the same reality. Consciousness is both the substratum and what it supports: The perceiving awareness and its object. In this respect, the Kashmiri Saiva is frankly and without reserve an idealist."

Soh: This is still a substantialist nondual view. Consciousness is unchanging and ultimate, but it is nondual and identical with appearance insofar as whatever appears, that appearance is consciousness modulating as the appearance. But consciousness still exists unchangingly and does not disappear with the disappearance of that particular appearance.

That is also similar to my "One Mind" phase understanding, prior to anatta.

This part: "If one were to say that they were separate from the light of [that consciousness] and that they appeared [it would be tantamount to saying that] 'blue' is separate from its own nature." — itself still establishes an ultimate nature that is irreducible and the ultimate constitutive element of every phenomena, the one substance of all phenomena.

This will be equally negated in Madhyamaka. Malcolm gave a good analogy:

Wetness and Water (by Acarya Malcolm Smith)

What do you mean by "nature?" Most people mean something that is intrinsic to a given thing. For example, common people assume the nature of fire is heat, the nature of water is wetness, and so on.

Bhavaviveka, etc., do not accept that things have natures. If they did, they could not be included even in Mahāyāna, let alone Madhyamaka.

...

The idea that things have natures is refuted by Nāgārjuna in the MMK, etc., Bhavaviveka, Candrakīrti, etc., in short by all Madhyamakas. A "non-inherent nature" is a contradiction in terms.

The error of mundane, conventionally-valid perception is to believe that entities have natures, when in fact they do not, being phenomena that arise from conditions. It is quite easy to show a worldly person the contradiction in their thinking. Wetness and water are not two different things; therefore wetness is not the nature of water. Heat and fire are not two different things, therefore, heat is not the nature of fire, etc. For example, one can ask them, "Does wetness depend on water, or water on wetness?" If they claim wetness depends on water, ask them, where is there water that exists without wetness? If they claim the opposite, that water depends on wetness, ask them, where is there wetness that exists without water? If there is no wetness without water nor water without wetness, they can easily be shown that wetness is not a nature of water, but merely a name for the same entity under discussion. Thus, the assertion that wetness is the nature of water cannot survive analysis. The assertion of all other natures can be eliminated in the same way.

...

Then not only are you ignorant of the English language, but you are ignorant of Candrakīrti where, in the Prasannapāda, he states that the only nature is the natureless nature, emptiness.

Soh: And as John Tan said before:

"They are flat, mutually dependent, and without hierarchy. A mixed-up view cannot lead to the taste of the natural state and spontaneous presence.

We must release the mind from any view of a substrate in any form—such as a field, energy, consciousness, space, chi, law, etc. Only then can we slowly understand why the conventional is so important.

Understand how 'dependent arising' works and see the logic of it clearly. The mind will release itself if one is truly without substrate, whether conceptually or non-conceptually.

Since view is experience and experience is view, keep refining it, and the experience will come naturally.

If you find yourself attached and holding on, it means you are not in the right view. The right view has no path; it is a natural state that is open, luminous, empty, and free.

99.9% of analysis will land in some form of substantialism."

Mr. A: Christopher Wallis is who interviewed Malcolm. Did you listen?

Soh: Oh yes, now I remember. That's the Kashmir Shaivism teacher I said was in "One Mind to No Mind" territory. He holds the view of a universal substance of all phenomena but manifesting as all transient phenomena. That is still "One Mind."