Posts
Text translated from Chinese to English.
Chinese original: 从“不是这个”（Neti Neti）到《巴希亚经》：在实修中区分“我是”与“无我”
A reader’s question (paraphrased)
A reader writes to confirm their understanding of the difference between intellectual understanding and experiential realization. While they feel their conceptual understanding of "No-self" (Anatta) and "Emptiness" (Sunyata) is unobstructed, they recognize the need to transform this view into direct realization through practice.
The reader describes their journey through different stages of practice: from the dualistic state of subject and object, to concentration practices that merge the two, to resting in the "background" of awareness. However, they found the most profound shift in the "Two Stanzas on No-Self" and the direct manifestation of "Marvelous Existence" without grasping—where subject and object dissolve into the immediate experience (Emptiness).
They note that while methods like "Neti Neti" (Not this, not this) and "Self-Inquiry" (Who am I?) are powerful, they function through negation. The reader previously felt a sense of uncertainty with pure negation. In contrast, the direct pointing of the "Two Stanzas" provided a positive, affirmative path ("The seen is merely the seen") that dispelled their confusion, offering a clear seal of the Dharma (Anatta) to follow all the way to the end.
Soh Replied:
Hello Mr. H,
I am very happy to hear that you are on the right direction, and your intuition is very likely correct—you need more practice to realize it experientially.
There is a distinction between Right View in understanding (or the inferential [anumāna] Right View derived through intellectual understanding or analysis) and what we call "Realization" (experiential verification, Zheng Wu). "Realization" is an experiential awakening; it brings about a massive change (or qualitative change) of 180 degrees in perception, and once seen, it cannot be "unseen." It is like those puzzles where you need to find a hidden pattern; once you spot that there is a cow in the picture, once seen, you can never "fail to see it" again. It is transformative; there are no longer doubts, and the truth is as clear as day. It thoroughly changes the mode of perceiving reality.
So, yes, I agree that you need to transform "insight" into "Realization" through practice.
To share my own experience: I understood No-self (Anatta) intellectually starting from 2006, but this was 4 years earlier than my experiential realization of No-self. In fact, I understood No-self intellectually even before realizing "I AM"... for those who start purely with Self-enquiry or Advaita style practices and teachings, this is usually not the case. On one hand, the understanding of No-self might have slightly delayed (though not by much) my "I AM" realization, but the benefit it brought was making my subsequent progress smoother and faster (going from "I AM" to "Non-dual" and then to "No-self" in less than a year, rather than spending decades or never arriving there like most people).
The Clarity of the Bahiya Sutta
You are very right; the Buddha's teachings are extremely clear. Even in a short sutta like the Bahiya Sutta, the path, the experience, and the realization are all contained within it.
As John Tan said previously:
"John Tan: In Bahiya's teaching, it is important to know that the Buddha actually included the path, the experience, and the realization in such a short teaching."
Other methods might lead to partial experiences and realizations, but they cannot bring you that tremendous clarity of insight, namely the pinnacle of non-dual insight that the Bahiya Sutta brings you. You yourself might have felt this clarity of direction and view, just as you said: "And the content you shared tells me in a positive, affirmative way that at this stage, I can use this Dharma Seal to go all the way to the end. Thus it thoroughly dispelled my confusion and lack of self-confidence."
"Not this, not this" (Neti Neti) vs. Buddhist Negation
It is crucial to distinguish the "negation" used in Vedanta from that used in Buddhism.
Neti Neti (Not this, not this) is an apophatic practice strictly bound to Self-enquiry. It presupposes an unchanging, ultimate reality—a fundamental core, revealed by stripping away the 25 tattvas (principles of existence) as "not-self." In this framework, negation is a tool of exploration used to reveal the hidden core within—the Atman (True Self).
I must emphasize that the purpose of Self-enquiry and Neti Neti stops at producing unquestionable certainty regarding "Being realization"—that is, the realization of "I AM." After that, Self-enquiry or Neti Neti is considered to have fulfilled its mission and cannot bring clearer insight. You need other forms of contemplation, such as No-self contemplation, the Two Stanzas on No-self, the Bahiya Sutta, etc., to continue deepening.
However, the Buddhist truth of No-self (Anatman) operates on a completely different mechanism. As Kyle Dixon pointed out, the Buddhadharma is not "apophatic" in the Vedanta sense. On the contrary, it uses prasajya-pratiṣedha—a kind of "non-affirming negation" (negation without affirmation). Unlike a sculptor revealing a hidden statue by chiseling away marble (the Advaita view), Buddhist negation refutes the existence of a self without implying that a "True Self" remains. Therefore, Advaita and the Buddhadharma do not point to the same truth; their frameworks have fundamental differences.
As Krodha (Kyle Dixon) said previously:
"The Dharma is not apophatic in nature; the essence of the Buddha's teaching is summarized as so-called 'non-affirming negation' (prasajya-pratiṣedha), meaning this negation does not imply anything that is subsequently affirmed due to the negation.
The Buddhadharma and Vedanta Advaita do not point to the same truth; these two systems have different views and frameworks to guide them."
He further clarified:
"Apophaticism means there is something established, and we reveal it via the method of negation. Like revealing the form of a statue by chiseling away a block of marble. The thing that remains after negation is precisely what apophaticism intends to convey; it merely approaches that essence via negation. Instead of giving a positive description of the essence or entity itself. Saying 'all phenomena have no self' is not an apophatic statement. We are not affirming something via negation."
The Role and Limitation of "Who am I?" (Investigating "Who")
We must also understand the purpose of investigating "Who" (investigating the Hua Tou).
This is not a method for realizing No-self. In fact, it is more suitable and effective for realizing "I AM," the Self. It is an inquiry into pure subjectivity. You cannot realize the "non-existence" of the subject or background in this way, because the entire mode of inquiry is built upon the presupposition that the subject is real, and it aims to realize pure subjectivity.
As the renowned Chinese master of Self-enquiry or Hua Tou, Master Xu Yun, said:
"The answer under the word 'Who' is Mind.
Speech arises from Mind; Mind is the head of speech (Hua Tou). Thoughts arise from Mind; Mind is the head of thoughts. All dharmas are born from Mind; Mind is the head of all dharmas.
Actually, the Hua Tou is just the thought; the head preceding the thought is Mind. To speak directly, before a single thought arises is the Hua Tou.
From this, you and I both know that 'watching the Hua Tou' is 'contemplating Mind.' 'The original face before one's parents were born' is Mind; looking at 'the original face before one's parents were born' is contemplating Mind...
Therefore, saying 'watching the Hua Tou' or saying 'watching who is reciting the Buddha's name' is actually 'contemplating Mind,' which is contemplating the pure aware essence of one's own Mind, which is contemplating the Self-nature Buddha." --
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/12/blog-post_3.html
So, this is a direct method and path for realizing "Mind," that is, "I AM" realization.
However, as John Tan said previously:
"Whether it is Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana; whether it is Dzogchen, Mahamudra, or Zen; they do not deviate from the definitive View of the Three Dharma Seals. Therefore, experience and realization must always be verified with Right View; otherwise, we will end up in a 'wonderland' that is neither here nor there.
The Advaita 'Who am I' and 'Who am I before birth' may have the same initial 'realization'—that is, directly recognizing one's own original face face-to-face, followed by a series of similar mind-shaking experiences. However, when subjected to the ultimate analysis of Madhyamaka, they do not reach what Buddhism calls Prajñā. Therefore, retain the realization experience, but correct the View." – John Tan, 2020, written to someone at the "I AM" stage.
John Tan also discussed the difference between different categories of koans many years ago:
"Alejandro, I would distinguish 'Unborn' and 'Emptiness' from 'Luminosity.' In my view, these are different pointers. The 'Sound of One Hand' here points directly to 'Luminosity.'
What is the method to guide a practitioner to the 'direct taste'? In Zen, the koan is the technique and method.
The 'Sound of One Hand' koan is a tool to guide a person to directly and intuitively recognize 'Presence = Sound.'
Let us use another koan as an example, 'Who am I before my parents were born?' This is similar to just asking 'Who am I?'. The 'before parents were born' here is to skillfully guide the thinking mind to penetrate to the limit of its own depth, and then suddenly stop completely and rest, leaving only 'I-I.' Only this 'I' as pure Being itself. Before birth, it is this 'I.' After birth, it is this 'I.' In this life or ten thousand lives ago, it is this 'I.' Ten thousand lives later, it is still this 'I.' This is a direct encounter with 'I-I.'
Similarly, the koan of 'Sound of One Hand' is to guide the practitioner not to get stuck in dead water and cling to the 'Absolute' after the initial breakthrough into 'I-I.' It is to guide the practitioner to see the myriad faces of Presence face-to-face. In this example, it is the 'Sound' of that hand clapping.
Regardless of whether one hand claps or two hands clap, before that, what is that sound? It attempts to guide the practitioner into that 'Sound.' All along there is only one hand clapping; two hands (duality) are not needed. This is similar to contemplating 'in hearing there is always only sound, no hearer.'
As for the emptiness and unborn nature of that sound, Zen koans (in my view) have not been able to effectively point to the unborn and emptiness of a person's luminous clarity."
Furthermore,
"John Tan: Yes Emanrohe,
This is exactly the question Master Dogen asked: 'If our Buddha-nature is originally perfect, why do we still need to practice?' Even after the initial glimpse, this question still troubled him, which prompted him to go to China to find the answer, finally opening up his wisdom regarding the non-dual nature of Awareness.
Therefore we must understand that in the Zen tradition, different koans have different purposes. The experience gained from the koan 'Who are you before your parents were born?' only allows us an initial glimpse of our nature. This is different from Hakuin's 'Sound of One Hand' koan. The five types of koans (Five Ranks) in Zen range from the 'Dharmakāya' (hosshin) that gives the practitioner an initial glimpse of ultimate reality, to the 'Five Ranks' aimed at awakening the practitioner to the spontaneous unity of the relative and the absolute (non-dual).
Only by thoroughly realizing the non-dual nature of Awareness (the spontaneous unity of the relative and the absolute) can we understand why there is no split between subject and object, and see the unity of realization and development. Therefore, the practice of the Natural State is for those who have already awakened to the non-dual nature, and is not merely an initial glimpse of Awareness. This distinction must be clearly understood. It is not suitable for everyone, and it is advised that we do not talk too much about the Natural State. The 'natural' way is actually the most challenging path; there are no shortcuts.
On the other hand, the gradual path is a systematic approach that takes us forward step by step until we finally experience the completely non-dual and non-local nature of primordial Awareness. One method is to first establish the Right View of No-self (non-dual) and Dependent Origination, and practice Vipassana or bare attention to verify our experience with Right View. The gradual path is equally precious; this is the point I want to convey.
Finally, understand that there is a difference between Buddha-nature and God. Let us not get carried away by our initial glimpse of primordial Awareness. :-)"
Master Xu Yun's Deeper Realization
By the way, I used to think that Master Xu Yun only attained the realization of "I AM," because he strongly emphasized teaching Hua Tou investigation and awakening to "Mind" or "I AM." Many descriptions were similar to "I AM."
But later I found another article showing that he also realized No-self and Emptiness. You can read it here:
At that time, he was teaching the Dharma to the then President of China, Chiang Kai-shek. So it is very likely that after his "I AM" awakening, due to contemplating the teachings in the Buddhist sutras, his view became more refined.
That being said, I also agree that the realization of "I AM" is very important, so for beginners, I do recommend people start with Self-enquiry to realize "I AM" as a beginning.
As I have also said before:
Master Huang Po expressed it beautifully:
"But do not give rise to different views. Mountains are mountains, waters are waters, monks are monks, laypeople are laypeople. The mountains, rivers, and the great earth, the sun, moon, and stars generally do not go outside of your Mind. The three thousand worlds all come to be your own self; where are there so many kinds? Outside of Mind there is no dharma; the green mountains fill the eyes. The void world is radiantly bright without a single hair's breadth of [separation] for you to make a view. Therefore, all sounds and forms are the wisdom eye of the Buddha."
However, before we can recognize that the sounds, mountains, and rivers are our own "Luminosity," it is crucial to first clearly awaken to what "Mind" ultimately is. If our attention is merely fixated on external sounds, mountains, and rivers—as deluded sentient beings habitually do—or we merely verbally repeat "Mind is mountains and rivers" like chanting a mantra, such practice is of no real help and instead perpetuates fundamental ignorance (as previously stated: "This source pure Mind is always naturally perfectly bright and pervasive. People of the world do not awaken to it; they only recognize seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing as mind. Being covered by seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing, they therefore do not see the essence of refined brightness." This echoes Huang Po's teaching). Therefore, when saying "Mind is mountains and rivers," the first step must be to directly realize and personally taste the essence of Mind, and then go further. Without clearly illuminating and tasting the essence of Mind, the teaching remains only an eloquent expression without transformative power.
Here, Master Huang Po—and other great Zen masters—skillfully reinforced this core message, repeatedly striking the marrow of Zen with precision and grace: awakening to "One Mind," luminous, clear, non-dual, and empty—this nature of Mind is also the true nature of all phenomena.
The Limitations of Self-Enquiry
Although Self-enquiry is very useful for initial awakening or breaking through to "I AM," it has its limitations and defects, and thus is not suitable for further deepening into insights of No-self (Anatman) and the nature of Emptiness.
If doing Self-enquiry, we operate under the assumption that "there is an ultimate subject." So we negate everything that can be perceived as "neti neti" (not this, not that). "That is not me, because that is an object of perception, and I am the ultimate perceiver." The ultimate watcher or witness behind everything is not challenged here; what is challenged is merely "all things that can be perceived cannot be me, because they are objects of perception, and I am the perceiver behind them." This means I am the invisible watcher, the inaudible hearer, etc., behind all things. The non-objective "watcher" in the background is not challenged or negated at all, but instead is established by rejecting all conceptual identifications with objects of perception. Therefore, one withdraws from all thoughts and sensory perceptions to discover their formless source behind them.
This is what the Hindu Kena Upanishad says:
"That which cannot be seen by the eye, but by which the eye is able to see: know that alone to be Brahman (the Eternal), and not what people worship here;
That which cannot be heard by the ear, but by which the ear is able to hear: know that alone to be Brahman, and not what people worship here;
That which cannot be illuminated by speech, but by which speech is illuminated: know that alone to be Brahman, and not what people worship here;
That which cannot be thought by the mind, but by which the mind is able to think: know that alone to be Brahman, and not what people worship here."
However, this very notion is challenged by the Bahiya Sutta.
There are indications that the Buddha himself had gone through the Atman-Brahman stage. He attained the goals of the Upanishadic paths taught by his two Samkhya teachers (the Samkhya path aims to realize a liberation that is the realization of the immaterial Purusha—pure consciousness as the True Self). Although recognized and verified by the two teachers, he still felt dissatisfied and left them to seek true liberation under the Bodhi tree, subsequently attaining complete awakening.
In many teachings, the Buddha directly refuted the Atman-Brahman doctrine. One of them is the famous Bahiya Sutta in the Udana, the sutta that led me to realize No-self in 2010.
(See:
According to Leigh Brasington's notes at
The bark clothing likely implies Bahiya was a follower of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad places great importance on trees (personal communication with John Peacock).
Why did the Buddha give Bahiya this particular instruction? The bark clothing marked him as a serious student of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad; thus he would be familiar with the teachings there: "The unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the unknown knower... There is no other seer but he, there is no other hearer but he, there is no other thinker but he, there is no other knower but he. He is your Self, the Inner Controller, the Immortal..." — Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7.23.
Bahiya would also be familiar with: "...that Imperishable is the unseen Seer, the unheard Hearer, the unthought Thinker, the ununderstood Understander. Other than It there is no seer. Other than It there is no hearer. Other than It there is no thinker. Other than It there is no understander..." — Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8.11.
The Buddha, as usual, took what the questioner was familiar with and gave it a subtle but profound twist: No Atman, only seeing, only hearing, etc.
Or as Daniel M. Ingram says:
"In this way of experiencing things, we have something consistent with the Buddha's teachings. We know from the Udana that 'in the seen, there is only the seen; in the heard, only the heard; in the sensed, only the sensed,' etc. In short, only sensations, transient sensations, nothing more, no self unified with them, no separate thing perceiving them, just transient causality in the present moment, as it is, just existence itself." — Daniel M. Ingram
"...the 'light' of awareness is right where the things are, equally including all the space between/around/through them... In other words, things just aware/manifest/happen right where they are as they are, extremely directly." — Daniel M. Ingram
My Analysis of "Flawed Mode of Enquiry" from the Past
As I wrote more than ten years ago:
"Flawed Mode of Enquiry Soh See also: Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna
I found that when I say 'awareness/luminosity is just everything' or 'sensations are self-luminous,' some people have doubts. The questioner might ask, 'Then what is it that knows the experience of luminosity, but is itself never experienced?'
This question is not unfamiliar to me at all; I spent two years day and night practicing Self-enquiry in the past—Who am I? Who is aware? What was I before my parents were born? Who is dragging this corpse? To whom does this 'I-thought' arise? Who is the source? Etc., etc. (ultimately all are who is the source?). In fact, Self-enquiry was crucial to my Self-realization (realizing 'I AM' / I AMness).
But regarding this, there are two points: One must realize that the current mode of enquiry prevents the practitioner from intuitively realizing the 'unborn' nature of anything that arises. This gnosis should not be understood as 'transcendence,' 'unchanging,' etc.—understanding it this way does not mean the practitioner has realized something 'superior'; on the contrary, he has fallen into his existing dualistic and inherent mode of enquiry, rather than truly and directly pointing to the path of Great Wisdom.
The second point is, when all enquiry and views are exhausted, how is it understood?
In other words, the mode and system of enquiry have defined what you will experience. Therefore, the mind must realize and see that this mode of enquiry and any form of establishment are futile. Th
is is why Self-enquiry was rejected by the Buddha (although I recommend it for beginners because it is a very effect ive, powerful, and direct path to Self-realization, it is still a temporary expedient method that must be abandoned later to further penetrate into No-self, etc.), because it is based on a not-very-well-hidden assumption that there must be a self, so this enquiry reinforces the sense of the subject knower, which affects and impedes the complete experience of awareness. As the Buddha said in Majjhima Nikaya 2 (MN 2): 'What are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to? Any such ideas, when he attends to them, the unarisen taints of sensual desire do not arise, and the arisen taints of sensual desire are abandoned; the unarisen taints of being do not arise, and the arisen taints of being are abandoned; the unarisen taints of ignorance do not arise, and the arisen taints of ignorance are abandoned. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to. By attending to ideas unfit for attention and not attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen taints arise, and arisen taints increase.
'He attends inappropriately thus: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
'When he attends inappropriately thus, one of six views arises in him: The view 'I have a self' arises in him as true and established, or the view 'I have no self'... or the view 'It is precisely by self that I perceive self'... or the view 'It is precisely by self that I perceive not-self'... or the view 'It is precisely by not-self that I perceive self' arises in him as true and established, or else he has some such view as this: 'This very self of mine—the knower that is sensitive here and there to the ripening of good and evil actions—is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity.' This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Fettered by views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, aging, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering and stress.'"
That being said, I still strongly recommend Self-enquiry to realize "I AMness." Do not be surprised if I only talk about Self-enquiry and "I AM" to some people. Today I still tell my mother to trace all thoughts and perceptions back to her source, and I am teaching her to turn awareness back to itself or her own source to discover her Self. To some people, I will only talk about the Self and not talk about No-self or Non-duality at all. This may sound contradictory to No-self or Emptiness teachings, but this will lead to an important realization—namely the luminous nature of Mind.
As Thusness said in 2009:
"When I speak with someone, I have a specific objective. If I want someone to directly experience 'I AMness,' I will want him to have a vivid experience of the presence of 'I AM,' which involves a wrong understanding of inherent existence.
Just like when your teacher teaches you algebra, he or she cannot tell you calculus. Similarly, when you learn classical physics, the teacher cannot keep telling you relativity. While you are still learning Newtonian views, it is meaningless to keep telling you quantum mechanics, because how are you going to understand quantum mechanics? You start with the Newtonian way of understanding gravity, and then slowly follow relativity.
Similarly, when you learn numbers, you start with discrete numbers—it is meaningless to teach you decimals or rates of change, or to see things as change. You first see discre
te things. If you keep telling people the wrong things under different conditions, y
ou only confuse people. I never want people to understand the ultimate truth; others will guide them to the correct understanding in due time. So I might talk about Advaita (e.g., 'I AM' / One Mind realization) until the day I die, or talk about insights of stage 4 to 5, and not talk about stage 6 or Emptiness. The method I adopt strictly follows Dependent Origination; it is about seeing the conditions of the individual practitioner. As for whether that person understands Dependent Origination, that is another matter."
Finally, let me share another excerpt from the Buddha's teaching in Majjhima Nikaya 140 (MN 140):
"'It is precisely concerning this that it is said: 'One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, should foster relinquishment, should train for peace.'
"'The tides of conceiving (maññita) do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and wh
en the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him, he is called a sage at peace.' Why was this said? "Bhikkhu, 'I am' is a conceiving; 'I am this' is a conceiving; 'I shall be' is a conceiving; 'I shall not be' is a conceiving; 'I shall be possessed of form' is a conceiving; 'I shall be formless' is a conceiving; 'I shall be percipient' is a conceiving; 'I shall be non-percipient' is a conceiving; 'I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient' is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumor, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceiving, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. The sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken, not agitated. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not aging, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he be agitated?
"'It is precisely concerning this that it is said: 'The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him, he is called a sage at peace.' Bhikkhu, bear in mind this brief exposition of the six elements."
To add a point, I found a post by Kyle Dixon on Facebook that is very relevant to this topic:
"Darryl, when one examines the subject and object (neng and suo), what is being examined is the nature of that so-called dichotomy. What causes and conditions allow these designations to appear, and what exactly is the nature of that seeming subject that is performing the examination.
The premise that the examination itself is doomed to fail—because it implies a subject-object relationship—actually does not allow for examination; it merely clings to that initial presupposition that should have been examined, without attempting to step out of that box or propose a counter-view.
The process proposed by emptiness inquiry allows subject and object, etc., to be conventional labels and names, without insisting that they actually correlate to actual objective properties. Those objective (or subjective) properties we assume are being referred to are assessed and deconstructed to reveal that they actually cannot withstand scrutiny.
Governing presuppositions must also be dealt with, for example, the statement that a subject being examined or observed must be the object of that which observes it. One must truly examine these presuppositions, such as the process of observation, the observed subject, the idea that an observed subject can be both subject and object at the same time, what constitutes a 'subject,' what constitutes an 'object,' whether a subject's inherent knowledge of the known can be found outside the known, and vice versa, etc...
Presuppositions of arising, abiding, and ceasing; these concepts sequentially ordered in time; time itself, time as memory, time as projected idea.
The presupposition that an appearance is an 'arising,' i.e., that it truly emerges from an undisclosed and/or unknowable location or state; that trinity idea: arising, abiding, and ceasing... whether these are exclusively valid names when abiding/ceasing cannot be found at the time of arising, and arising/abiding cannot be found at the time of ceasing. A single event usually implies other events; singular implies plural, and vice versa. Can arising be known? Can abiding be known? Can ceasing be known?
What is performing or is endowed with qualities and characteristics? What is performing the action? Do we find something outside the action? Do we find something outside the qualities and characteristics? Do we even find qualities and characteristics within the endowed qualities and characteristics?
When the deconstruction ends, did it happen? Was something actually deconstructed? Or were merely one's own ideas and projections processed and assessed. What remains? When nothing stood before, does something remain? What salvific benefit is gained in that release? Does release or liberation happen? That must be based on the prior existence of bondage. Are the concepts of removing bondage and liberation themselves liberation? Is the view of bondage and liberation itself bondage?
In any case, the rabbit hole is deep, and you seem to have stopped at assuming your own presuppositions are indeed inherent and infallible. Emptiness inquiry must have a ruthlessness, an openness, a burning desire.
The kind of person who benefits from emptiness inquiry is the kind who throws themselves into this process hungrily as if on fire, only to discover that emptiness will extinguish that fire. I feel you are like someone who enjoys the fire.
But to each their own!"
Labels: Anatta, asunthatneversets, Buddha, Self |
Addressing Inherency
I also explained in my recent article about Self-enquiry and Neti Neti (
Excerpt:
"This line of enquiry (Who am I before my parents were born?) brought me into a moment of silent meditation, where everything subsided, leaving only an unquestionable and unshakable certainty of pure Being and Presence.
Therefore, by eliminating concepts until there is nothing left through prompts such as Self-enquiry or Zen koans, one will reach a state of complete silence (silence of the conceptual mind) and directly experience Presence/Clarity/Luminosity.
Although this method can effectively dissolve conceptual clinging and reveal the luminous core of consciousness, it cannot resolve the issue of the 'View of Inherency' and the dualistic opposition of subject and object, nor can it resolve the deeper insight that 'person and dharmas are merely conventional names,' and it cannot overcome the view that reifies the four extremes. Sometimes we simply call it 'inherency' (zi xing jian). Inherency means concepts are reified and mistaken for being real. But this requires deeper insight and realization, which is crucial for removing deeper cognitive obscurations and obscurations to knowledge. Merely pausing conceptual thinking, or even revealing one's 'Radiance,' is not enough to realize its essence.
At this point, after realizing Luminosity, as John Tan pointed out, 'Before we enter the next stage and focus on Luminosity and the Natural State, if we do not recognize the meaning of Conventional Truths and see through them, cognitive and emotional obscurations will persist. If a person cannot even distinguish what is Conventional Truth and what is Ultimate Truth, let alone talk about the Natural State.'
As John Tan said previously:
'When we directly experience Luminous Clarity, we personally experience the so-called 'Ultimate free from all conceptual proliferation (prapañca),' but the mind is not 'free from proliferation.''
John Tan also said previously: 'If non-conceptuality ultimately does not stop at non-mentation, then it must contain special insight. This insight can see through conventional constructs, thereby leading to the direct experience of True Suchness / Pure Appearance. This experiential insight regarding the relationship between the dissolution of mental constructs and empty clarity is Prajñā. Realizing this, one can extend to body constructs, and finally extend to all other subtler constructs, until reaching the Natural State free from all fabrication.'
'Actually No-self (anatta) is a very good direct pointing method. Analysis can be used later to support this direct experiential insight. The path of analysis does not easily trigger this insight. It must be like a koan, having a sudden leap or breakthrough.'
(Commenting on someone:) 'This looks like liberation from all proliferation (prapañca) entering the Natural State. But if one does not realize the Natural State of original purity, one might be misled and introduced into a non-conceptual state of non-mentation.'"
I also wrote some time ago:
"Viewing 'I-ness' or cognition as the subject and phenomena as objects is the fundamental proliferation (prapañca) that hinders experiencing appearance as Luminous Clarity... then even after No-self, there will still be subtle cognitive obscurations, reifying phenomena, thinking there is arising and ceasing, substantial causality, inherent production, etc.
So proliferation is not just coarse thinking like labeling; for me, it is more like a veil of reification that projects and distorts the luminous appearance and its essence.
Another way of saying it is that the fundamental conceptual proliferation that obscures Reality / True Suchness is due to not realizing the essence of Mind/Appearance, and reifying self and phenomena with the extremes of existence and non-existence.
...
If you are referring to merely experiencing Luminous Clarity like 'I AM,' that is merely a non-conceptual experience and a realization of Presence.
That moment is non-dual, non-conceptual, and unfabricated, but this does not mean the 'View of Inherency' has been seen through. Since fundamental ignorance has not been touched, Luminosity will continue to be distorted into subject and object."
"The process of eliminating ignorance (avidyā) is conceived as... not merely stopping thinking, but actively realizing the opposite of what ignorance misapprehends. Ignorance is not merely a lack of knowledge, but a specific wrong cognition that must be eliminated by realizing its opposite. In this vein, Tsongkhapa says that one cannot eliminate the wrong cognition of 'inherent existence' merely by stopping conceptualization, just as one cannot get rid of the idea that there is a demon in a dark cave merely by trying not to think about the demon. Just as one must raise a lamp to see clearly that there is no demon, the illumination of wisdom is also necessary to dispel the darkness of ignorance." — Elizabeth Napper, 2003, p. 103
However, it is important to note that Gelug and non-Gelug authors may have different definitions of "conceptualities," as John Tan pointed out many years ago: "Not exactly; both have some very profound points. Mipham's 'concepts' refer not only to superimposition at the symbolic level but also to the more critical 'Self View.' Mipham made it very clear; he said the Gelug mistook 'concepts' merely as symbolic and mental superimposition, which is not what he referred to, and then he listed three types of concepts. Dharmakirti is also the same... there are coarse definitions and finer definitions."
However, for beginners trying to realize "I AM," merely going through and focusing on Self-enquiry and the aforementioned process of exclusion is enough to lead to Self Realisation.
You should read this article
I will have more content to translate and send to you tomorrow, but it is late here now.
Best regards, Soh
