Welcome to Awakening to Reality

修行者的来信与体悟 (The Inquiry Context)

一位修行者最近联系了我，分享了他阅读《如实（Thusness）开悟的七个阶段》中文版后的感悟。他表示自己的经历与文章所述并不相同，认为自己从小在记忆里的认知就已经是文章所描述的第五阶段，而在读完《金刚经》后，更是自认步入了第七阶段。

他描述自己的体悟为“一切法非我，背后有本体的真我”，并强调这个“本体的真我”不是思维上的实体。他声称自己已经突破了能所的对立，达到了“没有我能证、我所证，已经入一了”的境界，甚至认为如果生起一丝“有能有所”的念头，便等同于下降到了阿罗汉的境界（即存在“我有苦为我所灭、我能灭苦”的对立）。同时，他也坦诚了目前修行中最难破除的困境：潜意识中极其微细的“第七意识我执”，稍不留神就会生起，需要不断在生活里历练和拔除。

然而，通过他的描述，我发现他严重误判了自己的阶段。我向他指出，他所执着的“一切法非我，背后有本体的真我”，实际上只是第一阶段“我是”（I AM）的证悟，根本不是第五阶段的无我。他将“无我相/无小我”（egolessness/impersonality）的体验与佛教究竟的“法印之无我”（Anatta）混为一谈。因为他依然保留着将“觉”当作背后不变主体的二元见地，我给出了以下详尽的回复。该回复旨在厘清“忘我”状态（在此引用了我过去与另一位修行者 Mr N 的对话作为例子）与“法印无我”的本质区别，指出他目前将觉知与念头分开的解离（dissociative）状态，并引导他突破对“永恒观者”的误解，迈向真正的无我法印。

我的回复 (The Response)

我认为你把证悟“法印之无我”（Anatta）与“无我相/无小我”（egolessness/impersonality）混淆了。即使在如实（Thusness）第一阶段“我是”（I AM）的证悟中，也存在着“无我相”和“无小我”的体验与修持。但这并非证悟了无我的法印。

就如几年前我曾告诉某位佛法老师：“当我在‘本我’时，我也说过观无观者，那是‘无小我’在观，但还有‘大我/宇宙本体’的觉体在观，后来才体会这也不是究竟。所以我想 Mr N 把‘观无观者’看成了‘无小我在观，但还有大我/宇宙本体的觉体在观’。

真正的无我，觉就像风和吹动，‘知’和‘所知’也只是别名，只有一切动态的展现即是了知，而并无知者（dynamic process rolls and knows without knower）。

Mr N 好像还不清楚“法印无我”和“无我相”（egoless/impersonality）的不同。

我几个星期前有发给他：

“从哪里修？从生活中去修。”
我觉得动中，静中都要修。你有常打坐的习惯，那是很好也很重要的。
“那段时间，真的是为了学生，忙到忘了自己。”

这很好，在行为中忘了自己，只剩下行动，没有“我”在行动。但是还有一点，我很多年前也写过一段关于“忘我”和“法印无我”的不同。法印之无我是本来如此的真理，证悟了，没有出入：

“……没有所见、所听、所感、所触、所认知、所闻之外所能成立的‘觉知’，‘觉’就是这一切光明的呈现。”

无我并非仅是一种解放个人小我的体验（Anatta is not merely a freeing of personality sort of experience）；反而，人们会洞察到主体、行者、思考者、观察者等完全不存在，除了时时刻刻的显现之外，都无法找到（rather, there is an insight into the complete lack of a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation）。非二元性被彻底看见始终/本来如此：在非二元境界中，一切毫不费力，并且人们意识到，在看见中总是只有风景（除了颜色之外没有观者或观看本身）；在听见中，总是只有声音（从来没有听者，甚至除了声音之外没有听觉本身）。

这里的一个非常重要的点是，无我/无自性是法印，这是实相一直以来的本性——并非仅仅作为一种摆脱个性、自我或“小我”的状态，或是一个需要达到的阶段/境界。这意味着，它并非取决于修行者的成就或境界去“体验”无我，而是去“证悟”本来无我。最重要的是认清它作为诸法法印/本性的事实。

为了进一步说明这个法印的重要性，我想借用一段来自《巴希雅经》（Bahiya Sutta）的引言：

“在看见中，只有所见，没有看见者”，“在听见中，只有所听，没有听见者”……

如果修行者觉得他已经超越了从“我听见声音”的体验，到了“成为声音”的阶段，或者认为“只有单纯的声音”，那么这种体验就又被扭曲了。因为实际上，在听到的时候，只有声音，从来没有听者。没有什么被获取，因为它（法印之无我）始终如此，本来如此。从此，没有出入，不是一种有出有入的“忘我”境界。这就是无我的法印，可以在所有时刻实现和体验；不仅仅是一个简单的概念。

丽珠老师去年也和我说过：“谢谢分享，本来就是如此，故说观无观者，修无修者，觉无所觉，无修自成，本来具足，自自然然。不需要去修。”

本性本来如此，体悟无我，没有出入，所以从这个角度我们能说，无修。但是体悟了无我，也不代表不用修了，而是修行与佛性、与每一时刻的呈现融为了一体。当下的一呼，一吸，一切的一切都是佛性光明的展现。就如道元禅师所说，修行不无，但修与证一如。虽然无出入，动静一如，不代表静坐就不重要了，还是要坐。可是坐时没有想要修改或达到某种境界，而是当下就是圆满的佛性本身在那里显现，不是我在打坐，没有我在打坐，而是打坐在打坐，整个宇宙在打坐。行住坐卧都如此。

这样是时时刻刻都要与本性相应，不是从不完美的境地达到完美的境地，而是一切在呈现的，当下本来就空明，当下都是完美，光明清晰。本来自然状态，不需要造作，连保持一个“在背后存在的觉不被影响”都还是造作，还是 karma。最终也要看破那“将觉当成背后主体”的虚幻假相。“觉”本来就不是在后面看着一切的主体，而是每个清晰的呈现——色、声、香、味、触、法，包括每一个念头就是你的光明本身，没有背后的你。这本来无我才是解脱的关键。

那些只是理论上的知道、有些人持虚无主义（nihilistic）错误见解也问过我：“哦，你这么说，那么贪嗔痴不也是佛性吗？如果念头也是佛性，那么本来就没有污垢，为什么还需要净化心？既然一切本来就是佛性，为什么还要修行？” 念头是佛性没错，但他们不知道真正落实/印证本性的那时，执着习染会不假造作地脱落。所以净化心是重要的，没有一尊佛，甚至一位阿罗汉，是还有任何贪嗔痴的。没有任何人能在依然沉浸于烦恼情绪的情况下成佛。所以你说的要断习气，这是没错的。

只是净化心的方法有很多种，有些有它的作用但还不究竟。比如你也知道“搬石压草”，压抑（suppress）念头的方法只是暂时性的。修定修得再深，就算进入非想非非想定，出定了烦恼又会回来，因为不能超越根本无明，这不究竟。或者，如果保持一个觉在背后观察念头但保持不被影响，虽然这样也是方法，但这仍然是费力的（effortful）且二元对立的（dualistic）。这样还不能真正解脱，因为还未破我见和法相，但这也是修行必须经过的过程（因为除了根器非常高的人，几乎没有人是一开始就能超越能所/主体的二元的）。

虽然一开始保持觉照都还处在能所（能观/所观）二元的状态，即使体悟了“觉体”后，觉好像还是背后那面不被影子影响的镜子，还是有二元；但有了正见，或善知识的引导，也会最终（有时很快，甚至不到一年也可能）超越这二元。若没有正见，很容易停留在“镜子照影子”的二元状态中，无法超越，不能体会“背后没有镜子”，或“影子本身即镜，影子外无镜可言”。如果只停留在这“镜子和影子”的二元，修行将处在一种 dissociative（解离的）过程，就是把“觉”与“念头”当成是两样东西，把觉和念头分开来，保持觉不被念头影响（虽然也不排斥念头而只是“看着”，但是觉与念头保持一种距离，安住在背后当作主体的觉而不动）。

真正证悟本性的无我、无能作与所作（agent-action）和能所（subject and object）的二元（dualism），就不是这样了。念头就是佛性，哪能分觉和念头？念头就是光明藏本身，就是你的光明。所以佛经才说，五阴、六入、十二处、十八界，本如来藏，妙真如性。有了这种证悟，修行时不必也不可能分‘觉’和’念头‘，不能把它们分开来，甚至也不是把念头转换成空明：因为性相本一如，不是你把它变成一如，变成空明，而是本来就是一如，本来就是空明。一切念头、情绪的本性本来就是空明，不是念头的背后是空明，是念头本身就是空明。所以转凡入圣的方法就是去认识这一念的本性。就像太阳升起时黑暗无法维持，所有的烦恼情绪都无法在认识到心性的情况下持续存在。一切不假造作自然化解，不留痕迹。

可是刚才他的讲解中可以看出他还是对法印无我不了解，还是误认为法印无我是指无我相，无小我，egoless，impersonal 等等。他还是不能透彻地突破主体，或把觉当成主体、主客、能所等等。我发现，当一个修行人说“无我”时，99%都是在讲 egoless/impersonality（没有小我的我相等等），或者是一种非二元的体验，如从一心到无心的巅峰体验（peak experience）。这种“无我”在外道也有教导，但很少是在讲佛陀那种证悟法印无我的 realisation。

我觉得对法印之无我的正见非常重要、再来要了解、证悟缘起性空。如果不了解无我，只是注重保持觉照，很多时候修行者会体悟到那灵觉方面，并当作是根本佛性，其实那只是佛性的一方面而已，还没证悟空性（无自性）。很多人就会停留在本我的阶段，成为 eternal witness（永恒的观者），就像 Mr N 现在也是。在这阶段，也能渐渐体会到“无我相，无小我，egoless，impersonal”，但还不是我所谓“证悟法印无我”。我发现，99%的人当他们认为已经开悟了（这99%是指那些“有所悟”的人；当然，多数修行者连“本我”都还没证悟到），其实大多数都是指“本我”，还有少数的在讲“一心”，而更少、非常少的人真正会体悟、证悟法印之无我、缘起性空。所以多数那些讲开悟的，其实还是停留在外道知见，还没证悟佛陀的正见。因为这是解脱的关键，不可缺乏的，所以我觉得应该要强调，不然的话，修到某一阶段就会停留在本我、一心，这是难以避免的。

虽然保持觉照是修行非常重要的，但要有正见的引导，所以应该要强调正见（无我、缘起性空），就像我在以上和 Mr N 说：“虽然一开始保持觉照都还处在能所（能观/所观）二元的状态，即使体悟了‘觉体’后，觉好像还是背后的镜子不被影子影响，还是有二元，但有了正见，或善知识的引导，也会最终（有时很快，甚至不到一年也可能）超越这二元。若没有正见，很容易停留在‘镜子照影子’保持二元的状态，无法超越，不能体会‘背后没有镜子’，或，‘影子本身即镜，影子外无镜可言’。如果只停留在这‘镜子和影子’的二元，修行将处在一种 dissociative 的过程，就是把‘觉’与‘念头’当成是两样东西，把觉和念头分开来，保持觉不被念头影响（虽然也不排斥念头而只是‘看着’，但是觉与念头保持一种距离，安住在背后当作主体的觉而不动）”。

如果体悟“觉体”，但有善知识、正见的引导，应该不久就能突破主客、能所，证悟本来无我。如果没有正见，就像那些外道修者虽然很多年纪轻轻就有悟境（像 Ramana Maharshi 16岁就证悟本我），这一辈子活到老都很可能不能突破“本我”、“一心”。在我的 case，我本身悟到本我，六、七个月后进入无能所、一心，再来，两个月后参《巴希雅经》证悟无我，所以从本我到无我只是8个月，这是因为已经接触了正见、善知识的引导。其实我有一位认识多年的善知识，John Tan，他本身17岁证悟本我，但是可能停留在这个阶段13+年，因为虽然遇到很多佛教和外道的老师，都没有一个真正证悟无我、缘起性空的善知识（这些佛教和外道的老师最多、多数也只是证悟到本我）来指导他，直到有一天他在参佛教的一句话：

“有思想，没有思想者
有声音，没有听者
苦存在，没有苦患者
有行为，没有行者”

他突然恍然大悟。其实指出本来无我、法印无我不一定是一件很难的事。就像 John Tan 是从这一小段 stanza，就证悟到，我本身也是才观《巴希雅经》的一小段而证悟本来无我：“佛说：在所见中，只有所见。在所闻中，只有所闻。在所感中，只有所感。在所知中，只有所知。如此会看到，的确无物在此；婆醯迦，该如此修习。婆醯迦，你应该依此：在所见中，只有所见。在所闻中，只有所闻。在所感中，只有所感。在所知中，只有所知。如此你会看到，的确无物在这里；如此，的确无物。什么都没有时，您将看到，你不在此处，不在彼处，也不在两者之间。此即苦的止息。”

---

有关的文章：

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/06/blog-post_21.html

发起动词，无需名词

Soh

Original English Article: No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs

繁體中文版 (Traditional Chinese Version)

请参阅：论无我、空性、摩诃（大）、平常与自然圆成

发起动词，无需名词

更新：在这次对话一年后，Fishskull3 突破了“一心”的见地，证悟了无我！详见《并无单一统合的觉知，唯有显相之光明》。

Fishskull3:

万物并非由觉知所造，它根本就是觉知本身。在你的直接体验中，并没有一个在内者向外看着什么。你当下认为是“所见”之物，正是“见者”或觉知的持续活动。

Soh/xabir:

我喜欢你的回答。另外，我想补充一点，觉知无非是那持续不断的活动。并非是觉知作为一个不变的实体，变现为万物。“觉知”就像“天气”这个词，仅仅是一个名言，指代着下雨、浸湿、日晒、风吹、雷击等等这些持续进行的动态活动。“觉知”除了刹那刹那的显现之外，并无任何固有的存在。即便在那一刹那它只是一种无相“存在”的纯粹感觉，那也只是另一种“前景”式的无二显现，而非一个不变的背景。

正如除了闪光之外并无闪电（闪电即是闪光——闪电只是闪光的别名，而非闪光背后的动作者），除了吹动之外并无风，除了流动之外并无水，发起动词，并不需要名词或动作者。除了颜色，从未有过动作者、见者，乃至“看见”；除了声音，从未有过动作者、闻者，乃至“听闻”。万物只是在没有知者的情况下明澈地放光，声音在听，景色在看。无我。

以下摘录自我们这个时代第二位最著名的佛教大师（仅次于达赖喇嘛）、一行禅师的文字：

摘自 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/10/sun-of-awareness-and-river-of.html Thusness/PasserBy 从书中摘选的他所喜欢的另外一些引文——

当我们说“我知道风在吹”时，我们并不认为是有个东西在吹动另一个东西。“风”与“吹”是相随的。如果没有吹，就没有风。知也是如此。心是知者；知者是心。我们在谈论与风相关的“知”。“知”是知某物。知与风不可分离。风与知是一体的。我们可以说“风”，这就足够了。风的存在，意味着“知”的存在，也意味着“吹”这个行动的存在。”……最普遍的动词是“是”：我是，你是，山是，河是。“是”这个动词，并不能表达宇宙的动态生命状态。要表达那个状态，我们必须说“成为”。这两个动词也可以用作名词：“存有”，“生成”。但存有什么？生成什么？“生成”意味着“不停地演化”，它和动词“是”一样普遍。我们不可能将一个现象的“存有”与其“生成”分离开来表述，好像它们是各自独立的。就风而言，吹既是其存有，也是其生成……在任何现象中，无论是心理的、生理的还是物理的，都存在着动态的运动，即生命。我们可以说，这种运动、这种生命，是宇宙性的显现，是“知”这个行为最普遍为人所识的形式。我们绝不能将“知”看作是某种来自外部的东西，它为宇宙注入了生命。它就是宇宙自身的生命。舞与舞者，是一体的。

Thusness/PasserBy 的评论：“……作为动词，作为行动，便无概念可言，唯有体验。不二之无我，即是将主体/客体体验为动词、体验为行动。无心，唯有心行……源头即是生灭流变的现象……以及如何从缘起的角度来理解不二的显现。” .............

一行禅师：

当我们说‘天在下雨’时，我们的意思是‘下雨’这件事正在发生。你不需要一个高高在上的谁来执行下雨这件事。并非是有一个‘雨’，又有一个导致雨降落的‘谁’。事实上，当你说‘雨在降落’时，这非常有趣，因为如果它不降落，它就不是雨了。在我们的说话方式中，我们习惯于要有一个主语和一个动词。所以当我们说‘it rains’（它下雨）时，我们需要‘it’（它）这个词。‘它’就是主语，是那个使下雨成为可能的‘谁’。但是，深入地去看，我们不需要一个‘下雨者’，我们只需要雨。下雨和雨是同一回事。鸟的形成和鸟是同一回事——其中没有‘自我’，没有主宰者。有一种心行叫作“寻”（vitarka），即“初念”。

当我们在英语中使用动词‘to think’（思考）时，我们需要一个动词的主语：我思，你思，他思。但实际上，一个念头的产生并不需要一个主语。没有思维者的思维——这完全是可能的。思考，是思考某物。感知，是感知某物。能感知者与所感知的对象是一体的。

当笛卡尔说‘我思，故我在’时，他的意思是，如果我思考，那就必然有一个‘我’存在，思考才得以可能。当他做出‘我思’这个宣告时，他相信他能够证明那个‘我’是存在的。我们有相信一个‘自我’的强烈习气。但是，通过非常深入地观察，我们可以看到，一个念头并不需要一个思维者才能存在。思维的背后没有思维者——只有思维；这就足够了。现在，如果笛卡尔先生在这里，我们或许会问他：‘笛卡尔先生，您说，您思，故您在。但您是什么呢？您就是您的思维。思维——这就够了。思维的显现，不需要一个在其背后的自我。’

没有思维者的思维。没有感受者的感受。没有我们的‘自我’，我们的愤怒是什么？这就是我们禅修的对象。所有五十一种心行都在发生和显现，其背后并没有一个‘自我’在安排这个出现、那个出现。我们的意识习惯于将自身建立在‘自我’这个观念上，建立在末那识上。

但我们可以通过禅修，来更清楚地觉察我们的藏识，所有那些当前未在我们心中显现的心行的种子，都储存在那里。当我们禅修时，我们练习深入地观看，以便为我们看待事物的方式带来光明和清晰。当证得无我的知见时，我们的错觉就被移除了。这就是我们所说的转化。在佛教传统中，转化是可以通过深度理解而实现的。一旦无我的知见生起，末那，那个‘我是’的幻觉，便会瓦解，我们就会发现自己于当下这一刻，享受着自由与快乐。

The Inquiry Context (A Practitioner's Letter and Realization)

A practitioner recently reached out to me, sharing his insights after reading the Chinese translation of "The Seven Stages of Enlightenment of Thusness". He expressed that his experience differed from what the article described, believing that his cognitive understanding since childhood was already at the fifth stage described in the article, and after reading the Diamond Sutra, he considered himself to have stepped into the seventh stage.

He described his realization as "all dharmas are not-self, but behind them is the true self of the noumenon (ontology)," emphasizing that this "true self of the noumenon" is not a conceptual entity of thought. He claimed to have broken through the duality of subject and object, reaching a state of "no 'I' who can realize, and no 'that' which is realized; already entered into Oneness." He even believed that if a single thought of "subject and object" (having an agent and an object) arises, it equates to falling back to the level of an Arhat (i.e., the dualistic view of "I have suffering to be extinguished by me, and I am able to extinguish suffering"). At the same time, he frankly admitted to the most difficult hurdle in his current practice: the extremely subtle "ego-grasping of the seventh consciousness" in the subconscious, which arises if he is not careful, requiring continuous refinement and uprooting in daily life.

However, through his description, I discovered that he had severely misjudged his stage. I pointed out to him that what he clung to—"all dharmas are not-self, but behind them is the true self of the noumenon"—is actually only the realization of the first stage, "I AM" (True Self), and absolutely not the non-self of the fifth stage. He was conflating experiences of "egolessness/impersonality" with the ultimate Buddhist "Dharma Seal of Non-self" (Anatta). Because he still retained the dualistic view of treating "Awareness" as an unchanging subject in the background, I provided the following detailed reply. It aims to clarify the essential difference between states of "self-forgetfulness" (using a past conversation with another practitioner, Mr. N, as an example) and the "Dharma Seal of Non-self", point out his current dissociative state of separating awareness from thoughts, and guide him to break through the misinterpretation of the "eternal witness" and move towards the true dharma seal of anatman.

My Reply (The Response)

I think you have confused the realization of the "Dharma Seal of Non-self" (Anatta) with "egolessness/impersonality". Even within the realization of Thusness's Stage 1, "I AM", there are experiences and practices of "egolessness" and "impersonality". But this is not the realization of the Dharma Seal of Non-self.

Just as I told a Dharma teacher a few years ago: "When I was in the 'I AM' (True Self), I also spoke of observing without an observer. That was 'egolessness' observing, but there was still the awareness-body of the 'Great Self/Universal Noumenon' observing. Only later did I realize this was not ultimate either. So I think Mr. N mistook 'observing without an observer' for 'egolessness observing, but still with the awareness-body of the Great Self/Universal Noumenon observing'.

In true Anatta (non-self), Awareness is like the wind and its blowing. 'Knowing' and 'the known' are just different names; only the dynamic manifestation of everything is the knowing, and there is no knower (dynamic process rolls and knows without knower).

It seems Mr. N is still unclear about the difference between the "Dharma Seal of Anatta" and "egoless/impersonality".

I sent this to him a few weeks ago:

"Where to practice from? Practice from daily life."
I think one must practice both in movement and in stillness. It is very good and very important that you have a regular sitting meditation habit.
"During that time, I was truly so busy for the students that I forgot myself."

This is very good—forgetting yourself in action, leaving only the action, with no "I" acting. But there is one more point. Many years ago, I also wrote a passage about the difference between "self-forgetfulness" and the "Dharma Seal of Anatta". The Dharma Seal of Anatta is the truth of how things inherently are; once realized, there is no entering or exiting:

"...There is no 'awareness' that can be established apart from the seen, heard, felt, touched, cognized, or smelled. 'Awareness' is the presentation of all this luminosity."

Anatta is not merely a freeing of personality sort of experience; rather, there is an insight into the complete lack of a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc., which cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation. Non-duality is thoroughly seen to be always/inherently the case: in the non-dual state, everything is effortless, and one realizes that in seeing, there is always only the scenery (there is no observer or seeing itself apart from the colors); in hearing, there is always only sound (there is never a hearer, nor even hearing itself apart from the sound).

A very important point here is that Anatta/naturelessness is a Dharma Seal; it is the nature of Reality that has always been the case—not merely a state of being rid of personality, ego, or "small self," nor a stage/realm to be achieved. This means that it does not depend on a practitioner's attainment or level to "experience" Anatta, but rather to "realize" that it is originally Anatta (inherently non-self). The most important thing is to recognize it as the fact of the Dharma Seal/nature of all phenomena.

To further illustrate the importance of this Dharma Seal, I would like to borrow a quote from the Bahiya Sutta:

"In the seen, there is only the seen, no seer", "In the heard, there is only the heard, no hearer"...

If a practitioner feels he has transcended from the experience of "I hear the sound" to the stage of "becoming the sound," or thinks "there is only pure sound," then this experience is distorted again. Because in reality, at the moment of hearing, there is only sound, and there never was a hearer. Nothing is acquired, because it (the Dharma Seal of Anatta) is always like this, inherently like this. From then on, there is no entering or exiting; it is not a state of "self-forgetfulness" that you go into and come out of. This is the Dharma Seal of Anatta, which can be realized and experienced at all times; it is not merely a simple concept.

Teacher Li Zhu also told me last year: "Thank you for sharing. It has always been this way inherently, hence it is said: observing without an observer, practicing without a practitioner, being aware without an object of awareness. Uncultivated and naturally accomplished, inherently complete, naturally so. There is no need to practice it."

The inherent nature is originally so. Realizing Anatta means there is no entering or exiting, so from this perspective, we can say there is "no practice." But realizing Anatta does not mean there is no need to practice anymore; rather, practice becomes integrated with Buddha-nature and with the manifestation of every moment. The current exhalation, inhalation—absolutely everything is the luminous manifestation of Buddha-nature. Just as Zen Master Dogen said, practice is not non-existent, but practice and realization are one. Although there is no entering or exiting, and movement and stillness are one, this does not mean sitting meditation is no longer important; one still needs to sit. But when sitting, there is no desire to modify or achieve a certain state. Instead, the present moment is the perfect Buddha-nature itself manifesting there. It is not 'me' meditating, there is no 'me' meditating; rather, meditation is meditating, the whole universe is meditating. Walking, standing, sitting, and lying down are all like this.

In this way, one must correspond with their inherent nature moment by moment. It is not about reaching a perfect state from an imperfect one; rather, whatever is presenting itself, the present moment is inherently empty and luminous, the present moment is entirely perfect, bright and clear. It is originally in a natural state and requires no fabrication. Even maintaining an "awareness existing in the background unaffected" is still fabrication; it is still karma. Ultimately, one must see through the illusory facade of "treating awareness as a background subject." "Awareness" was never a subject watching everything from behind; rather, every clear presentation—form, sound, smell, taste, touch, mental phenomena, including every single thought—is your luminosity itself; there is no 'you' behind it. This inherent Anatta is the key to liberation.

Those who only know this theoretically, and some who hold nihilistic false views, have asked me: "Oh, if you say this, aren't greed, anger, and ignorance also Buddha-nature? If thoughts are also Buddha-nature, then inherently there is no defilement, so why is there a need to purify the mind? Since everything is inherently Buddha-nature, why practice?" Thoughts are indeed Buddha-nature, but they don't know that at the very moment of truly actualizing/verifying the inherent nature, attachments and habituated defilements will drop away without fabrication. Therefore, purifying the mind is important; there is not a single Buddha, or even an Arhat, who still has any greed, anger, or ignorance. No one can become a Buddha while still immersed in afflictive emotions. So what you said about needing to sever habitual tendencies is correct.

It's just that there are many methods to purify the mind; some have their uses but are not ultimate. For example, as you know, "moving a stone to press down the grass"—methods of suppressing thoughts are only temporary. No matter how deep one's samadhi (concentration) is, even entering the Formless Jhanas (like the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception), once out of samadhi, the afflictions will return because one cannot transcend root ignorance; this is not ultimate. Or, if one maintains an awareness in the background observing thoughts but remaining unaffected—although this is also a method, it is still effortful and dualistic. This cannot lead to true liberation because the view of self and dharma-characteristics have not yet been broken, but this is also a process that practice must go through (because aside from people with extremely high capacities, almost no one can transcend the duality of subject/object from the very beginning).

Although initially maintaining mindful awareness still places one in a dualistic state of subject/object (observer/observed), and even after realizing the "Substance of Awareness" (Witness), awareness still seems like a mirror in the background unaffected by shadows—still dualistic—with right view or the guidance of a spiritual friend (kalyāṇa-mitta), one will eventually (sometimes quickly, perhaps even in less than a year) transcend this duality. Without right view, it is easy to remain stuck in the dualistic state of "the mirror reflecting the shadows" unable to transcend it, unable to realize that "there is no mirror behind," or "the shadow itself is the mirror; there is no mirror to speak of apart from the shadow." If one stays only in this duality of "mirror and shadow," the practice will reside in a dissociative process—treating "awareness" and "thoughts" as two separate things, keeping awareness and thoughts apart, maintaining awareness unaffected by thoughts (although not rejecting thoughts, just "watching" them, but maintaining a distance between awareness and thoughts, resting in the background awareness as an immovable subject).

True realization of Anatta of the inherent nature, the non-duality of agent-action and subject-object, is not like this. Thoughts are Buddha-nature; how can you separate awareness and thoughts? Thoughts are the womb of luminosity itself; they are your luminosity. This is why the sutras say that the Five Skandhas, the Six Sense Bases, the Twelve Ayatanas, and the Eighteen Dhatus are inherently the Tathagatagarbha, the wondrous True Suchness nature. With this realization, in practice there is no need, nor is it possible, to separate 'awareness' and 'thoughts'. You cannot separate them, nor is it about transforming thoughts into empty luminosity: because nature and characteristics are inherently one. It is not that you make them one, or turn them into empty luminosity; rather, they are inherently one, inherently empty and luminous. The inherent nature of all thoughts and emotions is originally empty and luminous; it is not that there is empty luminosity behind the thought, but the thought itself is empty luminosity. Therefore, the method to turn from an ordinary person to a sage is to recognize the nature of this very thought. Just as darkness cannot be maintained when the sun rises, all afflictive emotions cannot persist when the nature of mind is recognized. Everything dissolves naturally without fabrication, leaving no trace.

However, from his explanation just now, it can be seen that he still does not understand the Dharma Seal of Anatta. He still mistakenly thinks the Dharma Seal of Anatta refers to egolessness, impersonality, no small self, etc. He still cannot thoroughly break through the subject, or the act of treating awareness as the subject, subject-object, doer-done, etc. I have found that when a practitioner says "Anatta" (non-self), 99% of the time they are talking about egolessness/impersonality (the absence of the small ego, etc.), or a non-dual experience, such as the peak experience from One Mind to No Mind. This kind of "non-self" is also taught in non-Buddhist paths, but very rarely is it speaking of the realization of the Dharma Seal of Anatta that the Buddha taught.

I feel that Right View regarding the Dharma Seal of Anatta is extremely important, followed by understanding and realizing Dependent Origination and Emptiness. If one does not understand Anatta and only focuses on maintaining mindful awareness, often the practitioner will realize that aspect of pure awareness and take it as the fundamental Buddha-nature. In fact, that is only one aspect of Buddha-nature; they haven't yet realized Emptiness (naturelessness). Many people will stall at the stage of the "I AM" (True Self), becoming an eternal witness, just as Mr. N is now. In this stage, one can also gradually experience "egolessness, impersonality, no small self," but it is still not what I call "realizing the Dharma Seal of Anatta." I've noticed that 99% of the people who think they are enlightened (this 99% refers to those who have had "some realization"; of course, most practitioners haven't even realized the "I AM"), are mostly referring to the "I AM," while a minority are talking about "One Mind," and even fewer—very, very few—truly experience and realize the Dharma Seal of Anatta and Dependent Origination/Emptiness. Therefore, most of those who speak of enlightenment are actually still stuck in non-Buddhist views and have not yet realized the Buddha's Right View. Because this is the crucial key to liberation and cannot be lacked, I feel it must be emphasized. Otherwise, after practicing to a certain stage, one will stall at the "I AM" or "One Mind"; this is hard to avoid.

Although maintaining mindful awareness is very important in practice, there must be the guidance of Right View, so Right View (Anatta, Dependent Origination/Emptiness) should be emphasized. As I said to Mr. N above: "Although initially maintaining mindful awareness still places one in a dualistic state of subject/object (observer/observed), and even after realizing the 'Substance of Awareness' (Witness), awareness still seems like a mirror in the background unaffected by shadows—still dualistic—with right view or the guidance of a spiritual friend, one will eventually (sometimes quickly, perhaps even in less than a year) transcend this duality. Without right view, it is easy to remain stuck in the dualistic state of 'the mirror reflecting the shadows' unable to transcend it, unable to realize that 'there is no mirror behind,' or 'the shadow itself is the mirror; there is no mirror to speak of apart from the shadow.' If one stays only in this duality of 'mirror and shadow,' the practice will reside in a dissociative process—treating 'awareness' and 'thoughts' as two separate things, keeping awareness and thoughts apart, maintaining awareness unaffected by thoughts (although not rejecting thoughts, just 'watching' them, but maintaining a distance between awareness and thoughts, resting in the background awareness as an immovable subject)."

If one realizes the "Substance of Awareness," but has the guidance of a spiritual friend and Right View, they should be able to break through subject/object and dualism soon after, realizing inherent Anatta. Without Right View, just like those non-Buddhist practitioners who have realization experiences at a very young age (like Ramana Maharshi who realized the "I AM" at 16), they can live their whole lives to old age and very likely never break through the "I AM" or "One Mind." In my case, I realized the "I AM," then 6-7 months later entered the non-dual "One Mind," and then 2 months later contemplated the Bahiya Sutta and realized Anatta. So from "I AM" to Anatta was only 8 months; this was because I was already exposed to Right View and the guidance of a spiritual friend. Actually, I have a spiritual friend I've known for many years, John Tan, who himself realized the "I AM" at 17, but probably stayed at this stage for 13+ years. Because although he met many Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachers, none of them was a spiritual friend who had truly realized Anatta and Dependent Origination/Emptiness (most of these Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachers had at best only realized the "I AM") to guide him, until one day he contemplated a Buddhist stanza:

"There is thinking, no thinker
There is hearing, no hearer
Suffering exists, no sufferer
There is doing, no doer"

He suddenly had a great awakening. Actually, pointing out inherent Anatta, the Dharma Seal of Anatta, is not necessarily a very difficult thing. Just as John Tan realized it from this short stanza, I myself also realized inherent Anatta just by contemplating a short section of the Bahiya Sutta: "The Buddha said: 'In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. In the cognized, there is only the cognized. Thus you will see that indeed there is no thing here; Bahiya, you should train yourself thus. Bahiya, you should be guided by this: In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. In the cognized, there is only the cognized. Thus you will see that indeed there is no thing here; thus, there is indeed nothing. When there is nothing, you will see that you are not here, not there, nor in between the two. This is the cessation of suffering.'"

---

Related Articles:

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/06/blog-post_21.html

No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs

Soh

Original English Article: No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs
繁體中文版 (Traditional Chinese Version)
Please refer to: On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection

No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs

Update: A year after this conversation, Fishskull3 broke through the view of "One Mind" and realized Anatta! See "There is no single unifying awareness, only the luminosity of manifestations."

Fishskull3:

Everything is not created by awareness; it fundamentally is awareness itself. In your direct experience, there is no one inside looking out at something. What you currently consider to be "the seen" is exactly the continuous activity of "the seer" or awareness.

Soh/xabir:

I love your answer. Furthermore, I want to add that awareness is nothing but that continuous activity. It is not that awareness acts as an unchanging entity that transforms into all things. "Awareness" is like the word "weather"—it is merely a nominal designation pointing to the continuous dynamic activities of raining, soaking, shining, blowing, striking, etc. "Awareness" has no inherent existence whatsoever apart from its moment-to-moment manifestation. Even in that fraction of a moment when it is just a pure feeling of formless "existence," that is still just another "foreground" non-dual manifestation, not an unchanging background.

Just as there is no lightning apart from the flash (lightning is the flash—lightning is just another name for the flash, not an agent behind the flash), no wind apart from the blowing, and no water apart from the flowing, initiating verbs does not require nouns or agents. Apart from colors, there has never been an agent, a seer, or even "seeing"; apart from sound, there has never been an agent, a hearer, or even "hearing". All things simply shine luminously and clearly without a knower; the sound is hearing, the scenery is seeing. Anatta.

The following is an excerpt from the words of Thich Nhat Hanh, the second most famous Buddhist master of our time (second only to the Dalai Lama):

Excerpted from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/10/sun-of-awareness-and-river-of.html Other quotes from the book that Thusness/PasserBy likes—

"When we say, 'I know the wind is blowing,' we don't think that there is something blowing something else. 'Wind' and 'blowing' go together. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. Knowing is the same. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about the 'knowing' in relation to the wind. 'Knowing' is knowing something. Knowing and the wind cannot be separated. The wind and knowing are one. We can say 'wind', and that is enough. The presence of wind means the presence of 'knowing', and also means the presence of the action of 'blowing'." ... "The most universal verb is 'to be': I am, you are, the mountain is, the river is. The verb 'to be' cannot express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that state, we must say 'become'. These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'Being', 'Becoming'. But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' implies 'continuous evolution', and it is as universal as the verb 'to be'. We cannot separate the 'being' of a phenomenon from its 'becoming' and express them as if they were independent of each other. In the case of the wind, blowing is both its being and its becoming... In any phenomenon, whether mental, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, which is life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation and the most universally recognized form of the act of 'knowing'. We absolutely must not view 'knowing' as something coming from the outside that injects life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

Thusness/PasserBy's comment: "...As a verb, as an action, there are no concepts, only experience. The non-dual Anatta is experiencing subject/object as a verb, as an action. No mind, only mental activity... The source is the arising and passing away of phenomena... and how to understand non-dual manifestation from the perspective of dependent origination." .............

Thich Nhat Hanh:

When we say, 'It rains,' our meaning is that the event of 'raining' is happening. You don't need someone high up above to execute the act of raining. It is not that there is 'rain', and also a 'someone' who causes the rain to fall. In fact, when you say 'the rain is falling', it is very interesting, because if it doesn't fall, it is not rain. In our way of speaking, we are accustomed to needing a subject and a verb. So when we say 'it rains' in English, we need the word 'it'. 'It' is the subject, the 'who' that makes raining possible. But, looking deeply, we don't need a 'rainer'; we only need the rain. Raining and the rain are the same thing. The formation of a bird and the bird are the same thing—there is no 'self' in it, no ruler. There is a mental formation called "vitarka" (initial application), which is "initial thought".

When we use the verb 'to think' in English, we need a subject for the verb: I think, you think, he thinks. But in reality, the arising of a thought does not require a subject. Thinking without a thinker—this is entirely possible. To think is to think of something. To perceive is to perceive something. The perceiver and the object perceived are one.

When Descartes said, 'I think, therefore I am,' his meaning was that if I think, there must necessarily be an 'I' existing for thinking to be possible. When he made the declaration 'I think,' he believed he could prove that 'I' exists. We have a strong habit of believing in a 'self'. But, by observing very deeply, we can see that a thought does not need a thinker to exist. There is no thinker behind the thinking—there is only thinking; that is enough. Now, if Mr. Descartes were here, we might ask him: 'Mr. Descartes, you say, you think, therefore you are. But what are you? You are your thinking. Thinking—that is enough. The manifestation of thinking does not need a self behind it.'

Thinking without a thinker. Feeling without a feeler. Without our 'self', what is our anger? This is the object of our meditation. All fifty-one mental formations are happening and manifesting, and there is no 'self' behind them arranging for this to appear or that to appear. Our consciousness is habituated to establish itself on the concept of 'self', on the manas-vijnana (seventh consciousness).

But through meditation, we can more clearly observe our storehouse consciousness (alaya-vijnana); all the seeds of mental formations currently not manifesting in our minds are stored there. When we meditate, we practice looking deeply to bring light and clarity to the way we see things. When the insight of Anatta (non-self) is realized, our delusion is removed. This is what we call transformation. In the Buddhist tradition, transformation can be achieved through deep understanding. Once the insight of Anatta arises, manas, the illusion of 'I am', will collapse, and we will find ourselves in the present moment, enjoying freedom and happiness.