A practitioner recently reached out to share their current practice state, and to raise some questions and personal summaries regarding core Dharma concepts mentioned on the blog.

First, they shared their understanding of the difference between "experience" and "realization", noting that experiences come and go and require effort, whereas realization is natural and effortless. Next, they summarized Thusness's Seven Stages of Enlightenment and Zen concepts like "No-Mind", admitting that they currently seem stuck at Stage 3. Because their view of self is still very strong, they noticed a strong tendency to try and rest in the background of "awareness", viewing everything else as the foreground. They wondered if this state counts as "One Mind" or is still "I AM". They also mentioned that without trying to cling to this background, they feel quite lost, and it wasn't until they encountered the Two Stanzas of Anatta and the Bahiya Sutta that they found the correct direction for contemplation.

In combining Dharma investigation with actual experience, they raised several deep confusions. They confessed that in their experience, they often only feel the disjointness and unrelatedness between phenomena. For instance, when contemplating Zen Master Dogen's teaching that "fire is fire, ash is ash," although they could cognitively sever the traditional causal link between the two and experience "fire" and "ash" as two completely independent, unrelated fragmentary experiences, they were stuck there, unable to comprehend what "Total Exertion" (一法究尽) means. They asked in confusion: since the Buddha taught dependent origination and the interconnectedness of all things (Wondrous Being), why is it that after stripping away habitual views, they can only experience this isolation and disjointness? Is this lack of interdependence due to a cognitive barrier, or a lack of depth in awareness?

Furthermore, they could not fully understand "Non-arising" in Stage 6, asking how it relates to the Buddha's teachings on the arising and ceasing of dependent origination. Next, they quoted a passage from the Treatise on No-Mind stating that "no-mind is not like wood or stone". Because they personally held the view that "wood and stone also possess awareness", they were puzzled by the text's deliberate distinction between no-mind and wood/stone, asking if this was merely a conventional concern—a fear that people might mistakenly think attaining "no-mind" makes one lifeless like wood or stone. Lastly, they asked whether reaching Stage 5 or 6 equates to the traditional concept of "the extinction of subject and object [能所双亡]".

Finally, this practitioner shared their own metaphor of a "trading market" for emptiness. They proposed that the continuity of a trading market is actually the result of the aggregation of causes and conditions of people's greed, anger, and ignorance, drawn out by the mind. Extending this to the material world, they argued they had completely stepped out of materialism, recognizing that everything is the function of mind and that there is no objective universe existing independently of consciousness.

In response to their shared practice state, understanding of Dharma concepts, and specific questions, I provided the following detailed reply:

---

My Reply:

Hello,

I am glad to receive your email. I rejoice in your deep exploration of the Dharma and your acute observations regarding your experiences. I have carefully organized the confusions and summaries you raised and will provide comprehensive explanations and answers here:

Regarding the experience of "No-Mind" and the differences between stages

Glimpses or experiences of no-mind can arise at any point, even before one attains any of the seven stages. However, as explained in the article I sent you earlier—https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/03/thusnessjohn-tan.html "区别于“真如（Thusness）/John Tan第一阶段与第二阶段”及其他阶段 - Difference Between Thusness Stage 1 and 2 and other Stages"—Stage 2 is not merely about an experience of no-mind.

Similarly, Stage 3 is not just what you described; it also involves entering a state of oblivion. You can read more about this in my newly translated article: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2026/04/blog-post_42.html 真如第三阶段 (Thusness Stage 3).

Regarding the assessment of your current state and contemplation

You mentioned: "Because my view of self is still very strong, there is a tendency to try to rest in the background of Awareness, viewing everything else as the foreground. (Does this count as 'One Mind', or is it still 'I AM'?)"

-- This is still the 'I AM'. You are still sinking back into the source and background; the insights into non-duality and anatta (non-self) have not yet arisen.

You mentioned: "If I don't try to cling to the background, without correct guidance, I can also be quite lost. (Before contacting you, Teacher, in my own state, I wasn't sure how exactly to observe—Focus? Relax? Merge? The experiences are different—until I came across the Two Stanzas of Anatta and the Bahiya Sutta)."

-- It is great that you found a suitable method for contemplation. It is crucial to give rise to the insight of anatta as a Dharma Seal.

Regarding "Non-arising" and "Wood and stone having no mind"

Regarding "non-arising", I recommend re-reading my article here: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/08/blog-post_5.html.

As for wood and stone, they do not possess awareness. The idea of a "universal awareness" is a wrong view rejected in the Buddhadharma. Practitioners at the 'I AM' and 'One Mind' phases often harbor this misconception, which is highly misleading. I have elaborated on this in a newly translated article: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2026/04/blog-post_61.html 将“普遍意识”推论出来的倾向. Please read it in full. Any notion of a universal consciousness is merely an extrapolation and reification of a metaphysical, substantial entity.

Furthermore, as the Shurangama Sutra (Volume 10) states:

“Further, the good person has thoroughly investigated the formations aggregate as empty. He has ended arising and ceasing, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of still extinction. Based on this pervasive, perfect knowing, he forms a mistaken understanding. He claims that all the plants and trees in the ten directions are sentient, no different from human beings. He claims that plants and trees can become human beings, and that when human beings die they return to become plants and trees in the ten directions. By generating this superior understanding of a pervasive, unselective knowing, this person falls into the error of attributing knowing to what has no knowing. Vasishtha and Senika, who clung to the idea of universal awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Buddha's bodhi, he loses his proper knowledge and vision. This is the fourth state, in which one conceptualizes a perfectly knowing mind, resulting in an empty and false fruition. It strays far from perfect penetration, turns its back on the City of Nirvana, and sows the seeds of inverted knowing.”

[Chinese original: 「又善男子穷诸行空，已灭生灭，而于寂灭精妙未圆。若于所知，知遍圆故，因知立解，十方草木皆称有情，与人无异；草木为人，人死还成十方草树。无择遍知生胜解者，是人则堕知无知执。婆吒霰尼执一切觉，成其伴侣。迷佛菩提，亡失知见。是名第四计圆知心，成虚谬果；违远圆通，背涅槃城，生倒知种。」]

Simplified Explanation:
This passage is not just talking about whether plants and trees have feelings; it is directly pointing to and deconstructing the wrong view of a 'Universal Consciousness' or 'Monistic substance' that practitioners easily fall into.

If a practitioner in deep samadhi (breaking through the feeling and thinking aggregates, entering the formations aggregate) experiences an extremely subtle, profound, and seemingly omnipresent "pure bright awareness" (knowing), they are very prone to a cognitive illusion. They will establish a wrong view based on this experience: believing that there exists a universally pervasive "universal consciousness" or a monistic substance of consciousness. Because they experienced the boundless, empty, and luminous nature of awareness, they unconsciously extrapolate and reify it into an omnipresent "noumenon" or "True Self", believing it permeates and pervades the entire universe, serving as the same shared source for everyone.

Once this wrong view is established, the logical deduction is inevitable: since this substance of consciousness pervades the universe and is everywhere, then the insentient plants, trees, rocks, and earth of the ten directions are naturally within this substance and composed of it. Therefore, they assert that "rocks, trees, and plants also possess sentience (awareness), no different from humans"; they might even believe a human can become a plant after death, and a plant can become a human. Those who produce such views fall into the attachments of non-Buddhists (like the ascetic Vashistha who clung to the idea that "all things are aware").

The Buddhadharma strictly rebukes this view because the concept of a "universal consciousness" completely violates the core Dharma seals—Dependent Origination and Anatta. There is no grand "universal consciousness" lurking in the background as the common substrate of all things, nor is awareness a material-like base that can attach to wood and stones. This passage serves as a profound warning: do not extrapolate and weave the boundless experience of awareness in samadhi into a metaphysical "universal consciousness", as this will cause one to lose the true Bodhi of the Buddha and produce inverted views. Instead, we should understand and realize all of this through the view of Anatman, Dependent Origination, and Emptiness. For more on this, please also see: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/03/blog-post_4.html 觉与缘起 - Awareness and Dependent Origination.

As Kyle Dixon shared years ago:

“Although Bhāviveka doesn’t struggle that much, he is quite clear:
‘Since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasiveness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different.’”

- Kyle Dixon, 2020

“Bhāviveka demonstrates the proper way to view buddhanature:
The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist [in] the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone.”

- Kyle Dixon, 2021

Regarding whether wood and stones have Buddha-nature/awareness, I want to share a conversation from the Dharma Wheel forum years ago between Acarya Malcolm Smith (N/Namdrol) and others:

Huseng: “In Chinese contexts the word 'Buddha-nature' (fo xing) means an awful lot of things. :) Buddha-nature is emptiness, and since all things are empty, yes, stones have Buddha-nature.”

- Huseng (Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:26 am)

Malcolm: “This is incorrect. Sentient beings are defined as buddhadhātu, stones are not sentient. They cannot become Buddhas. The fact that stones are empty and sentient beings are empty does not mean that stones can attain awakening.”

- Malcolm (Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:42 am)

Astus: “The logic here is quite simple. All is mind - mind is buddha - stones and trees are buddha.”

- Astus (Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:28 am)

Malcolm: “Piss poor reasoning.”

- Malcolm (Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:28 am)

Astus quoting Anam Thubten:
“When the ego dissolves, all things are awakened. Trees are awakened, stones are awakened, birds are enlightened, and clouds in the sky are enlightened. When the Buddha had this fully realized moment, he found that this entire universe was already enlightened. Not only that, he realized that every speck of dust on the ground was enlightened. He saw every single speck of dust as a pure land of the Buddha. Inside every speck of dust there are hundreds of thousands of trillions of pure lands. Inside each of these specks of dust there are billions of buddhas dwelling. This entire universe as it is suddenly became enlightened and perfect.” (Anam Thubten: No Self, No Problem, p. 46)

- Astus (Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:55 am)

Malcolm: “Do not mistake poetry and rhetoric like the above for fact. It merely means that all objects of knowledge are a display of one's own jñāna. It does not mean that stones, trees, etc., are independently awakened.”

- Malcolm (Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:55 am)

Regarding the extinction of subject and object [能所双亡]

Regarding the "extinction of subject and object" [能所双亡], I actually dislike this term because it implies the existence of two distinct poles that somehow dissolve or merge into one another. Most teachers, both in ancient and modern times, who use this term only manage to describe a non-dual state. This is not the realization of anatta, nor is it realizing anatta as a Dharma Seal. Many living teachers I have spoken with who use this term have only attained a non-dual state, lacking the insight of anatta.

To add to this point, I recently researched the origin of the term '能所双亡' using ChatGPT, which indicated that it was first used by Zongmi. Zongmi is a very prominent figure in Chinese Buddhism, acting as a patriarch in both the Huayan and Chan traditions. However, Dogen heavily criticized him for holding substantialist views. You can refer to my newly translated article on this here: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2026/04/blog-post_2.html.

In truth, substantialist tendencies are extremely common throughout both history and the modern era. Today, I would say 99% of teachers—even within Buddhism—lean toward substantialism, even if they possess some genuine realizations. They have not yet fully approached the realizations of anatta or emptiness.

On the other hand, Teacher Hong Wenliang (洪文亮老师) is very clear about realizing anatman as a Dharma Seal:

"Originally there is no 'subject and object' [能所]. What we call fundamental ignorance in Buddhism is actually not fundamental ignorance; it is just our natural state of being muddled and confused. Everyone is sitting there confused. But 'that subject and object' [那个能所] originally never existed. 'Extinction of both' [双亡] does not mean you actively extinguish them; it is discovering that this subject and object fundamentally never existed, that is why it is called the extinction of subject and object [能所双亡]."

[Chinese original: 本来没有“能所”，我们佛学里头的根本无明，其实那不是根本无明，是我们自然的糊里糊涂，每个人都在那里糊 里糊涂，但是“那个能所”本来没有，双亡不是你去亡掉，是发觉这个能所本来没有，所以叫能所双亡。]

- Teacher Hong Wenliang

Anatta is a Dharma Seal or Truth that is Always Already So, Anatta is Not a State

You might want to reread this: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/11/blog-post_98.html - 02 Anatta is a Dharma Seal or Truth that is Always Already So, Anatta is Not a State:

Soh wrote in 2018:

"If someone talks about a certain experience he had and later lost, that is not [true, profound] awakening... As many teachers say, it is the great samadhi without entering or exiting."

John Tan: No entering and exiting. Especially for Anatta. Why no entering and exiting?
Soh: Anatta is always already so, not a stage to reach. So it is about a realization and a shift of perception.
John Tan: Yes 👍

As John always used to say to others, "The insight of 'Anatta' as a seal and not a stage must arise to further progress into the effortless mode. Meaning Anatta is the ground of all experiencing and is always already so without an 'I'. In seeing, there is always only the seen; in hearing, always only sounds; in thinking, always only thoughts. No effort is required, and there never was an 'I'."

Furthermore: Distinguishing Wisdom from Art
John Tan recently wrote to someone in a Linji group:

"I think we must distinguish wisdom from an art or state of mind. In Master Sheng Yen's death poem:
Busy with nothing till old.
In emptiness, there is weeping and laughing.
Originally there never was any 'I'.
Thus life and death can be cast aside.

This 'Originally there never was any "I"' is the wisdom and seal of anatta. It is neither an art like an artist getting in the zone, a dissolving of self into the flow of activity, nor a state to be achieved like the Daoist 'sit and forget' -- a no-mind state. E.g., in cooking, there is no self cooking, just the activity of cooking. The hands move, the utensils operate, water boils, potatoes are peeled, the universe sings together in the act of cooking. It does not matter whether one is clumsy or smooth while cooking; when the dish is served, it might still taste terrible; but in any moment of the activity, there never was an 'I'. In the wisdom of anatta, there is no entry and exit point."

Soh wrote in 2007 based on John Tan's writings:

First of all, I do not see Anatta merely as the experience of freedom from personality that you are referring to; I see it as: apart from the stream of present manifestation, no self / agent / doer / thinker / watcher etc can be found, or as it is often said, "the observer is the observed"; there is no self apart from arising and passing away. What is very important here is that Anatta is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of reality that is always so—and not merely a state of freedom from personality, ego, or "small self", nor a stage to be achieved. This means that experiencing Anatta does not depend on the high or low achievement of the practitioner, but reality has always been without a self; what is important here is the intuitive insight into Anatta as the nature of phenomena (Dharma Seal).

To further emphasize the importance of this, I want to borrow the Bahiya Sutta's "In the seen, there is only the seen, no seer", "In the heard, there is only the heard, no hearer" as an illustration. When a person says I have transcended the experience of "I hear the sound" and entered the stage of "becoming the sound", he is wrong. When it is seen as a stage, it is illusory. Because in reality, in hearing there is only and always only sound; there never was a hearer. There is nothing to attain, because it is always so. This is the seal of Anatta. Therefore, for the non-dualist, practice lies in understanding the illusory nature of the sense of self and the sense of division. Before Prajna wisdom awakens, there will always be an unconscious attempt to maintain a purest state of "presence". This purest presence is the "how" of the dualistic mind—it is the dualistic solution it tries to offer due to a lack of clear recognition of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. What is crucial to notice here is that doubts / confusions / seekings, and the solutions created for these doubts / confusions / seekings, actually stem from the same cause—our karmic habit of always looking at things dualistically.

John Tan added: "This is the seal of Anatta, which can be realized and experienced at all times; it is not just a concept."

It is not just a modern issue; many ancient commentators were also mistaken...

This explains why when exploring the "extinction of subject and object" and "anatta," we find that many ancient and modern commentators have not thoroughly penetrated these teachings. It is not just a modern issue. This is precisely why Ven. Hui Lu stated in his commentary: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/12/true-mind-and-unconditioned-dharma_18.html :

Commentary on the Shurangama Sutra by Ven Hui Lu, on the chapter that discusses "All dharmas are Buddha-nature"

Second chapter: Every single dharma is fundamentally the Treasury of the Thus Come One [tathagatagarbha/Buddha-nature], what are the dharmas? Five aggregates, six entries, twelve sense bases, eighteen elements, are all fundamentally the Treasury of the Thus Come One. How do we explain this?

What sentient beings call Form/Matter, Feelings, Perceptions, Volition, and Consciousness; when the eighth consciousness transforms into the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom, the labels/conventional images of these five aggregates completely disappears. Although the names are transformed, its body is not transformed. This false name is being transformed into what is being called the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom, [hence] Form IS Buddha-nature, feeling IS buddha-nature, perception IS buddha-nature, volition IS buddha-nature, consciousness IS buddha-nature.

To put it in another way: by illuminating/seeing that the five aggregates are empty, that its essence is empty, Buddha-nature reveals itself. Therefore it is saying, form/matter is body/matter, feelings, perceptions, volitions, and consciousness is mind. Those who are able to see through/be disillusioned with Body and Mind, are able to let them go, and furthermore are able to be complete [in disillusionment/letting go], precisely that is Buddha, being able to illuminate that the five aggregates are empty, and thus liberate all sufferings.

Therefore, the Buddha transforms this body of five aggregates into the Indestructible Diamond Body, that is refering to the Marvellous Nirvanic Nature, it is not refering to appearance. Shakyamuni Buddha manifests in appearance birth, ageing, sickness and death, that is speaking from the perspective of appearance.

What is termed Buddha, is to leave [all conceivings with regards to] all appearances, that is named as all Buddhas; the Thus Come One means being 'such' with regards to all dharmas. In other words: no matter how form, feelings, perceptions, volition and consciousness changes, his mind is always unmoving in suchness, whenever his mind arises and thought moves, there is no attachment to self, nor attachment to dharmas, therefore it is said that the aggregates are fundamentally the Treasury of the Thus Come One, the marvellous nature of True Suchness.

These are the six entries: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, being correlated with form, sound, smell, taste, touch, thought, which means: with regards to these six entries, actually they are also manifested through the dependent arising of the Treasury of the Thus Come One. It cannot be seen, cannot be touched, cannot be smelled; however, it can give rise to functions.

Ordinary beings' eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are creating karma, therefore, from these six entries, it (deluded karmic tendencies) pollutes our pure mind; on the other hand these six entries are for the Buddha exactly the place that illuminates light and moves the earth, its marvellous activities are inexhaustible.

Henceforth, from the viewpoint of saints, it is known that "when you are not prejudiced with regards to the six sense-objects, you in turn are in union with true enlightenment."

The six sense-objects are absent of what is known as good or bad, however it depends [or is conceived based] on your arising mind and moving thoughts, therefore it is known that the six sense-objects that are not prejudiced is to be in harmony with true enlightenment. As for the entry of eyes, it is as said by the Buddha, what is known as entry has in reality no entry, why is it so?

Pure self-nature does not have an exit or an entry, [repeat:] it does not have exit or entry.

Within our China's Mahayana Buddhism, there are many, in fact the majority of those latter-day commentators, due to not having attained Great Realization, have distorted the Buddha's meaning.

For example: Shakyamuni Buddha has never said anything like "while following conditions one is unchanged, one is unchanged while following conditions". That [saying] actually came from our Mahayana venerables, they keep on spouting such saying, such a saying is actually [based on] beginningless ignorance, it is a false understanding, the Buddha has never said such a saying; the Buddha has never said: from true emptiness comes marvellous existence, marvellous existence true emptiness, [I have] searched throughout the entire Tripitaka [the three textual collections of sutras, vinaya and abhidharma] and Shakyamuni Buddha has never ever said such a thing.

The Buddha has also never said: from the illusory one enters into emptiness, from emptiness the illusory is produced; not attaching to either side is known as the middle way.

Shakyamuni Buddha has never said such a saying, never!

I have flipped through the Tripitaka's twelve sections of sutras, it has never ever said anything with regards to "being unchanged while following conditions, following conditions while being unchanged"; it has never said: "true emptiness produces miraculous existence, from miraculous existence comes true emptiness"; and it has never said: "from the illusory one enters into emptiness, from emptiness comes the illusory, not attaching to either side is known as the middle way". Having an exit and entry, how could that be Buddha-nature?

Therefore, the first saying should be changed into: Appearing according to conditions.

Those who say: being unchanged by the flow of conditions, the flow of conditions does not change/affect us - we usually have the view of a self-nature, conceiving that the Treasury of the Thus Come One is always unchanging in suchness, unchanging in suchness, like a pool of dead water. Wrong!

It can give rise to marvellous function, therefore, it manifests according to conditions. When the Buddha preaches the dharma he is also in Samadhi, in movement, standing, sitting and sleeping, the ingenuity in varying usage depends on natural intelligence, how could there be an unchanging thing?

This "being immutable in the midst of conditions" will cause people to fall into (the conclusion of): there is a kind of "something" that is unchanging, and one constantly seeks after a kind of "something that is not changing", mistaken that there is a kind of "something" that is called "eternal".

[In actuality] what is known as eternal is eternally non-abiding, filled with wisdom-mind - that is called eternal, it is not that there is a kind of "thing" that is called eternal.

We have to understand, conditioned dharma IS precisely unconditioned dharma, conditioned dharma is the dependently arisen, arising and ceasing, impermanent dharmas; it is completely empty and hence unconditioned dharma, its immediate essence is empty, we do not speak of any dualities.

Therefore we say: manifesting according to conditions, is what completely and greatly realized people would say, for if you talk about "being immutable in the face of conditions", what is the thing that never changes?

Those greatly realized mind knows that Buddha-Nature is like the Wish-Fulfilling Gem, when the Hu man arrives Hu man is made manifest, when the Han man arrives Han man is made manifest, it will always change, if it were unchanging it would be like a pool of dead water, how could it manifest functions?

Isn't that the case? If the Treasury of the Thus Come One never changes, then how would Shakyamuni Buddha expound the sutras and preach the dharma?

[If] it is unchanging, [it would be like] a pool of dead water, when Shakyamuni Buddha expounds the sutras that would be the coming forth of marvellous activities, how could it have been that it never changes?

Isn't that the case? Therefore: Buddha nature is Impermanence. What is known as Buddha-nature is Impermanence, is spoken from the point of view of marvellous activities; when Buddha-nature is spoken as permanent, it is spoken from the perspective of [fundamental] essence, when speaking to those who have not realized, this is the only way we can explain.

When speaking of Impermanence, that is due to the Buddha's bemoaning the state of the universe and pitying the fate of mankind, thus letting us realize that the ten thousand dharmas are arising and ceasing in impermanency, empty without self-nature, therefore, Shakyamuni Buddha cannot avoid speaking about Impermanence to let you realize it earlier.

When explaining Permanence, it is for the purpose of providing something to rely on for the practitioners of the two [lower] vehicles, wherefore we speak of our Treasury of the Thus Come One as Permanence, Bliss, Self and Purity, however the practitioners of the two [lower] vehicles then grasp after a kind of something that is 'Permanent, Blissful, Self and Purity', and thus again becoming attached to an eternal something.

(Soh's personal comments: certainly this issue does not apply to the 'arahants' of Buddhism who have realized anatta or no-soul, maybe the comment is more appropriate for adherents of the non-Buddhist tradition, the term 'two vehicles' originally meant for the arahants and pratyekabuddhas have in latter days of Chinese Mahayana become a very loose term used to imply all and any kind of 'misguided practitioners')

When the Shakyamuni Buddha talks about impermanence, it is meant for severing your craving; when speaking about permanence, it is meant for providing a means of support for the practitioners of the two vehicles, yet the practitioners of the two vehicles then attached to a kind of something that is called 'permanent'.

Shakyamuni Buddha tells us: when talking about Permanent, Bliss, Self and Purity, that is just a kind of skillful means, [for] when it arises transformation, then it is impermanence.

Could expounding sutras and preaching the dharma have been permanence?

It will change/be impermanent, impermanence in its essence is empty, just that is permanence.

Therefore, nature and appearance are fundamentally one suchness, where could there be permanence or impermanence?

Nature and appearance are fundamentally one suchness, where could there have been abidance or non-abidance?

When reaching the state of the Buddha, if we impute a view then it is completely wrong. Imposing any kind of view is not allowed, not one dharma is established, only then is this the true Dharma.

Buddha has never talked about true emptiness producing marvellous existence, or marvellous existence [comes] true emptiness, this is a commentary from China's patriarchs.

The Buddha has also never said: from the illusory one enters into emptiness, from emptiness comes the illusory, the Buddha has said: Not-two dharma door [the Dharma of Non-Duality], you have to be clear about this!

What is known as the dharma door of non-duality means Mind and Environment are not two, isn't it so?

Dependent arising is equivalent to empty nature, it is not that apart from dependent arising there is another empty nature.

Or that apart from dependent arising there is another empty nature, dependent arising is going in accord with conditions, and apart from that there is an empty nature that is known to be permanent.

Isn't it the case? Then that would be splitting it into two, then this is no longer the dharma door of non-duality. Dependent arising is fundamentally empty, just that is the empty nature; birth and death are fundamentally empty, just that is Nirvana, birth and death and nirvana is without distance, Bodhi [enlightenment] is originally not one thing.

Regarding the metaphor of Emptiness (Trading Market) and further deconstruction

Returning to your metaphor of the trading market, it is excellent and shows your deep insight that there is no objective universe existing independently of consciousness. However, the next step—as you might have already intuited—is to break through into the insight of anatta, realizing that "consciousness" itself is also empty. You can refer to this related passage from my newly re-translated article: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/11/i-am_2.html Distinguishing I AM, One Mind, No-Mind, and No-Self [辨析 I AM、一心、无心与无我]:

30–31 DECEMBER 2020

John Tan: Vase empty of vase is like the semantics, meanings, definitions that are associated with a conventional term. The whole idea of and concept about vase, cause and effect, physicality, existence. For example the whole idea of self/Self is eliminated but will that lead one to the same initial insight and experience of anatta, I doubt so and Non-dual seems to come only much later after maturing of deconstruction. Initially it is the releasing of the mind from the attachments to the "definitions and meanings" of the concepts. Inherentness is like hearer of sound (imo). However they are related. Yet the experiences differs initially but ultimately both insights will align. Empty of inherentness is more intuitive.

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

John Tan: So vase empty of vase is doing away completely with conceptualities. If practitioner were to start from such a way of practice, will take a long time to give rise to experiential taste similar to anatta. It must be directed to self/Self first before one look at phenomena. Like chariot is empty of chariot. If you start from there, it is hard to get to an experiential taste similar to anatta.

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

Soh Wei Yu: Vase empty of vase is like Atmananda way of deconstructing objects into consciousness right? It is also taught in Tibetan Buddhism?

John Tan: Sort of. That is why I cut and paste this part to you. This is vase empty of vase: ==> "to suspend paying attention to thoughts, actively thinking thoughts and investing belief in any thought" This will lead one into dry non-conceptualities without insights. Rather the purpose is to trigger the "insight" to see through and transcend all these man-made constructs and conventions and mistake them as "real" (reifications). So my first question to you is, will such an insight lead to non-dual, collapsing subject and object duality and inherentness? If no, why? If yes, when? ==>"As the process cuts deeper, all conceptual reference points are cut through and abandoned. The beliefs in a self, a soul, a being, a spirit, a god, a guru, a path, enlightenment, a Buddha, Brahman, other people, creatures, objects, planets, stars, galaxies and universes, all are seen to be your own conceptual constructs. When all such beliefs and all other remaining reference points have been cut though, what remains is a pristine and pure Awareness (Dharmakaya) that can’t possibly be understood conceptually or captured in thought. Samsara is the self and its world created by the mind’s thought constructs and beliefs... all thought constructs must be “cut through” and abandoned." "When all such beliefs and all other remaining reference points have been cut though, what remains is a pristine and pure Awareness (Dharmakaya) that can’t possibly be understood conceptually or captured in thought." My second question, is this the purpose like what Jax said? Will this lead to "what remains is pristine, pure Awareness"? If yes how? If no why? My third question, what is the final result of vase empty of vase? Quite good. (Referring to Soh's writing on Life/Death as designation).

Soh Wei Yu: No need for deconstruction to realise awareness. Just self enquiry is enough. But deconstruction leads to deeper insights.. like for the Atmananda path there is deconstructing objects after the I AM. Initially the deconstruction of objects does not result in non-dual in that path. It's like from opaque to transparent witness. Everything is deconstructed to arisings in awareness.. but still dual. Then later that duality collapses. But that's for Atmananda path. For me I was more like into anatta first.

"I’ve found that the deconstruction of physical objects (including the body) to be the single most important step. People want to rush past this step to get to the sexy things like thoughts, feelings, free will, etc. But here’s the catch. Almost invariably, we think of thoughts and feelings and free will with the help of physical metaphors... But if we work with the book in order, and begin by deconstructing physicality completely, we will no longer think or experience in physical terms... It is then that we begin to understand witnessing awareness much more clearly, and amazingly enough, witnessing awareness begins to become less and less real and substantial at the same time."
- Greg Goode

Soh Wei Yu: But Greg Goode said before those who want to realise anatta should not do Atmananda direct path. Because it only gets to something like it at the very very end and only like talked about it briefly.

John Tan: Very interesting. Where you get this?

Soh Wei Yu: Greg Goode website.. the whole article is longer. He explains Advaita ajativada here. No creation.

John Tan: Seems like he stop writing after 2017. (Facebook comment to Geovani): There is the way of de-construction from analysis where one analyses and understands that "named things" are empty and "non-arisen" but still, one may not directly taste that empty clarity even after clearly understanding it conceptually. We must ask why is it so. So, my question is: How can the understanding that conceptual notions are empty "SUDDENLY" lead to direct authentication of one's empty "clarity/awareness"? Or it does or does not affect one's "clarity/awareness"? If it does not, then what is the purpose of such contemplations? If we want to authenticate "clarity" directly, don't you find the neti neti way to self enquiry of "who am I" a much more direct and intuitive approach? How do 1 and 3 differ from ATR anatta enquiry of: In hearing, there is just sound, no hearer; In seeing, there is just colors and shapes, no seer; All the above are ways of deconstructing conceptual constructs, but they lead to different results. Clearly understanding which de-constructing technique lead to what "result" is crucial.

My take:

Soh Wei Yu: In Greg Goode direct path, the conceptual notions and constructs of physicality and objectivity is deconstructed even at the I AM phase prior to collapse of witness. In this path, objects and physicality become deconstructed into arisings within witnessing awareness, even before witness collapses. This leaves the subjective pole undeconstructed until much later.
will lead to dissociation and I AM. But neti neti is needed for self enquiry and I AM realization.
deconstructs subjective pole, leading to direct realization and taste of radiance as all manifestations. Aka anatta.
As for 2) I think 1) can be a kind of release on mental level even if anatta isn’t realised. Greg Goode said that by the time he reached transparent witness he was free of mental suffering.

John Tan: What is opaque witness? Free of mental suffering is true.

Soh Wei Yu: Sorry wrote wrong. Opaque witness first followed by transparent witness. He became free from mental suffering at transparent witness.

John Tan: How does insight of "I Am" got triggered via such method of seeing through "named things"?

Soh Wei Yu: To me I AM is triggered from self enquiry, not deconstruction. Seeing through named things is more on deconstruction.

John Tan: So you are saying 1 will not lead to realization of "clarity" but just mere release of mental suffering?

Soh Wei Yu: If the deconstruction of all conceptual notions goes along with meditation into a state of cessation of concepts, there is also a possibility of discovering pure awareness / I AM. Doesn’t have to be self enquiry. Like Sim Pern Chong got there by breathing meditation, some people through psychedelics, some people through yoga, kundalini etc.

John Tan: Yes but not necessarily until total cessation of concepts, however at a much later phase of de-construction. The insight by then will be much clearer and stable imo though it comes at a later phase of de-constructing. I am more interested in how and why.

1 January 2021
Soh Wei Yu: (Quoting Anurag Jain) In the Direct Path, when "the gestalt of arisings" is seen through, the witness collapses. Objects, as you said before, should have been thoroughly deconstructed before that. Once objects and arisings are deconstructed, there is nothing left to witness, so the witness collapses.

John Tan: Incorrect. Objects and arisings can also collapse by being subsumed into an all-encompassing awareness.

Soh Wei Yu: Yes, but that's more like non-duality. Meaning, after the witness and arisings collapse, it can be non-dual, but it is still One Mind. Right? Though Atmananda also said that eventually even the idea of "consciousness" dissolves. I feel that's more like One Mind entering No-Mind, but I'm not sure if that is referring to Anatta.

John Tan: Yes.

Soh Wei Yu: (Quoting Anurag) "Where does this idea of an 'all-encompassing awareness' come from? It sounds like reifying awareness into a container." Also, when you say "consciousness dissolves," you first have to answer: how did it exist in the first place? 🙂

John Tan: In subsumption, there is no "container-contained" relationship, only awareness. Regardless, this is not meant to be a pointless argument; if he really understands, let it be. What about the mind freeing itself from all concepts, such as existence, physicality, causality, etc.? How is this different from the insight into agency-action? I'm more interested in: what kind of insight, clarity, and experience does seeing through these concepts bring, versus seeing through agency? If these two indeed bring clearly different insights and experiential tastes, then the difference is obvious. They are very different types of deconstruction, just like the stages of insight from I AM to spontaneous perfection. This is important for you too. I don't want to keep asking you either, I'm tired. 🤣

Lastly, I want to leave you with something John Tan shared with Albert Hong in 2012. This dialogue is extremely crucial, as it deeply explores how to see through the subject-object duality and realize "dependent origination/non-arising":

22/09/2012
Thusness’s comments on Taiyaki (Albert Hong)’s post to Liberation Unleashed:

Albert Hong:
Just some more thoughts to doodle out:
In the direct experience of vision the eyes move around. That movement or volition is impersonal and spontaneous. But with the realization of anatta the sense of watcher looking from here to the object out there has vanished. There is a no dimensional flat appearance as colors, shapes and forms.

John Tan (Thusness):
(well described)

Albert Hong:
When looking at the color the very color itself is awareness and it is total clarity, crisp with zero distance between what I once grasped as the eye looking outwards at the object. So in seeing, just the seen, no seer.

John Tan (Thusness):
(well expressed)

Albert Hong:
The seer just being an assumption of thought referencing back to a sense of watcher or a position that is held in the body/mind. Even the body is color and shapes. For instance the hand is typing on the keyboard. Is there a true distinction between the hand and keyboard? Is this me? Is this mine? Is there an agent controlling? Everything is spontaneously happening

John Tan (Thusness):
in a dependently originated matter (‘spontaneous’ as in effortlessness due to no doership but does not arise without the presence of supporting conditions).

Albert Hong:
The difference between the hand and keyboard is only a thought. And we say that is my hand, which is also a thought. And these thoughts self liberate. They are just sounds.

John Tan (Thusness):
(Try not to understand thought self liberates this way.

Instead, penetrate deeply into the following aspects:

1. The amazing power of the spell of an arising thought
Clearly understand the power and implications of this arising thought. It is the mystery of all mysteries. When this arising thought sees dualistically and inherent, everything appears infinitely separated and apart. That is all that matters.

2. Look deeply into the cause of suffering as a result of dualistic and inherent thought rather than thought self liberates, penetrate the ‘cause and conditions’ of suffering.
When an arising thought see dualistically, how the entire experience is shaped.
When an arising thought sees inherently, how the entire experience has changed.
With this as the cause, what happens, with the absence of that, what happens.

3. There is no willing off of dualistic and inherent thought, that would be self-view. If there is no doership, is overcoming possible?
From this understand, an arising thought is not just an arising thought, but the total exertion and entire chain of conditionality is in action. Clearly understand the difference between self-view and principle of conditionality with direct experience. The overcoming is not by way of self-view approach but by understanding the principle of conditionality.)

Albert Hong:
So what if we consider the color as self. This appearance is the self, this is me. This awareness is me. But that too is a thought, an assumption of mind. What exactly is color? Isn't that an imputation as well? This magical display rolls on without a doer, without a self, without even objects or things. And that is just for the act of seeing.

John Tan (Thusness):
First is no one behind, just fully and completely that “Color” -- the place where there is no heat or cold. Just this as this, not this becoming that. No remainder, no trace, non-conceptuality.

Second is although that “Color” is fully clear, vivid and amazing “real”, it is nothing substantial – Empty! -- This seeing involves concepts.

Albert Hong:
In sensation there is only sensation, no feeler. No person owning the sensation. Just a sensation arising and falling. We label the sensation as soft or hard. Is the sensation arising in the body mine, me or I? No just a sensation. If the thought arises this is my body, that is just another thought. The thought a sound. The sound thought a vivid appearance arisen spontaneously.

John Tan (Thusness):
First is no one behind -- no feeler, just fully and completely that “Sensation”. No ownership, no center, no doership, non-dual.

Next examine the entire whole of sensations. The intensity and clarity of hardness, coldness, solidness...etc...The entire sense of “hereness” is just an impression. An impression of dependently originated formation, nothing inherently “here” nothing substantial – Empty! -- This seeing involves concepts.

Let conceptuality and non-conceptuality work as one.

There are those that only emphasized on experience alone with no clear discernment. A sincere practitioner should not fall into the disease of it.
Practice is not just about the immediate appreciation of the no seer, just the scenery. That would be just an experience of no-mind. When asked, who ‘sees’, the practitioner may say no one sees but deep in him, it is the void boundless clarity that sees. This certainly does not help and over emphasizing on the appreciation of mere experience will not go very far. This “trace” must be overcome with earnest sincerity.

If a practitioner can clearly see that “who sees” is a wrong question and rephrase it what conditions give rise to this activity seeing, then that “trace” will be overcome completely in time to come. For refining the view itself is the practice and the process of overcoming the “trace” completely.

Albert Hong:
So the self is a total construction. If the thoughts are taken to be reality then the world is built on that assumption.

But its not the self that is just a construction, it is what we consider self as well. All the sensations, colors, smells, tastes, thoughts, sounds. Even the perceptions. Even the intentions/volition. Even the sense of awareness/presence. All of these are absent of thingness. Totally not findable and a total construction on the basis of an assumption of a thing.

This has brought in a way a permanent shift into the fact and obviousness that reality has always been as such with no doer, no subject, no objects. Just impersonal magical arisings. Without thought nothing is connected. Everything is diverse. Thoughts arise and have nothing to do with anything. There is no link. Sounds arise and have nothing to do with any of the other senses.

Vision and thought are completely separate. The construction begins when we connect thought with vision. When we believe that the color is out there and the seer is in here and that these things are actual. It is just a thought construction. From this the push and pull and from that the closing in of awareness and the solid sense of self.

John Tan (Thusness):
This arising thought and previous thought, are they same or different?
This arising thought and previous thought, are they dependent or completely independent?

Beyond the extremes, see the middle path of dependent origination.

This is a vital teaching of the Buddha and closely relates to what John Tan expressed. Lastly, I would like to direct you to the Phagguna Sutta: https://suttacentral.net/sn12.12/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false (or the Pali equivalent, SN 12.12). It clearly demonstrates that we should not ask 'who', but rather observe 'dependent origination':

Saṁyutta Nikāya 12.12 (Phagguna Sutta)
At Sāvatthī. “Bhikkhus, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings that already have come to be and for the support of those seeking a new existence. What four? The nutriment edible food, gross or subtle; second, contact; third, mental volition; fourth, consciousness. These are the four nutriments.”

When this was said, the venerable Moḷiya Phagguna said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, who consumes the nutriment consciousness?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One consumes.’ If I should say, ‘One consumes,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who consumes?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, for what is consciousness a nutriment?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘The nutriment consciousness is the cause for the arising of a renewed existence in the future. When that which has come into being exists, there is the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact.’”

“Venerable sir, who makes contact?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One makes contact.’ If I should say, ‘One makes contact,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who makes contact?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with what as condition does contact come to be?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With the six sense bases as condition, contact comes to be; with contact as condition, feeling.’”

“Venerable sir, who feels?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One feels.’ If I should say, ‘One feels,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who feels?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with what as condition does feeling come to be?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving.’”

“Venerable sir, who craves?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One craves.’ If I should say, ‘One craves,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who craves?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with what as condition does craving come to be?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling as condition, craving comes to be; with craving as condition, clinging.’”

“Venerable sir, who clings?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One clings.’ If I should say, ‘One clings,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who clings?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with what as condition does clinging come to be?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With craving as condition, clinging comes to be; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

“But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six sense bases comes cessation of contact; with the cessation of contact, cessation of feeling; with the cessation of feeling, cessation of craving; with the cessation of craving, cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; with the cessation of existence, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”