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.