John Tan shared two videos with the same title but by different persons.
John Tan commented: "Luminous clarity but one of the brainiest physicist in history."
John Tan commented: "I really like susskind.
Definitely into emptiness and dependent arising. Though he doesn't claim to be a Buddhist, he is very much into Buddhism."
A nice video shared by John Tan.
[24/1/26, 8:58:11 AM] John Tan: I really like this YouTube. Very clear explanation and same understanding even from a contemplative approach. Very Buddhist imo.
[24/1/26, 9:03:08 AM] John Tan: Then he talk about Buddhism anatta near the end. He should he go deeply into dependent arising and emptiness.
The Core Theme: Substantialism vs. Non-Substantialism
John is using the context of a video—likely regarding quantum physics or field theory—to illustrate the difference between a Substantialist view (how we intuitively see the world) and a Non-Substantialist view (the Madhyamaka/Emptiness view).
He is critiquing the tendency to use a "substantialist framework" (thinking in terms of "things," "wholes," or "essences") to understand scientific concepts that effectively point to the absence of inherent nature.
John emphasizes "apophatic logic" (negative logic). This is the method of understanding reality by removing or negating delusions rather than affirming a new "ultimate thing."
Holism (Substantialist/Affirmative): This view says, "Everything is One." It treats the universe as a giant container or a singular, giant object. This is "Wholeness." It implies an underlying essence that binds distinct parts together.
Seamlessness (Non-Substantialist/Negative): This view says, "There are no boundaries." Seamlessness isn't a "thing" called "The Whole"; it is simply the absence of separation.
John's Point: If you view reality as "Holism," you are still holding onto a subtle object (the "Whole"). If you view it as "lack of boundary," you are realizing Emptiness.
Substantialist View: You imagine distinct objects (nodes) A and B, connected by a line (relationship). This presumes A and B have independent existence before they connect.
Dependent Arising View: There are no "nodes" to begin with. Dependence does not mean "things exist because they rely on each other"; it means because they are dependent, they do not inherently exist.
John's Point: "The sense of interconnectedness [comes] from lack of essence." Interconnectedness is not about connectors joining pre-existing items; it is the realization that since no independent essence can be found, phenomena are merely dependently designated.
John mentions "Non-implicative negation" (prasajya-pratisedha).
Implicative Negation: "This is not a chair" (implies it might be a table). It negates one thing to affirm another.
Non-Implicative Negation: "There is no inherent self." This negates the self without implying that something else (like a Cosmic Self, a Void, or a Substance) exists in its place.
John's Point: This logic allows appearances to be vivid and function (conventional reality) while being ultimately empty. We do not need a "substance" behind the scenes for reality to function; the lack of substance is why it functions.
John explicitly targets the trap of "Oneness."
"Emptiness/dependent arising is beyond whole and parts, neither one nor many."
If you say reality is "One" (Holism), you fall into Eternalism (asserting an ultimate existing substance). If you say it is "Many" (separate atoms/particles), you fall into Substantialism. Madhyamaka argues that because phenomena originate dependently, they cannot be singular (as they depend on parts/causes) nor plural (as distinct parts would require independent existence).
John draws a parallel between modern physics (as seemingly discussed in the video) and Emptiness.
The Analogy: Physics reveals there are no solid "particles" (objects) at the fundamental level, only fields, functions, or mathematics.
The Mistake: We try to "house" these findings into our old way of thinking. We reify "energy" or "fields" into a new kind of stuff or substance.
The Correction: "Objects" are just conventions—mental designations we place on abstract relationships. Just as "Monday" is a convention (not a physical object), a "chair" or "electron" is a nominal designation for a set of conditions, devoid of an existing essence.
In the final messages, John connects this view to practice:
"looking into our meditative experiences and luminous clarity, the body and mind somehow rewired itself to understand the formation of appearances differently."
He suggests that when we stop projecting "essence" or "solidity" onto experience:
Luminosity/Clarity is no longer seen as a "Self" or "Source."
Appearances are seen as magical, vivid displays that have no "backer," "owner," or inherent existence.
The mind stops looking for a "thing" behind the movement and simply recognizes the function itself—vividly appearing yet thoroughly empty of "existing existents."
Note: This is just a general introduction to the purpose of Koan. If you wish to work on Koan, find a deeply realized and qualified Zen teacher and work with him/her. – Soh
Someone asked: “Are koans a good practice for stage 1? Or just self-inquiry?”
Soh replied:
If you wish to train in Zen koans, you should find a qualified and awakened Zen master to train under.
There are many classes of koans. Self-inquiry is one of the classes of koan, for beginners to have the initial realization of I AM. This is crucial in Zen too.
You can also try this:
The purpose of self-inquiry and similar types of koans is this:
Someone told me about having been through insights of no-self and then progressing to a realization of the ground of being.
Soh: Hi [Name],
Thanks for the sharing.
This is the I AM realization. I had that realization after contemplating “Before birth, who am I?” for two years. It’s an important realization. Many people had insights into certain aspects of no-self, impersonality, and “dry non-dual experience” without doubtless realization of Presence. Therefore I AM realization is a progression for them.
Similarly in Zen, asking “Who am I?” is to directly experience presence. How about asking a koan of “What is the cup?” What is the chirping bird, the thunder clap? What is its purpose?
When I talked about anatta, it is a direct insight of Presence and recognizing what we called background presence is in the forms and colors, sounds and sensations, clean and pure. Authentication is to be authenticated by all things. Also there is no presence other than that. What we call background is really just an image of foreground Presence, even when Presence is assuming its subtle formless all-pervasiveness.
However, due to ignorance, we have a very inherent and dual view; if we do see through the nature of presence, the mind continues to be influenced by dualistic and inherent tendencies. Many teach to overcome it through mere non-conceptuality, but this is highly misleading.
Thusness also wrote:
The anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of no-self. But it must first have an intuitive insight of Presence. Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights.
Labels: Anatta, Luminosity
John Tan: Yes Emanrohe,
That is precisely the question asked by Dogen: “If our Buddha Nature is already perfect, why practice?” This question continues to bother him even after the initial glimpse and that led him to China in search for the answer that eventually awakened his wisdom into the non-dual nature of Awareness.
Therefore we must understand that in the Zen tradition, different koans were meant for different purposes. The experience derived from the koan “before birth who are you?” only allows an initial glimpse of our nature. It is not the same as Hakuin’s koan of “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” The five categories of koan in Zen range from hosshin that gives the practitioner the first glimpse of ultimate reality to five-ranks that aims to awaken the practitioner to the spontaneous unity of relative and absolute (non-duality).
Only through thorough realization of the non-dual nature (spontaneous unity of relative and absolute) of Awareness can we then understand why there is no split between subject and object as well as seeing the oneness of realization and development. Therefore the practice of natural state is for those that have already awakened to their non-dual nature, not just an initial glimpse of Awareness. The difference must be clearly understood. It is n
ot for anyone and it is advisable that we refrain from talking too much about the natural state. The “natural” way is in fact the most challenging path; there is no shortcut. On the other hand, the gradual path of practice is a systematic way of taking us step by step until we eventually experienced the full non-dual and
non-local nature of pristine aware ness. One way is by first firmly establishing the right view of anatta (non-dual) and dependent origination and practice vipassana or bare attention to authenticate our experience with the right view. The gradual paths are equally precious; that is the point I want to convey. Lastly there is a difference between understanding Bu
ddha Nature and God. Not to let our initial glimpse of pristine awareness overwhelm us. :-)
Edited by Thusnes
Thusness: Ha… this is a very late re
ply and yes what y ou said is very true. It is difficult to have someone that is so-trained academically and scientifically to provide us such deep insight in the spiritual discipline. The article is very clear, well structured and organized. We should learn how to treasure good stuff. :)
I will just jot down some of my thoughts after reading it.
Although much is mentioned in the article about divided consciousness, the ‘strength’ of making a practitioner sink back to a divided consciousness is overlooked. We should never underestimate the power of this bond. That is, given a 1,000 practitioners that have sufficient glimpses of the pristine-ness or even awaken to the non-dual nature of Awareness, the tendency for these practitioners to fall back to ’divided consciousness’ remains surprisingly strong. Why despite all the blissful experiences, the tendency to fall back to a divided state continues to be powerfully strong? In transpersonal psychology, holotropic breathwork is one technique that deals with the deeply held bond of the subconscious and unconscious mind. Unleashing these deeply held bonds can cause transpersonal experiences that include communication with mythic deities, recalling past life memories, OBEs and memories of perinatal events. Regardless of whether these experiences are delusional or hallucinatory, we must not overlook the vast impact of ‘bonds’ on consciousness.
Ne
xt, I will just touch a little on the importance of the relationshi p between the view, path and fruition as I think to experience the therapeutic effect from a particular form of practice, “syncing” the view, path and fruition is crucial. The significance of the relationship surfaced while I was reading this article and was triggered by your question 2 days back about whether Genpo Roshi is talking about anatta in . this video While Dr. John Welwood outlined the different path of practices from pre-reflective identificat
ion, to the practice of conceptual reflection, to pure witnessing, to transformation and self-liberatio n, his focus is mainly on the aspect of how direct and effective each method is in narrowing the gap of subject-object duality. T o me it is more im portant to have clarity on the exact experiential fruition that can be derived from adopting a particular view and path of practice. For
example if someone were to ask will dissolving ‘personality’ result in a non-dual experience? We need to know what the experience of “impersonality” is like and what methods of practice that will lead to the experience of “impersonality” and the role “impersonality” plays in non-dual presence. To illustrate, let’s take the question you asked about Genpo Roshi. There is no doubt that Genpo Roshi is speaking about an
atta -- “there is witnessing, there is no witness”. However the ‘path’ he uses is clearly a ‘desync’ from his ‘views’ of anatta. He uses a ‘stepping back witnessing method’ which is essentially a reflective proce ss; frankly using the “stepping back technique” to experience anatta is quite contradicting and can be counter-productive. I must say it is not an effective way to bring about an experiential non-dual insight of anatta. In Zen tradition, different koans were meant for different purposes. For example the experience derived from the koan “before birth who
are you?” is not the same as the Hakuin’s koan of “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” The five categories of koan in Zen ranges fr om hosshin that gives the practitioner the first glimpse of ultimate reality to five-ranks that aims to awaken the practitioner to the spontaneous unity of relative and absolute. Similarly different techniques can also be devised to allow a practitioner to experience the different qualities of Awareness. The experience of “impersonality” is not the same as the experience of the “pristineness” of our nature
; the experience of “oneness” is also not the same experience as spontaneity; the experience of non-dual without a subject and object split does not necessarily result in the thorough insight of anat ta; the experience of anatta is also not the same experience when a practitioner thoroughly sees the emptiness nature of phenomena. Thus, the master that prescribes the medicine must have deep clarity and wisdom of the view, path, fruition and conditions of the students. It is not a one-for-all sort of medicine. Lastly no one religion has monopoly over Truth much less a tradition. The techniques of spontaneous perfection in Mahamudra and self-liberation in Dzogchen that are described by Dr. John Welwood will naturally b
e realized by a Zen practitioner that passes the five-rank koan. Even in the basic teachings of Buddha, as long as we have compl ete and thorough insight of anatta and the principle of Dependent Origination, practitioners will also naturally e nter the pathless path of self-liberation. :)
John Tan: Alejandro, I would separate non-arisen and emptiness from the luminosity. IMO, it's a separate pointing. The one hand clapping here directly points to the luminosity.
What is the way that leads the practitioner t
o “the direct taste”? In Zen, koan is the technique and the way. The one hand clapping koan
is the instrument that leads one to directly and intuitively authenticate presence = sound. Le
t’s use another koan for example, “Before birth who am I?” This is similar to just asking “Who am I?” The “Before birth” here is to skillfully lead the thinking mind to penetrate to the limit of its own depth and suddenly completely cease and rest, leaving only I-I. Only this I as pure existence itself. Before birth, this I. After birth, this I. This life or ten thousand lives before, this I. Ten thousand lives after, still this I. The direct encounter of the I-I. Similarly, the koan of the sound of one hand clapping is to lead the practitioner, after initial breakthrough into I-I, not to get stuck in dead water and attached to the Absolu
te. To direct the practitioner to see the ten thousand faces of presence face-to-face. In this case, it is that “Sound” of one hand clapping. Whether one hand claps or before both hands clap, what is that sound? It attempts to lead the practitioner into just that “Sound”. All along there is only one hand clapping; two hands (duality) are not ne
eded. It is similar to contemplating “in hearing always only sound, no hearer”. As
for the empty and non-arisen nature of that Sound, Zen koans have not (IMO) been able to effectively point to the non-arisen and emptiness of on e’s radiance clarity.
John Tan: Liu Zhi Guan Zen koans relate more to the direct pointing of one's radiance clarity, whereas MMK [Mūlamadhyamakakārikā] is about letting the mind see its own fabrications and allowing it to free itself from all elaborations (non-Gelug) or free itself from all fabrications (Gelug). The most crucial insight of both Gelug and non-Gelug (IMO) is to let the mind realize the primordial
purity (emptiness) nature of both mind/phenomena. Although Mipham treated Gelug's freedom from self-natur
e as categorized ultimate, I can only tell you I disagree. Both are able to achieve their objectives (IMO). In fact, if you were to ask for my sincere opinion, I prefer freedom from self-nature (Gelug) as, if understood properly and with experiential insight, it will lead to both +A and -A of emptiness. If we were to treat the conventional (conceptuality) as the cause of ignorance, it prevents some very valuable insights that will take probably a lot of time to detail out. I will not go too detailed into that.
In short
, seeing through intrinsic existence will similarly allow practitioners to see through conceptual constructs (non-conceptualities), see through duality (non-dual) and substantiality (essenceless ness). Phenomena lack of self-nature also lacks sameness or difference; therefore, their primordial purity will likewise be realized, and selflessness also results in natural spontaneity. Yet because practitioners put freedom from self-nature at a higher order, they will not be bound by conceptualities and can embrace the conventional fully.
John Tan (2020): Be it Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana; be it Dzogchen, Mahamudra or Zen; they do not deviate from the definitive view of the 3 universal characteristics of dharma. Therefore experiences and realizations must always be authenticated with right view, otherwise we end in wonderland that is neither here nor there.
The "who am I" of Advaita and "before birth who am I" may have the same initial "realization" -- the face to face direct authentication of one's original face, and followed by a series of similar mind-shaking experiences but when subject to Madhyamaka ultimate analysis, they fall short of the prajna that Buddhism i
s talking about. Therefore keep the realization but refine the view. (To someon
e at the I AM phase)
Having said that John Tan did devise a
John Tan: “Now” is not a container to him but rather a ground for him to land.
Say that there is... Share with him the post about Daniel's post on anatta and emptiness.
Then say there is a related koan that I ask you to [use for] a direct taste of the emptiness of the "here and now" but requires one to have direct experience of non-dual presencing:
Appreciate the vivid, lurid scenery in non-dual and ask,
Whe re is this scenery?
On Anatta:
John Tan: André, to me "no awareness" in anatta is like telling us not to stop moving air to experience wind so that we can experience the blowing directly, effortlessly, and naturally.
Dependent origination is to explain the conventiona
l relationship between wind and moving air to establish its validity conventionally and frees the inherent and dualistic rigidity. Emptiness is very special, it is a koan.
The convent
ion "wind" is empty and non-arisen. What is that "wind"? Why express that it originates in dependence and is empty and non-arisen?
(On the last point: also see
Mr. LZG: Before I am born, who was "I"? The sound of wooden block hitting the table.
Soh Wei Yu: That is not the "correct answer" to that koan. Although, there are no correct answers to koan so memorizing one is beside the point—the only correct answer is your own satori. But if you give this answer, the Zen master will tell you it is wrong.
Soh: I just heard—now attending his talk. But he asked about the source: where do thoughts come from, where does cause and effect come from, who am I?
John: One day, get the opportunity to tell him why Zen becomes one with action is because of the realization that the source is not necessary. Although what is needed now is
Soh: What do you mean?
John: What answer does h
Soh: Should be the I AMness. He is going through a list of koans. He rejected people hitting the
John: [Laughs] Yeah, the I AM. You didn’t tell him?
Soh: [Laughs]
John: For Zen, the seven phases of insights will have to be rewritten for them to understand. But koan now has become a Q&A game. Unlike the past. Like studying a 10-year series.
Soh: I see. “For Zen the 7 phases of insights will have to be re-written for them to understand” — how is it to be rewritten?
John: Shorten to directly point.
Welcome to Awakening to Reality Hello! Welcome to the Awakening to Reality site. Must-Read Articles “Thu...
Posts
