Videos and Audios made by John Tan. Remember to hit Subscribe to John Tan’s YouTube channel!
Reality Isn’t Made of Things — It’s Made of Relations:
To Function is to be Empty: Resolving the Paradox of Reality:
The Anatomy of a Label: How Words Create Our Reality:
The Miracle of the Unfindable: Why You Must Be Empty to Function (Phase 6):
Who Am I Vs Anatta:
Thusness’s Phase 5–7 Insights:
Why Insights and Experiences Still Require Right View:
Dependent Arising, Emptiness, and the Non-Substantialist View:
Nagarjuna’s MMK: 5 Core Deconstruction Logics:
Empty Dimensionless Nature, Multi-Dimensional World:
Deconstructing: Who, What, Where and When:
Beyond Non-Dual Anatta: Logic and Causal Efficacy of a Substrateless World:
Context: Ontic Structural Realism, Category Theory, and Empty Relations
Tyler Jones: This and another recent PasserBy video are about the connections between John Tan’s view and science and mathematics. Do you know whether John is aware of ontic structural realism—the philosophical view that there are no objects, only structural patterns—which grew out of an analysis of general relativity and quantum field theory? Recent work in the foundations of mathematics, such as category theory, higher category theory, topos theory, and homotopy type theory, also seems to move cutting-edge mathematical practice toward OSR.
Soh Wei Yu: John Tan said: “Ontic structural realism, yes. But it is not the same, because relations are ultimately empty too in a substrateless world. Ontic structural realism asserts that these structures are completely objective and exist independently of human minds or language.”
Soh Wei Yu: “Agential realism and Carlo Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics are closer.”
Soh Wei Yu: John Tan then made this new video and said, “This should answer Tyler Jones’s question.”
John Tan: It is also worth emphasizing that the causal efficacy of relations does not apply only to physics, but to all facets of the conventional world, including physics, culture, spirituality, myth, economics, karma, astrology, language, mathematics, and so on. Once all these facets are included, it becomes easier to understand why relations themselves are empty.
Aditya Prasad: The link may have changed to https://youtu.be/yob8YRp5x2Y. Also, how familiar is John Tan with the Yoneda Lemma? It is great fun to study category theory up to that point if one is interested in that sort of thing.
Tyler Jones: Yes, the category-theoretic foundations of mathematics change things. It might be interesting for John Tan to look into this if he has not already come across it. In category-theoretic foundations, mathematical and linguistic structures derive their properties only from their relations. Homotopy type theory and higher category theory then make it so that there are relations of relations, and so on—relations all the way down. It seems that these could potentially overcome the objections John raised.
Soh Wei Yu: Yes, thank you.
John Tan: Yes, definitely. The Yoneda Lemma and category theory are perhaps among the most elegant mathematical presentations of MMK. This reminds me of isomorphism in computer science and object-oriented programming. I think the mathematics captures the beauty of the inseparability of emptiness and the non-referential aspects of dependent arising excellently.
John Tan: But in practice, we need the experiential taste and the soteriological dimensions. Relational formation is emphasized alongside the deconstruction of the object so that the mind does not attach to relations as the new substrate.
John Tan: Actually, the main purpose of presenting the relational view is to deconstruct the “relata” and to dispel the misconception that causal efficacy is lost when essence is emptied. On the contrary, when this is understood correctly, we see causal efficacies manifesting everywhere: in cognitive science, mathematics, physics, language, culture, finance, economics, mythology, and so on.
John Tan: The relational presentation is also much more effective in deconstructing essence and can convey more than the noun-to-verb fluidity of anatta.
John Tan: It is to demonstrate that “essence” is never needed. Ironically, explanations become more coherent and tenable, with fewer contradictions, when we do away with essence. The intention is never to make “relations” a new reality or a new ground, since relations too are conventional expressions of valid functioning.
John Tan: However, it is not easy to control NotebookLM’s generation of a cinematic video so that it conveys the meaning within five minutes. It is meant to convey some points that may help break stubborn projections of independent absolutes in space, time, self, object, and so on. It was also for me to test out the new features of Gemini NotebookLM. 😂
You, Ice, Coldness Don't Exist Before Interaction:
Relational Ontologies and the Deconstruction:
MMK Non-Implicative Negation Ironically Shows: Dependent Arising = Spontaneous Presence:
Context: Presence and Its Nature
Mr. G: Right, no fundamental substratum or substance. But all this seems to be the branches. Is not the root the very presence of anything or no-thing, in whatever manner, way, or mode? Without such presence, existence, or being — call it what you like — we would not even be talking here.
Soh Wei Yu: Realizing Presence is not the same as realizing its nature. Without realizing its nature, there is no liberation; instead, there are reifications and further bondage.
As John Tan also commented before on Thusness’s Seven Phases of Insights:
Only phase 5 onwards are about the "nature" of presence.
That is why I kept telling you, don't keep talking about spontaneous perfection without clear insight of phase 6.”
Soh Wei Yu: John Tan just posted a new video, MMK Non-Implicative Negation Ironically Shows: Dependent Arising = Spontaneous Presence. It is precisely related to this point.
Further Exchange: Presence and Its Empty Nature
Mr. G: Soh Wei Yu — Realizing Presence is realizing its nature. Sambhogakaya is not separate from Dharmakaya. The very realization of Presence is Sambhogakaya.
Soh Wei Yu: I would still distinguish recognizing clarity or Presence from realizing its empty nature. This point is discussed in Recognizing Rigpa vs Realizing Emptiness, and the Different Modalities of Rigpa.
“We don’t have any misunderstanding. Again this is rhetoric versus reality. Up until the third vision, ‘emptiness’ is obscured, and therefore at the time of direct introduction it is merely rhetorical. The nature of mind, as non-dual clarity and emptiness, is not truly known until the third vision — again, per Longchenpa, per Khenpo Ngachung, etc.; this is not something I have made up. What do we generally recognize in direct introduction? We recognize clarity [gsal ba], and the aspect of vidyā that is concomitant with that clarity. Vidyā is then what carries our practice, but vidyā is not the citta dharmatā, the nature of mind. This is why the first two visions are likened to śamatha, and the last two are likened to vipaśyanā.”
“I’ve never met anyone who gained any insight into emptiness at direct introduction. Plenty recognized rigpa kechigma, though. I don’t presume to know better than luminaries like Longchenpa and Khenpo Ngachung, who state that emptiness is not actually known until the third vision and so on. You may presume otherwise, and in that case we can agree to disagree.” — Kyle Dixon
Soh Wei Yu: I also wrote to Mr. J that, as John Tan has said before and as many others have likewise reiterated — including Malcolm, the Dalai Lama, and others who went through similar phases — there is a distinct phase of realizing Awareness, or the unfabricated clarity aspect of rigpa, and a distinct realization of emptiness. Malcolm may not use the term “Awareness” in the same way, but the distinction remains important. Even Longchenpa and other Dzogchen masters point out that realizing emptiness in thögal happens only at the third vision.
John Tan’s reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:
“This is like what I tell you, essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing its Nature. First apprehend Mind; later realize its Nature.)
First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness — 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path, like Zen sudden enlightenment of one’s original mind, or Mahamudra, or Dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa, or even self-enquiry in Advaita — the direct, immediate perception of ‘consciousness’ without intermediaries. They are the same.
However, that is not the realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). In my opinion, there is a direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind), but I have not yet seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). If you go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, you will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots are.
Therefore emptiness, or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature), is the main difference between Buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between Buddhist anatta and the selflessness of other religions — whether it is anatta as the experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone, or whether that experiential taste is triggered by the wisdom of emptiness.
The former focuses on selflessness, and the whole path of practice is all about doing away with self; whereas the latter is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.
As for emptiness, there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness in Tsongkhapa, and there is emptiness free from extremes in Gorampa. Both are equally profound, so do not talk nonsense or engage in profane speech. In terms of result, ultimately they are the same, in my opinion.”
— John Tan
“Nature — there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realizing the clarity of the mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels.” — Dalai Lama, quoted in “Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book”
The Axiom of Great Responsiveness:
Soh Wei Yu: John Tan has also developed his own axioms and mathematical framing for the non-substantialist view, as a way of expressing dependent arising and emptiness in a more precise, structural form.
John Tan’s comment on the axiom video:
I am seeing an exceedingly close parallel between current quantum physics and the non-substantialist understanding of dependent arising and emptiness, especially in topics like quantum entanglement and Hilbert space, once I understand what those cryptic quantum-physics terms are pointing to. It is like a perfect instrument for modern physicists to understand the ancient philosophy of Madhyamaka.
The more I study, the more I see the beauty of modern science. It is truly like emptiness and dependent arising expressed in mathematics. I really hope that one day, Madhyamaka and quantum physics can be seamlessly brought together in a single teaching.
Practical Note: Using NotebookLM to Ask Questions About the Videos
After the videos were shared, Jui asked whether the source notebook behind the videos could be shared, so that anyone who needed more help could continue asking questions about the topic.
Jui: Is the notebook that the videos are based on shareable? Then anyone who needs further help can keep asking questions to it, to help them understand this topic.
Soh Wei Yu: Unfortunately, the videos are based on John Tan’s book, and John Tan does not intend to release the book at the moment.
Jui: No worries. At least I tried. 😝
John Tan later suggested that readers do not need access to the book in order to make practical use of the videos. They can load the videos into NotebookLM and continue asking questions from there.
William: You know what is ironic? You are using NotebookLM to make the videos, and I am using NotebookLM to understand your videos. 😂
John Tan: Our perceptual and mental framework is cursed to see things, and not relations. 🤦
William: I was asking NotebookLM about the phenomenology of one who sees and experiences non-substantiality on a daily basis. 😂
Audio Teachings:
The Silent Witness is a Trap:
https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/The_Silent_Witness_Is_a_Trap.mp3
Everything is a Luminous Empty Display:
https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/Everything_is_a_luminous_empty_display.m4a
The Universe is Verbs, Not Nouns:
https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/The_universe_is_verbs_not_nouns.m4a
The Handshake That Creates the Hands:
https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/The_Handshake_That_Creates_the_Hands.m4a
Update
A reader recently sent me a message sharing that they experience everything as "just particles." John Tan responded:
Further Discussion on Relationality and Emptiness
Mr. CG: “Relationalities are the very texture of appearance… There is no background mirror… the interdependent contrasting reflections themselves are the mirror.” To me it sounds like he subtly reifies relationality. But there is no inherent relationality to be found. Maybe I misinterpret.
Soh Wei Yu: He does not reify relationality, but sees this point clearly:
Yin Ling · Tsongkhapa short verse on his profound enlightenment to the truth.
***
In a short verse work composed as a letter to his first attendant, Tsakho Ngawang Drakpa, Tsongkhapa would articulate this crucial point about the equation between emptiness and dependent origination:
When, with respect to all phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa,
You see that cause and effect never transgress their laws,
And when you have dismantled the focus of objectification,
At that point, you have entered the path that pleases the buddhas.
As long as the two understandings—
Of appearance, the regulated world of dependent origination,
And of emptiness, the absence of all standpoints—remain separate,
You have not realized the intent of the Sage.
However, at some point when, without alteration and at once,
The instant you see that dependent origination is undeceiving
If the entire object of grasping at certitude is dismantled,
At that point your analysis of the view is complete.
Furthermore, when appearance dispels the extreme of existence,
And when emptiness dispels the extreme of nonexistence,
And you understand how emptiness arises as cause and effect,
You will never be swayed by views grasping at extremes.
John Tan: This is perhaps the most important point for me post-anatta insight. So profound and deep.
Yin Ling: John Tan yes and you emphasise this repetitively so thank you.
John Tan: Yin Ling yes. Tsongkhapa is familiar with emptiness free from all elaborations in traditional Tibetan schools and, in fact, in his earlier days, he accepted this view. But many in the traditional schools see the ultimate that lacks sameness or difference, i.e, non-arisen of "sameness" of "difference" as literally "no" sameness or difference thinking that "oh ultimately they are just conceptual notions". Instead, Tsongkhapa pointed out that this "unestablished" free from elaborations means dependent arising, dependent on conditions, "this is, that is".
Soh Wei Yu:
“EMPTINESS DEVIATING TO THE BASIC NATURE
Timeless Deviation to the Nature of Knowables
The meditation of inseparable phenomena and emptiness is called “emptiness endowed with the supreme aspect.” Not knowing how emptiness and interdependence abide in nonduality, you decide that emptiness is a nothingness that has never existed and that is not influenced at all by qualities or defects. Then you underestimate the cause and effect of virtue and vice, or else lapse exclusively into the nature of all things being originally pure, primordially free, and so forth. Bearing such emptiness, the relative level of interdependence is not mastered. In this respect, this is what is known as mahamudra: one’s basic nature is unoriginated and, since it is neither existent nor nonexistent, eternal nor nil, true nor false, nor any other such aspects, it has no existence whatsoever. Nonetheless, its unceasing radiance arises as the relative level of all kinds of interdependence, so it is known as emptiness having the core of interdependence and interdependence having the nature of emptiness. Therefore, emptiness does not stray to the nature of knowables. In the Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way it is said:
Anything that doesn’t arise dependently
Is a phenomenon that has no existence.
Therefore anything that is not empty
Is a phenomenon that has no existence.
And as said in the Commentary on Bodhichitta:
It is taught that the relative plane is emptiness,
And emptiness alone is the relative plane.”
– The Royal Seal of Mahamudra, Volume 2, Khamtrul Rinpoche
“A lot of talk on here lately about how lame relative reality is vs how awesome ultimate reality is.
Apparently an omniscient master is supposed to see how both the relative and the ultimate exist at the same time in a Union of Appearance and Emptiness.
It's because everything is dependently arisen that it can be seen as empty.
Not even the smallest speck exists by its own power.
Je Tsongkhapa said, "Since objects do not exist through their own nature, they are established as existing through the force of convention."
He was the biggest proponent of keeping vows and virtuous actions through all stages of sutra and tantra.
He also leveraged the relative by practicing millions of prostrations and offering mandalas.
He also practiced generation and completion stages of tantra while keeping his conduct spotless.
He held conduct in the highest regard in all of his texts on tantra such as his masterwork, A Lamp to Illuminate the Five Stages.”
- Jason Parker, 2019
The birth of certainty ~ Lama Tsongkhapa
The knowledge that appearances arise unfailingly in dependence,
And the knowledge that they are empty and beyond all assertions—
As long as these two appear to you as separate,
There can be no realization of the Buddha’s wisdom.
Yet when they arise at once, not each in turn but both together,
Then through merely seeing unfailing dependent origination
Certainty is born, and all modes of misapprehension fall apart—
That is when discernment of the view has reached perfection.
– Lama Tsongkhapa
Soh Wei Yu: Longchenpa on Nihilism. From Finding Rest in the Nature of Mind.
Those who scorn the law of karmic cause and fruit
Are students of the nihilist view outside the Dharma.
They rely on the thought that all is void;
They fall in the extreme of nothingness
And go from higher to lower states.
They have embarked on an evil path
And from the evil destinies will have no freedom,
Casting happy states of being far away.
”The law of karmic cause and fruit,
Compassion and the gathering of merit -
All this is but provisional teaching fit for children:
Enlightenment will not be gained thereby.
Great yogis should remain without intentional action.
They should meditate upon reality that is like space.
Such is the definitive instruction.”
The view of those who speak like this
Of all views is the most nihilist:
They have embraced the lowest of all paths.
How strange is this!
They want a fruit but have annulled its cause.
If reality is but a space-like void,
What need is there to meditate?
And if it is not so, then even if one meditates
Such efforts are to no avail.
If meditation on mere voidness leads to liberation,
Even those with minds completely blank
Attain enlightenment!
But since those people have asserted meditation,
Cause and its result they thus establish!
Throw far away such faulty paths as these!
The true, authentic path asserts
The arising in dependence of both cause and fruit,
The natural union of skillful means and wisdom.
Through the causality of nonexistent but appearing acts,
Through meditation on the nonexistent but appearing path,
The fruit is gained, appearing and yet nonexistent;
And for the sake of nonexistent but appearing beings,
Enlightened acts, appearing and yet nonexistent, manifest.
Such is pure causality’s profound interdependence.
This is the essential pith
Of all the Sutra texts whose meaning is definitive
And indeed of all the tantras.
Through the joining of the two accumulations,
The generation and completion stages,
Perfect buddhahood is swiftly gained.
Thus all the causal processes
Whereby samsara is contrived should be abandoned,
And all acts that are the cause of liberation
Should be earnestly performed.
High position in samsara
And the final excellence of buddhahood
Will speedily be gained.
- Finding Rest in the Nature of Mind (vol 1)
Also by Longchenpa:
"To reject practice by saying, ‘it is conceptual!’ is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided.”
— Longchenpa
Mr. TJ: John Tan, do you consider this most crucial post-anatta insight fundamentally different from the other post-anatta insights discussed at length on the blog? Such as +A/maha/total exertion or spontaneous perfection? Does anyone other than Tsongkhapa and his followers clearly point to it?
John Tan: Mr. TJ, no. It does not differ from +A and -A; the natural openness requires that understanding. Tsongkhapa is profoundly insightful and revolutionary in a certain sense. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with his other followers. However, in my opinion, what Tsongkhapa expounded cannot be understood by analysis alone. We can't logically deduce or induce what he said; it can only be experientially authenticated.
Malcolm (Acarya Malcolm Smith):
MMK refutes any kind of production other than dependent origination. It is through dependent origination that emptiness is correctly discerned. Without the view of dependent origination, emptiness cannot be correctly perceived, let alone realized. The MMK rejects production from self, other, both, and causeless production, but not dependent origination. The MMK also praises the teaching of dependent origination as the pacifier of proliferation in the mangalam. The last chapter of MMK is on dependent origination. The MMK nowhere rejects dependent origination, it is in fact a defense of the proper way to understand it. The only way to the ultimate truth (emptiness) is through the relative truth (dependent origination), so if one’s understanding of relative truth is flawed, as is the case with all traditions outside of Buddhadharma, and even many within it, there is no possibility that ultimate truth can be understood and realized.
John Tan: The DO part is really good. When did Malcolm say that? Recently or in the past?
Soh Wei Yu: I see. https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=36315... from above. The others from here https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=36283...
John Tan: Many misunderstand that oh ultimately it is empty and DO (dependent origination) is conventional therefore conceptual so ultimately empty non-existence.
We must understand what is meant by empty ultimately, yet conventionally valid. Nominal constructs are of two types, those that are valid and those that are invalid like "rabbit horns". Even mere appearances free from all elaborations and conceptualities, they inadvertently manifest therefore the term "appearances". They do not manifest randomly or haphazardly, they are valid mode of arising and that is dependent arising. When it is "valid" means it is the acceptable way of explanation and not "rabbit horn" which is non-existence. This is the part I mentioned in my reply to Andre.
Do you get what I meant?
What it means is there is still a "right" or "acceptable" or "valid" way to express it conventionally. Take freedom from all elaborations for example, it doesn't mean "blankness" or "anything goes". There is right understanding of "freedom from all elaborations" that is why Mipham has to qualify that it is not "blankness", it does not reject "mere appearance", it must be understood from the perspective of "coalescence"...and so on and so forth. Similarly, there is right understanding of "arising" conventionally and that is DO (dependent origination).
So when we clearly see how essence = true existence = independence of causes and conditions are untenable for anything to arise, we see dependent arising.
Additional Discussion: Dharmakaya, Luminosity, and Emptiness
Reader’s Concern
A practitioner recently reached out after reviewing some of John Tan's (Thusness) video teachings, expressing a concern that an essential axis of realization was being overlooked. While acknowledging that efforts to avoid reification are valid, they argued that reducing experience to bare phenomena—describing it merely as empty, spontaneously arising, and governed by causes and conditions—represents the ultimate pinnacle of reductionism. In their view, this deconstructive approach remains trapped within a conceptual, "left-brain" paradigm.
They contrasted this with a holistic, "right-brain" mode of perception that grasps reality all at once, much like a complete picture coming into focus rather than a puzzle pieced together from parts. This holistic mode, they emphasized, is entirely inaccessible through scrutiny, skepticism, logic, or willful deconstruction. The practitioner described this state as alive, magical, wondrous, loving, and deeply characterized by an awe that words cannot capture—arguing that it is far more profound than simply being a "reified luminosity."
Feeling that a relentless reliance on analytical deconstruction lacks this fundamental awe, they pointed to the Tibetan use of the syllable "Ah"—a non-affirmative negation—as the ultimate pointer to this reality. They concluded by questioning whether this holistic, living essence is in fact the asymmetrically "greater half" of the Truth that strict deconstructive frameworks fail to appreciate.
The same practitioner later added, with much love, that their concern was that John Tan’s and ATR’s framing did not seem to lead exactly to the dharmakaya or ālaya, and therefore, in their view, something was missing. They felt that there must be living Will, unity with the divine, and bodhisattva relationality in order to find the “rainbow road” leading to the development of Being that enables true enlightened action. Otherwise, they suggested, the result would be “just” freedom, akin to the Pratyekabuddha ideal. They added that spontaneous perfection must include the aspiration to compassion and completion for all beings, manifesting in every word, thought, and action; otherwise, it would not be perfection. For them, this must include all conditionality, even the conditions that cause suffering and distortion, and see even that as purity—or rather as non-purity—such that prajñāpāramitā arises with no remainder.
Response
Dharmakaya in Buddhism simply refers to the Buddha's complete realization of emptiness. When the two obscurations are eliminated, the path is complete. See At What Point Does One Attain Liberation?.
Two Liberations: Arhatship and Buddhahood
This is also why I distinguish śrāvaka/arhat liberation from Buddhahood. In Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna terms, a full Buddha removes the afflictive obscurations, just like an arahant, and additionally removes the cognitive or knowledge obscurations. Arhatship is genuine liberation from saṃsāra through the exhaustion of the afflictive obscurations, while Buddhahood is the completion of the path through the exhaustion of both obscurations.
Therefore, when the concern is raised that without “living Will,” “unity with the divine,” or “bodhisattva relationality,” the result would be merely “just freedom,” akin to the Pratyekabuddha ideal, the ATR response is not that compassion and bodhicitta are unimportant. Rather, the Buddhist map defines completion by the two obscurations: liberation from afflictive obscuration is real freedom, while complete Buddhahood additionally requires the removal of the cognitive obscurations. The bodhisattva path is therefore not a merely contrived emotional ideal, but the full maturation of wisdom and compassionate activity through the completion of the path.
Related Clarification: Dōgen’s Total Exertion
It is also helpful to bring in John Tan’s draft article, Dōgen Total Exertion — Totality Beyond Whole and Parts, because it directly addresses the concern that dependent arising and emptiness might sound like a dry reduction of experience into bare phenomena.
In the language of total exertion, each appearance is not an isolated fragment, nor merely a part contained within a larger metaphysical whole. Each phenomenon is the full functioning of all conditions, vividly and immediately expressing itself as this sound, this breath, this action, this response. Therefore, ATR’s emphasis on emptiness is not a denial of aliveness, awe, intimacy, or responsiveness. Rather, it is precisely because there is no fixed essence, no independent agent, and no substantial background that phenomena can shine as living, relational, unobstructed activity. This avoids both reductionism and the reification of a divine Will, cosmic substance, or metaphysical unity.
Luminosity is actually very natural after anatta, so there is no need to overemphasize it. In fact, it becomes most intense and mature there. See The Magical Fairytale-like Wonderland and Paradise of this Verdant Earth Free from Affective Emotions, Reactions and Sufferings. As John Tan said, post-anatta, one should put Presence aside and focus on penetrating dependent origination and emptiness. See Putting aside Presence, Penetrate Deeply into Two Fold Emptiness. Prior to Phase 5, however, one may still need to refine one's insight into Presence through deeper insight.
As John Tan also commented before on Thusness’s Seven Phases of Insights:
Only phase 5 onwards are about the "nature" of presence.
That is why I kept telling you, don't keep talking about spontaneous perfection without clear insight of phase 6.”
John Tan said before that "I am only interested in ppl that genuinely know phase 6 insights. To date, only Tsongkhapa and Mipham displayed that clarity, although they debate a lot on that... lol". So he only focuses on these teachers (besides Buddha and Nagarjuna).
He also said before:
I still haven't compiled it. I don't want to read into others' views now. Currently, I don't actually have any cognitive obscurations. So I just chat with some AI to refine and organize my thoughts and articulations.”
— https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2026/05/no-mind-does-not-mean-unknowing-of-wood.html
Also, I find what John Tan said just yesterday quite relevant to this conversation.
John Tan: Emptiness liberates why? Because it is the lack of obstruction, isn't it?
Soh Wei Yu: Yeah.
John Tan: The teaching of Emptiness is not talking about anything; not presence, not qi, not energy, not consciousness, not matter, not field... etc... it is talking about whenever any phenomenon appears, it must have the nature of non-obstructionness no matter how firm, solid, hard they appear... their nature is empty. To the inherent mind, they can't see this fact and use their own inherent premise to understand. But to what we conventionally term as phenomena—photon, electron, neutrons, quarks, sunlight, rain, earth, wind, space, time, mind, presence, consciousness... etc., to infinity... They must have a nature of unobstruction—emptiness, otherwise they can't even appear. These appearances might not even be "there" at all to other consciousnesses despite appearing vividly to us. The color of a rose we see must be empty, the photon that hits the rose must be empty, otherwise they won't even appear, they can't even interact. Madhyamaka is not interested in presence or consciousness but Dzogchen is... the teaching of emptiness is saying do you understand this "nature" of whatever appears (phenomena). You as Wei Yu have this nature, do you understand this nature. Your nature by default is liberation.
Soh Wei Yu: I see... But presence is natural, right, for one who realizes anatta? Not as something to seek or identify like Advaita, but as luminous manifestation.
John Tan: Presence yes, if you talk about presence 😂 How you understand emptiness with this body is what you must learn.
Soh Wei Yu: For me, presence is not something special or ultimate but just the vivid quality of illusory appearances... so I see presence, D.O., and emptiness as quite seamless and non-contradictory.
John Tan: Both are equally important. But for liberation, it's emptiness.
Soh’s Additional Response
Regarding the phrase “living Will” or “unity with the divine,” it depends on what is meant. In ATR terms, divine will and impersonality are discussed in Four Aspects of I AM. I have gone through that phase myself. Impersonality is important, but it can also become reified if it is not penetrated further.
As for the bodhisattva path and bodhicitta aspiration, these are certainly important. But compassion can remain quite contrived until genuine awakening. Acarya Malcolm Smith has made a similar point: Dzogchen practitioners do not need to cultivate a merely contrived kind of compassion. When one awakens to one’s true nature, the wish for others to awaken and be free from suffering arises naturally.
I do not like to speak about myself in this way, but I recall that John Tan once insisted years ago that I share with someone how I walk the bodhisattva path: by tirelessly sharing the Dharma for free, without monetary or personal benefit. This includes not only sharing in Facebook discussions, Reddit, and other places, but also freely sharing the e-books and practice guides I have compiled. Yet I have never felt that I was “practicing compassion” as a deliberate project. It was never contrived; it was spontaneous. I simply reach out and share wherever it may be helpful.
.png)
