Showing posts with label Freedom from Self-Nature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom from Self-Nature. Show all posts

Some random compilation of John Tan comments I thought of sharing. [18/6/23, 1:07:21 AM] John Tan: 👍 No seer, no seeing, nothing seen means freedom from all elaborations into the natural state -- spontaneously presents and naturally perfected. A state free from conceptual elaborations can be non-mentation like what Tsongkhapa said, there is no wisdom and insight involved. Insight of non-inherentness will result in direct taste non-existence clear appearances. .... 

 
“Ultimately, the basis is free from all elaborations, no mind, no consciousness, no conditions therefore no DO, no emptiness...no line of demarcation can be drawn.

For a practitioner that has anatta insight, there is no issue on freedom from all elaborations of the ultimate, It is how the conventional is understood that is difficult.” -
John Tan months ago

—-

“Yes, I think should add together as they represent the 2 different view of emptiness.

Freedom from all elaborations and freedom from self-nature.

Yeah I included the two. One is freedom from all elaboration, one is spacious dream-like nature, lack of self-nature as emptiness.” -
John Tan 2022

——

“It is not simply about freeing from elaborations and we r left with with the world also. Nor is it simply about experiencing presence and non-dual, they aren't the main concern.

Look at the scenery, so lurid and vivid;

Is the "scenery" out there?

Feel the "hardness" of the floor;

Is this undeniable "hardness" out there?

If "hardness of the floor" aren't out there, are is "inside" the brain? There is no "hardness" in the brain u can locate in the parts that make up the experience of "hardness".

It is not even in the "mind" for u can't even find "mind" then how can "in" the mind be valid?

If "hardness" isn't external nor internal, then where is it?

So, to me, buddhism is not about helping one taste presence or into an effortless state of non-dual or into a state free of conceptualities but also points out this fundamental cognitive flaw that confuses the mind. This is more crucial. If the cognitive fault isn't uprooted and seen through, then all experiences regardless of how mystical and profound will be distorted.

It is not simply about freeing from elaborations and we r left with with "the world" also. Nor is it simply about experiencing presence and non-dual, they aren't the main concern.

Look at the scenery, so lurid and vivid;

Is the "scenery" out there?

Feel the "hardness" of the floor;

Is this undeniable "hardness" out there?

If "hardness of the floor" aren't out there, is it "inside" the brain? There is no "hardness" in the brain u can locate in the parts that make up the experience of "hardness".

Then we say "no", it is in the "mind". So now what that is believed to be "external" in the past is being "internalized" in a "mind".

But WAIT,

How can "hardness" which is no where to be found be in "mind"?

Furthermore, we can't even find "mind" then how can "in" the mind be valid?

If "hardness" isn't external nor internal, then where is it?

So, to me, buddhism is not only about helping one taste presence or into an effortless state of non-dual or into a state free of conceptualities but more importantly points out this fundamental cognitive flaw that confuses the mind. This is more crucial. If the cognitive fault isn't uprooted and seen through, then all experiences regardless of how mystical and profound will be distorted.” -
John Tan months ago

 

 ........

 [19/6/23, 4:59:42 PM] John Tan: But inexpressibility doesn't mean there is no valid means of presentation but whatever expressed always imply characterization. This is nothing new as it is also clearly expressed in Tao De Jing. [19/6/23, 5:09:56 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Tao te ching points to a similar insight as anatta and freedom from extremes? [19/6/23, 5:11:28 PM] John Tan: Not anatta but freedom from all conventional elaborations. [19/6/23, 5:11:38 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. [19/6/23, 5:12:39 PM] John Tan: U must discern the difference between nyingma and gelug understanding of emptiness. [19/6/23, 5:13:25 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Actually upanishads also i think. But then i think still based on atman “e organs, i.e., free from the dualistic mind (namshe). So the Upanishadic view is that the really existing, eternal / permanent, non-dual, non-referential cognition is the âtmà, and this is not dualistic mind. This Upanishadic view existed even before the Buddha, and this was what Sankaràcàrya expounded very clearly and most powerfully around the 6th century. This view, similar to this Sankara view, was refuted by Śāntarakṣita as a wrong view. The Vedàntic Sutras and Sàstra-s are full of statements like: This âtmà is truly existent beyond existence and non-existence. This is truly non-dual beyond dual and non-dual. This âtmà is the Great Thing (mahàvastu), which is permanent beyond permanent and impermanent, etc., etc. It is empty of all qualities (nirguna), which means empty of foreign qualities, but not empty (of itself), i.e., not empty of being a truly existing permanent entity (sat); not empty of being non-dual cognition (cit), and not empty of bliss (ànanda). Sat-cit-ànanda is the nature of this âtmà (or non-dual cognition). “ - https://www.byomakusuma.org/VedantaVisAVisShentong.html [19/6/23, 5:13:35 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Anurag also said advaita also stress its inexpressible [19/6/23, 5:13:45 PM] John Tan: Yes [19/6/23, 5:13:53 PM] John Tan: Even christian [19/6/23, 5:14:00 PM] John Tan: 🤣 [19/6/23, 5:14:05 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic [19/6/23, 5:15:00 PM] Soh Wei Yu: But i think longchenpa should be clear about the anatman and emptiness of inherent existence [19/6/23, 5:15:29 PM] John Tan: Definitely [19/6/23, 5:15:46 PM] John Tan: Din u read the illusory book? [19/6/23, 5:16:21 PM] John Tan: And don't anyhow comment stuff u r not sure 🤦 [19/6/23, 5:16:40 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah This is also nice Longchenpa: https://www.shambhala.com/sno.../the-practice-of-dzogchen-2/ Exactly what I am searching" IDENTIFICATION (OF THE BASIS) THROUGH (UNDERSTANDING THE) VIEW The External Apprehended Objects Are Non-Existent Emptiness (i) The appearances are unreal reflections like the eight examples of illusion. Every aspect of the five objects, such as form, included in the phenomena of the world and beings, are mere appearances with no true existence. All the appearances which have appeared to both the pure perceptions of the Buddhas and the impure perceptions of deluded beings are the percepts of wisdom and the mind. While the appearances are appearing to both perceptions, they are appearing with no inherent existence (Rang-bZhin), like a reflection in a mirror and rainbow rays in the sky. To the pure perception of wisdom the (appearances) transcend the extremes of existing and non-existing as there are no stains of apprehender and apprehended. As there is no creating, ceasing, and changing, all are free from the characteristics of compounded phenomena, the appearances of uncompounded emptiness-form, and are totally free from conceptualizations. To the perception of the deluded mind, (the appearances) merely appear as the object of apprehension of self (bDag-'Dzin), which have fallen into the extreme (concepts) of existing or non-existing, are detached from the characteristics of uncompounded (nature), and have strengthened the habituations of adventitious and circumstantial self-perceptions. So, here, one will understand that the objects, the delusory appearances of the mind, are unreal. Various external appearances, such as white and red, are merely the percepts of rigid habits, like a dream created by the drunkenness of ignorant sleep. There is not the slightest existence (in them) as the object in the (true) meaning. Also, those appearances are not mind from the very point of their arising, because their substantial characteristics, such as color, size, and distinctions, negate the character of the mind. At the same time, they are not other than the mind, because, in addition to their being merely the delusory perceptions (of the mind), no other object has ever been established as such. The appearances to the mind are just types of experience of rigid habits continuing from beginningless time. It is like dreaming last night about a magic show one has seen yesterday. Therefore, one should think that whatever appears are appearances of non existence, and are without foundation, abiding place, natural existence, and recognizable (entity). They are merely a clear appearance of the empty nature like a dream, magical display, mirage, echo, shadowy view (Mig-Yor), water-moon (reflection), miracle, and the city of smell-eaters (a spirit world). Whatever appears, self or others, enemies or friends, countries or towns, places or houses, food or drink or wealth, and whatever one does, eating or sleeping, walking or sitting, one should train in seeing them as unreal. One should devote oneself to this training in all its aspects: the preliminary, actual, and concluding practices. (ii) The objects, if analyzed, are emptiness. If the appearances are examined from gross to subtle down to atoms, they are partless and non-existent. So form is emptiness. (Likewise,) by examining color and recognition of sound, it (will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the form and essence of smell, it (will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the aspects of taste, they (will be found to be) emptiness. Especially, by examining the sources (sense-objects), the emptiness of touch will be reached. Although they are different in appearance, they are the same in their nature in being emptiness, so the emptiness of various objects are not separate categories. Their nature, like pure space, transcends being either separate or the same. So the nature of objective appearances is emptiness in its essence. The Apprehender Has No Foundation and No Root (i) The consciousnesses are self-clarity without foundation. (There are eight consciousnesses.) The five sense-consciousnesses; arise as the five objects such as form, the mind-consciousness cognizes the general impression (of the appearing objects) and designates them as the objects, the defiled mind-consciousness is the sense of negating, accepting, hating and disliking (etc.), the mind-consciousness arises after the six consciousnesses (five senses and universal ground consciousness), ...and the consciousness of universal ground is self-clarity (Rang-gSal) and no thought and is unrelated to the objects: these are the eight or six consciousnesses. At the (very) time of (functioning of any of) those consciousnesses themselves, whatever consciousness it is, it is clear, vivid, and self-clarity with no foundations. Although they appear clear, there is no substantial entity. They are appearing without existence, like clear space and a breeze with no dust. Their clarity is present naturally like the sky without clouds. Their movements are like wind, not in distinguishable substances. From the (very) time of appearing, (the consciousnesses) as the apprehenders are self-clarity and unrecognizable. Watch them when they are arising and when they are abiding. Relax naturally and watch the manner of appearing of the apprehender. Thereby one will realize the apprehenders as having the nature of merely an appearance of clarity with no existence, emptiness with no bias, and self-clarity with no foundation. (ii) (The subject), if analyzed, is emptiness without root. By analyzing (whether) the self-clear, baseless mind (exists) in the external appearances, inner physical body, or intermediate movements, or if the entity of the self-dwelling mind itself (can be) recognized in (its) design, color, birth, cessation, and abiding, one will realize that its nature is non-existence, baseless and free from the extremes of either existence or non-existence. In this training the devotion to the Lama is the only important thing. [19/6/23, 5:18:24 PM] Soh Wei Yu: So i think for longchenpa, nyingma, their freedom from elaborations include the emptiness of inherent existence [19/6/23, 5:18:39 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Maybe they differ from gelug in expression and emphasis? [19/6/23, 7:15:53 PM] John Tan: To me, this separation of "existence" from "what appears" is unique and very skillful. "Non-existence" appearance is essentially the same insight as anatta. It involves the 2 authentications: 1. Seeing through the reification of conventional construct and 2. Recognition of appearances as one's empty clarity. What makes appearances appear "real, solid and external" are our mistaken perception of the inherent framework of subject-action-object. But that is only part of the confusion. The other is not realizing what appears is just radiance, that is y it is illusory and insubstantial. However if we deconstruct entities and characteristics, then mind and phenomena, consciousness and conditions are all deconstructed, u can't treat mind as real due to point 1. Otherwise one skewed towards yogacara (but then yogacara doesn't actually treat mind as real either). It is sort of straw-man stereotyping a group of practitioners attaching to mind as real. ..... [1/8/23, 12:06:48 PM] John Tan: It is difficult for a mind holding essential view to understand conceptually seamlessness, free of divisions, boundaries and non-difference. The best it can do within the limitation of it's inherent framework is to describe the taste is like everything emerges from space or emptiness. So as a skillful mean, there is nothing wrong taking things dissolve into an all encompassing dharmadhatu much like how vajrayana visualize everything as deities. But like how ocean is realized as a construct as well as wave, ocean is not any special than wave. Then when background consciousness is gone and only empty appearances left, even "wave" is gone. Many got stuck at One-Mind, there r also many that got stuck in non-conceptualities also in de-construction and do know know the actual taste of empty radiance. [1/8/23, 12:08:49 PM] John Tan: Everything is of "nature" of space in contrast to everything dissolves into space and space becomes a special substratum. ..... [1/8/23, 12:14:20 PM] John Tan: Yes I agree. Coz many understand from essential view and thought they understood freedom from all elaborations. If it contradicts DO, then the view is essential view like what Tsongkhapa said. Means there is no contradiction between spontaneous presence and dependent arising. Also when one deconstruct, there r 2 authentications; one relates to de-construction of conceptual mind and the other is recognizing and directly tasting the empty radiance. [1/8/23, 12:15:44 PM] John Tan: Whether, we deconstruct self, internality-externality, physicality, cause-effect, we must have this direct taste of radiance and relates to the actual taste. ..... [27/8/23, 9:29:26 AM] John Tan: 👍 Not only that u cannot realize emptiness without the clarity, u cannot realize dependent origination without clarity, they r both talking about radiance and light. Another important point is we do not realize that we r analysing and understanding from the perspective from essential view. We "negate" from the standpoint of an essential view; we understand dependent arising from an inherent view without realizing it. We do not understand from the perspective of light and radiance. They understand "illusion" from an essential view and thought that because of illusoriness, it is inconsequential. ..... [8/9/23, 2:26:14 PM] John Tan: I suggest u look into DO, emptiness and understand the non-contradiction between free from all elaborations and DO-emptiness of the conventional. It is not easy to understand functioning in the non-essential way of manifestations. Even if one is clear of how the mind confuses itself with essential view in terms reification of entities-characteristics, it does not mean one can understand how empty radiance functions in the non-essential way. This requires not only stable insights but also very stable authentication of energy and radiance patterns -- that the natural expressions of empty radiance exhibits certain patterns. [8/9/23, 2:35:06 PM] John Tan: For example, u think it is so easy to come out the 12 afflictive chain of DO? [8/9/23, 2:36:49 PM] John Tan: This requires very stable insight and radiance experience and observe how a mind in confusion sets the wheel of samsara in action. [8/9/23, 2:42:06 PM] John Tan: Do u think it is so easy to point out consciousness and phenomena are like the 8 similes of illusions? Or despite vivid appearances, there is nothing that is "there" at all, no "thingness" can be found at all and because of this empty nature, whole of samsara as well of the immense diversities of radiance can manifest? How skillful is it in that pointing? Yet we just simply read pass such profound pointing. ..... ..... [8/9/23, 2:44:04 PM] John Tan: Yes. Only when we deeply experience and authenticate, then our faith in the teaching can grow. Not through blind believe and we will practice diligently ...... [8/9/23, 3:07:42 PM] John Tan: Yes and even micro and macro cosmic orbit breathing of taoism. But one doesn't need to know all or suddenly change path. De-construction of mental constructions and conceptualities for example is a very effective way until one releases itself in openness of radiance clarity. Every de-construction of reification is energy-related, it is a full path itself also just that we do not carry it all the way. ..... [8/9/23, 3:16:00 PM] John Tan: For example, as we let go reifications into presence, it is not something just "mental", it is equally "physical"; it is not just "mind", it is equally "body", "breath" and "energies". When we alternately experience total exertion and freedom from elaborations, the seamlessness and intimacies without self and inherentness of empty parts allow deeper insights of the non-essential (empty) radiance. Then it allows us to glimpse the non-contradiction between the ultimate and relative. [8/9/23, 3:16:33 PM] John Tan: This is very good yin ling, don't lose track and continue ur meditation. [8/9/23, 3:35:44 PM] John Tan: Then we slowly have a deep understanding of the "conventional" and "conceptual" not only from mental perspective like arm-chair philosophers, but we "SEE and TASTE" dimensions of energies, radiances, "physicalities" in these so called "conventional concepts". So when we say they r only "conceptually" designated, the depth of understanding is different. [8/9/23, 3:42:53 PM] John Tan: "Self" for example, is not just a conceptual construct, it is also at the same time immense energies "stuck" in conflicts manifested everywhere in our body.😬🤣

 

 

-----------

 

 

André A. Pais
The point, however, is not that one keeps rehearsing in one's head the reasonings leading to an understanding of DO. If the aim is some kind of insightful lucidity free of conceptual elaborations, the 'presence' that is realized is not "a non-entity," or "empty of intrinsic nature." Those are just super useful conceptual elaborations, used prior to meditative equipoise or after, in post meditation discourse.

Reply
7h

André A. Pais
It's always important to distinguish path and fruition, equipoise and post meditation, approximate ultimate and actual ultimate, etc.

Reply
6h

Soh Wei Yu
André A. Pais What you said is not wrong, equipoise is without seer, seeing, seen, free from elaborations. But it is not seen here as contradicting D.O.:
[1/8/23, 12:14:20 PM] John Tan: Yes I agree. Coz many understand from essential view and thought they understood freedom from all elaborations. If it contradicts DO, then the view is essential view like what Tsongkhapa said.
Means there is no contradiction between spontaneous presence and dependent arising.
Also when one deconstruct, there r 2 authentications; one relates to de-construction of conceptual mind and the other is recognizing and directly tasting the empty radiance.
[1/8/23, 12:15:44 PM] John Tan: Whether, we deconstruct self, internality-externality, physicality, cause-effect, we must have this direct taste of radiance and relates to the actual taste.
.....
[27/8/23, 9:29:26 AM] John Tan: 👍
Not only that u cannot realize emptiness without the clarity, u cannot realize dependent origination without clarity, they r both talking about radiance and light.
Another important point is we do not realize that we r analysing and understanding from the perspective from essential view. We "negate" from the standpoint of an essential view; we understand dependent arising from an inherent view without realizing it. We do not understand from the perspective of light and radiance.
They understand "illusion" from an essential view and thought that because of illusoriness, it is inconsequential.
.....
[8/9/23, 2:26:14 PM] John Tan: I suggest u look into DO, emptiness and understand the non-contradiction between free from all elaborations and DO-emptiness of the conventional.
It is not easy to understand functioning in the non-essential way of manifestations.
Even if one is clear of how the mind confuses itself with essential view in terms reification of entities-characteristics, it does not mean one can understand how empty radiance functions in the non-essential way.
This requires not only stable insights but also very stable authentication of energy and radiance patterns -- that the natural expressions of empty radiance exhibits certain patterns.
[8/9/23, 2:35:06 PM] John Tan: For example, u think it is so easy to come out the 12 afflictive chain of DO?
[8/9/23, 2:36:49 PM] John Tan: This requires very stable insight and radiance experience and observe how a mind in confusion sets the wheel of samsara in action.
[8/9/23, 2:42:06 PM] John Tan: Do u think it is so easy to point out consciousness and phenomena are like the 8 similes of illusions? Or despite vivid appearances, there is nothing that is "there" at all, no "thingness" can be found at all and because of this empty nature, whole of samsara as well of the immense diversities of radiance can manifest? How skillful is it in that pointing? Yet we just simply read pass such profound pointing. .....
.....
John tan also wrote in 2022, “Should not be immobilized by ultimate otherwise ultimate becomes a stage or a state. Whether Dzogchen or Yogacara, they both have their views of the conventional. So no worry of formulating a valid view of the conventional clearly as whatever views formulated will not survive ultimate analysis and that is how one refine our insights as thoroughly understanding the emptiness of the conventional, one liberates further one's mind. Even Dzogchen of basis is also a view so it too is empty when subject to ultimate analysis.”

Reply
18m
Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Ultimate and Relative
"If asked what I am most drawn to (in Tsongkhapa's teachings), I am most drawn to Prasangika's "mere imputation". The quintessence of "mere imputation" is IMO the essence of Buddhism. It is the whole of 2 truths; the whole of 2 folds. How the masters present and how it is being taught is entirely another matter. It is because in non-conceptuality, the whole of the structure of "mere imputation" is totally exerted into an instantaneous appearance that we r unable to see the truth of it. In conceptuality, it is expanded and realized to be in that structure. A structure that awakens us the living truth of emptiness and dependent arising that is difficult to see in dimensionless appearance."
"In ultimate (empty dimensionless appearance), there is no trace of causes and conditions, just a single sphere of suchness. In relative, there is dependent arising. Therefore distinct in relative when expressed conventionally but seamlessly non-dual in ultimate."
"When suchness is expressed relatively, it is dependent arising. Dependent designation in addition to causal dependency is to bring out a deeper aspect when one sees thoroughly that if phenomena is profoundly without essence then it is always only dependent designations."
- Thusness, 2015
Labels: Dependent Designation, Dependent Origination, Emptiness, Madhyamaka |

Reply
17m

Soh Wei Yu
Those who hold the view that ultimate is non-dependent and separate from the relative are the more extreme forms of Shentong that veer into Advaita Vedanta. No different from Advaita Vedanta view

Reply
17m

John Tan:

That time I wrote 2 article on two-fold emptiness, u have the 2 articles I wrote? I think u post on dharma overground.

Soh:
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2013/04/daniel-post-on-anattaemptiness.html


Daniel M. Ingram wrote in http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/4179363

It is interesting that in another thread the was the assertion that MCTB whatever was about the first meaning of emptiness, rather than what your quote defines as both.

Just to be clear:

When I mean empty, I also mean without boundary, without inside and outside

I also mean the direct immediate experience in its unprocessed or raw form. I also mean the total dissolution of the sense of a perceiver.

I also mean no active agent.

I also mean that nothing is stable, including space and time.

I also mean that all is bare, shifting, empty sensate experience, causal, happening according to the basic laws of the universe, naturally, on its own.

I also would say that there is no boundary or differentiation between the sense doors at they occur, nor between body and mind, nor between manifestation and awareness, nor between this and that, beyond those ordinarily used for communication and discriminating function, but these are not the essential nature of experience, just part of it as sensations when they occur.

Nor can one find any here that is stable, nor a now that is stable, nor a knower, nor an investigator, nor any practitioner, nor any attainer.

When I talk of an integrated transient, natural, causal, luminous experience field, this sounds to me exactly like your "All collapse into a single sphere of natural presence and spontaneous simplicity."

I see no obvious difference either in theory or in actual practice.

Thoughts?

Thusness's comments to AEN:

Hi AEN,

Those were just some very casual sharing written on the spur of a moment, they were not well thought. Emptiness to me has another dimension if you wish to look into it.

When there is not even a single trace of Self/self nor is there any sense of inner/outer division, experiencer and what experienced collapsed...

At this moment there is just this vivid beautiful scenery, this bright brilliant world…all self arises

At this point…

Close your eyes....

Voidness....

Relax and rest in this all-consuming awaring void, this clear non-dual Awareness standing alone as itself and of itself…

Then shift the focus to the breath…

Just the sensations of the breath…

Then the transparent dancing sensations…absolutely no mind, no body, no experiencer/experienced, no inner/outer division… borderless and boundless

Every moment is great and miraculous…

This must become natural to you first.

Then at this moment of appreciating maha suchness of the breath, the sensations, the entire scenery, the entire world…

Understand that they are Empty!

Experience the magnificence then deeply understand that they are empty but this Emptiness has nothing to do with deconstruction nor reification nor do I mean they are simply impermanent. So what is this Emptiness I am referring to?



..............

On another occasion Thusness wrote:

Intelligent Knowingness as permanent… continuous… so many projections into time… so involved in mind conceptualities… Deconstruct seer, what happens is just this spontaneously manifested scenery

Deconstruct body further, you have mind-body drop

Deconstruct time, there will only be this clear vivid presence of immediacy

After arising insight of anatta, there is only “directness” and simplicity... go beyond conventions and conceptuality and recognize this immediate radiance is exactly what is appearing in this instantaneous moment...

If you are in need of a view for practice, then embrace the general principle of Dependent Origination that doesn’t entertain who-when-where construct, it will help sever dualistic and inherent propensities. Otherwise you will have to go back to the koan I asked you when I first met you in IRC… this moment ceases as it arises, is this moment arising or ceasing? If you are clear, then further penetrate this total exertion of immediacy and realize that though there is vivid appearances, there is nothing here… nothing now… you will never find it!

....

Also:

In ignorance, there is hearer hearing sound.
In anatta, in hearing, only sound.
Yet sound has no true inherent nature (empty),
It is an activity and is that very activity called “hearing”.
Both “hearing and sound” are pointing to the same activity.
Only when seen to have true existence on either side does confusion arise.

In Madhyamaka Emptiness, reification is seen through.
Yet the experiential state of freedom from reification is not expounded.
However one can have a taste of that freedom from arising insight of anatta since anatta is precisely the freedom from reification of Self/self (First fold Emptiness).
In anatta, seeing is simply the full scenery, in hearing only sound…
thus, always only lights, shape, colors, sounds, scents… in clean purity.
Emptying the object further (second fold) is merely dissolving subtle bond of “externality” that creates the appearance of true existence of objects outside. When “externality” is deconstructed, it is effectively a double confirmation of anatta…
…innerly coreless and outwardly empty, all appearances are still simply sound, lights, colors and rays
In thorough deconstruction, as there is no layer that reifies, there is no conceptuality. Therefore no complication, no confusion, no stains, no boundaries, no center, no sense of dual..
no sense of activity…just self arising.
All collapse into a single sphere of natural presence and spontaneous simplicity.
Whatever appears is
neither here nor now,
Neither in nor out,
Neither arises nor ceases,
In the same space…
non-local, timeless and dimensionless
Simply present…

To Jax:
The place where there is no earth, fire, wind, space, water…
is the place where the earth, fire, wind, space and water kills “You” and fully shines as its own radiance, a complete taste of itself and fully itself.

Lastly, it is interesting to get know something about Dzogchen however the jargons and tenets are far beyond me.
Just wrote due to a sudden spurt of interest, nothing intense.
Thanks for all the sharing and exchanges.
Gone!
These?
[2:37 PM, 8/5/2022] John Tan: Yes, I think should add together as they represent the 2 different view of emptiness.
[2:38 PM, 8/5/2022] John Tan: Freedom from all elaborations and freedom from self-nature.
[2:46 PM, 8/5/2022] John Tan: Ok I edited
Soh: Yeah i was thinking that way about those two recently also 😂
Those two articles
[3:15 PM, 8/5/2022] John Tan: Yeah I included the two. One is freedom from all elaboration, one is spacious dream-like nature, lack of self-nature as emptiness.
[3:16 PM, 8/5/2022] John Tan: If not difficult to search


Yin Ling
Which part is which? 😂 I still cannot diffferentiate
    Soh Wei Yu
    Yin Ling the part with deconstruction into nonconceptual leads to freedom from elaboration
    The other part where it says empty but not deconstruction refers to the empty nature of presence free from self nature
    John Tan can confirm
  • John Tan
    Soh Wei Yu yes. Actually imo, Mipham's presentation of freedom from all elaborations is "coalescence", it is just and exactly the actualisation of the non-conceptual insight of freedom from self-nature and it must be understood that way, not just "non-conceptualities". Focusing on eliminating conceptualities can be/is extremely misleading. However the analytical path will delayed the direct taste of vivid appearances but in terms of de-construction, contemplating freedom from self-nature is far deeper and much more helpful imo in freeing and uprooting mind's blindspots.
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
  • Yin Ling
    Meaning paragraph from
    “Just to be clear… until .. thoughts” —> freedom from elaborations
    Then
    “Hi aen.. till.. what is this emptiness I am referring to?” Freedom of self-nature
    Then
    “Intelligent knowingness.. till .. you will never find it” Is freedom from elaboration
    Then the rest is freedom of self-nature?”?
    Lol
  • John Tan
    Yin Ling I think I will find time to articulate properly...lol.
  • Yin Ling
    John Tan thanks lol!
  • Max Ng
    I see cake