Showing posts with label Luminosity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luminosity. Show all posts

Conversation in May 2007

(8:19 PM) Thusness: tok about da zhi mu fa...

(8:19 PM) Thusness: what is it?

(8:20 PM) AEN: hmm... i add truthz over can? hehehe

(8:21 PM) Thusness: okie

(8:21 PM) ??? Sama has been added to the conversation.

(8:21 PM) AEN: hi truth

(8:21 PM) AEN: hehe

(8:21 PM) Thusness: hi.

(8:21 PM) ??? Sama: hello

(8:21 PM) ??? Sama:

(8:21 PM) ??? Sama: i dunno how to explain da zhi mu fa

(8:22 PM) AEN: wah lao u dunnu i also dunno

(8:22 PM) AEN: hahahaha

(8:22 PM) AEN: hmm

(8:22 PM) ??? Sama: hahaa

(8:23 PM) Thusness: this name of this practice is given by?

(8:23 PM) ??? Sama: Master (Ven Shen Kai)

(8:23 PM) AEN: da zhi mu fa verse is something like 'qian nian yi guo (the past thought has gone), hou nian bu qi (the future thought does not arise), zhong jian yuan zhan kai lai wu liang wu bian (in the middle extend openly into limitless, boundless infinity)'... its like transcending thought and sustaining the state of presence....

(8:24 PM) ??? Sama: expanding the gap betw 2 thots

(8:25 PM) Thusness: the name is given by?

(8:25 PM) AEN: in the v beginning he never teach much, he only gave these four verses for his students to 'can1' (like koan)... but now teacher chen giving more details talks

(8:25 PM) AEN: orh

(8:25 PM) ??? Sama: master

(8:25 PM) AEN: i tink master shen kai..

(8:25 PM) ??? Sama: master sheng kai

(8:25 PM) AEN: i tink the word derives from prajna, which master shen kai also say is 'mother of wisdom'

(8:25 PM) Thusness: yes.

(8:26 PM) Thusness: da zhi mu fa

(8:26 PM) Thusness: why da

(8:26 PM) Thusness: why zhi

(8:26 PM) Thusness: why mu

(8:26 PM) Thusness: ?

(8:26 PM) ??? Sama: mu is mom

(8:26 PM) ??? Sama: mother

(8:26 PM) ??? Sama: mu being the prajna

(8:26 PM) Thusness: yeah...

(8:26 PM) Thusness: but why da zhi mu?

(8:26 PM) ??? Sama: wisdom flowing out of this mu

(8:27 PM) Thusness: first ur master shen kai has some thought before he came out this title.

(8:27 PM) Thusness: Da means?

(8:28 PM) ??? Sama: big

(8:28 PM) Thusness: what is he thinking when he said Da?

(8:28 PM) ??? Sama: hehe

(8:28 PM) AEN: without boundary?

(8:28 PM) ??? Sama: hmm

(8:28 PM) ??? Sama: great wisdom...

(8:28 PM) Thusness: how great?

(8:29 PM) ??? Sama: y u ask how great?

(8:29 PM) AEN: hmm boundless?

(8:30 PM) Thusness: u must know...coz u do not know the thoughts of ur master.

(8:30 PM) ??? Sama: i oso think it just means boundless lor

(8:31 PM) Thusness: if your master never put thoughts in the name of the title, then one is not being serious in ones teaching.

(8:32 PM) Thusness: a serious practitioner will always want to put all and everything into as short sentence as possible.

(8:32 PM) Thusness: the lesser the better.

(8:32 PM) AEN: oic.. how come

(8:32 PM) Thusness: until none.

(8:32 PM) AEN: icic

(8:32 PM) ??? Sama: ok

(8:32 PM) Thusness: da is not big.

(8:32 PM) ??? Sama: then wot does this great imply?

(8:34 PM) Thusness: means great but this great like what AEN said is without boundary

(8:34 PM) Thusness: means he does not know how great or big

(8:34 PM) AEN: icic..

(8:34 PM) ??? Sama: ic

(8:35 PM) Thusness: but in his mind, he expressed it as da...without limit, or small without size.

(8:35 PM) Thusness: zhi is wisdom...

(8:35 PM) Thusness: this wisdom is without limit, it is not ordinary form of wisdom.

(8:36 PM) Thusness: and why mother?

(8:36 PM) ??? Sama: source?

(8:37 PM) AEN: mother bcos it arises wisdom?

(8:37 PM) Thusness: what ur master is trying to imply is the way, the path, the technique that gives birth to the great wisdom without limit.

(8:37 PM) Thusness: he wanted to convey this technique to all his followers.

(8:37 PM) AEN: icic..

(8:38 PM) ??? Sama: ic

(8:38 PM) Thusness: there are so many paths, so many techniques, so many ways

(8:38 PM) AEN: hmm but from wat i read master shen kai always say all dharmas eventually come to 'da zhi mu'.. something like tat

(8:38 PM) Thusness: some say this, some say that....but what ur master think is this is the way that can give birth to this wisdom.

(8:39 PM) AEN: icic

(8:39 PM) ??? Sama: ic

(8:39 PM) Thusness: so what is the way that can give birth to this wisdom?

(8:40 PM) Thusness: the past thought is gone, the future thought hasn't arise, right now....expand the gap limitless wide...

(8:40 PM) Thusness: this is the way, the path towards the birth of wisdom.

(8:40 PM) AEN: icic..

(8:40 PM) ??? Sama: ok..

(8:41 PM) Thusness: just this way, this simple way will give rise to wisdom.

(8:41 PM) Thusness: that is nakedness of awareness

(8:41 PM) AEN: oic..

(8:41 PM) ??? Sama: ic

(8:42 PM) Thusness: when ur master thought of the name, I think he put much effort into it.

(8:43 PM) Thusness: but many takes it as a name and practice as what it is...trying to visualize what will happen

(8:43 PM) Thusness: and what is it about...

(8:43 PM) Thusness: and to see what...

(8:43 PM) Thusness: so what there is nakedness, what is seen?

(8:44 PM) AEN: awareness?

(8:44 PM) Thusness: what awareness?

(8:44 PM) Thusness: or what is awareness?

(8:45 PM) AEN: erm.. like our buddha nature? without limits and boundaries

(8:45 PM) Thusness: that is definition

(8:45 PM) AEN: icic

(8:45 PM) Thusness: what is seen?

(8:45 PM) ??? Sama: what is?

(8:46 PM) Thusness: and what is, what is?

(8:46 PM) AEN: but many takes it as a name and practice as what it is...trying to visualize what will happen --> yea lzls say some ppl practise visualising expanding to include the house, then the town, then Singapore, then Malaysia, etc.. lol. then she say that is not 'boundless'

(8:46 PM) AEN: hmm

(8:46 PM) AEN: clarity?

(8:46 PM) Thusness: no no...

(8:46 PM) Thusness: what is seen when previous thought is gone, new thought hasn't arise, right there...what is it?

(8:46 PM) Thusness: what is what is?

(8:47 PM) Thusness: i have said so many times....

(8:47 PM) AEN: everything? lol

(8:47 PM) Thusness: and what is everything?

(8:47 PM) Thusness: now?

(8:47 PM) AEN: means every seeing, hearing, etc?

(8:47 PM) Thusness: what is it now?

(8:47 PM) Thusness: don't define...

(8:48 PM) AEN: hmm

(8:48 PM) Thusness: hmm...ur head!

(8:48 PM) AEN: lol

(8:48 PM) Thusness: the words that form on the screen

(8:48 PM) ??? Sama: dun define how to write

(8:48 PM) Thusness: the keyboard..

(8:48 PM) Thusness: the sound of the basket balls

(8:48 PM) AEN: icic

(8:48 PM) Thusness: the air

(8:48 PM) Thusness: the breathe

(8:48 PM) Thusness: the everything...

(8:49 PM) ??? Sama: is it like wot u say, the fabric, texture of reality

(8:49 PM) Thusness: because the mind that is bound cannot know the essence of all these...he/she doesn't know the instantaneous moment of reality.

(8:49 PM) Thusness: yes...then entirety of the single flash....the fabric and texture of reality...

(8:49 PM) AEN: icic.. yea.. master said something like if anapanasati is awareness of breathing, da zhi mu is 'whole awareness'

(8:50 PM) Thusness: this is the very wisdom right now...

(8:50 PM) AEN: oic

(8:50 PM) Thusness: this is the limitless wisdom that is boundless

(8:50 PM) ??? Sama: ic

(8:50 PM) Thusness: that words that form on the screen is already the wisdom.

(8:50 PM) Thusness: this is the essence and that is all.

(8:50 PM) AEN: oic..

(8:51 PM) Thusness: when u practice, enter with this understanding and heart.

(8:51 PM) ??? Sama: is there a phrase call 'guan ru shi'?

(8:51 PM) Thusness: otherwise not a single thing is known.

(8:51 PM) Thusness: yes.

(8:51 PM) Thusness: what is...

(8:51 PM) AEN: icic

(8:52 PM) ??? Sama: so is da zhi mu fa is = guan ru shi?

(8:52 PM) Thusness: guan ru shi means?

(8:53 PM) ??? Sama: touching n feeling the texture, taste, smell, hear...

(8:54 PM) Thusness: ur master wants u to know that the very moment of luminosity in nakedness is the very wisdom itself.

(8:54 PM) Thusness: whatever arises at the moment of nakedness is the very wisdom. :)

(8:54 PM) Thusness: anything besides that is not what he wants u to know.

(8:55 PM) ??? Sama: does it mean that our hearing 'ting jue (jue = awareness)' or sight 'shi jue', etc r already the awareness?

(8:55 PM) Thusness: and the depth of experience is not in words. :)

(8:55 PM) Thusness: yes.

(8:55 PM) AEN: oic

(8:56 PM) ??? Sama: so basically i just guan wotever my senses jue (awareness)... n as it is.. that is reality already?

(8:56 PM) Thusness: yes. :)

(8:56 PM) Thusness: the five aggregate is buddha nature.

(8:56 PM) Thusness: but a dualistic mind can't see.

(8:56 PM) ??? Sama: wot abt the thots floating ard?

(8:56 PM) ??? Sama: that is oso the reality?

(8:57 PM) Thusness: yes.

(8:57 PM) Thusness: but u must know what is dualistic and what is non-dualistic.

(8:57 PM) Thusness: means there is nothing that is not it.

(8:57 PM) ??? Sama: explain?

(8:57 PM) Thusness: but the inability to see causes pain.

(8:57 PM) ??? Sama: ok

(8:57 PM) Thusness: though everything is it, the mind is unable to know.

(8:58 PM) AEN: truthz: like teacher chen said about poking someone... the pain sensation is just the awareness, but later when asked he said "I was in pain", tats dualistic thought

(8:58 PM) ??? Sama: rite.. n the thot that it is pain is oso it

(8:58 PM) AEN: yes

(8:58 PM) Thusness: but the mind that completely puts down the past thoughts, and free itself from future thoughts, resting upon nothing and not even now sees clarity.

(8:59 PM) AEN: icic..

(8:59 PM) Thusness: this is the is the way towards liberation.

(8:59 PM) Thusness: anything besides that is extra...

(9:00 PM) AEN: oic

(9:00 PM) Thusness: when we feel the incredible realness, the tremendous clarity, experience the boundlessness of this instantaneous moment, then it is clear.

(9:00 PM) Thusness: there is no need to define or ask any thing.

(9:01 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:01 PM) ??? Sama: ok

(9:01 PM) Thusness: so AEN this saturday...listen with this basic understanding.

(9:01 PM) AEN: icic.. ok

(9:01 PM) Thusness: and enter the explanation. :)

(9:02 PM) Thusness: it will be clearer for u. :)

(9:02 PM) AEN: oic.. ok

(9:02 PM) ??? Sama: wot time start?

(9:02 PM) ??? Sama: i oso go hehe...

(9:02 PM) AEN: lol

(9:02 PM) AEN: 7.30 p.m

(9:02 PM) Thusness: :)

(9:02 PM) AEN: playing da zhi mu fa

(9:03 PM) ??? Sama: john, is da zhi mu fa same thing as wot Padmasambhava talk of seeing with naked awareness?

(9:03 PM) ??? Sama: ya i guess as much

(9:03 PM) Thusness: there are many stages to it...the entrance until the entire experience...

(9:04 PM) Thusness: the way towards opening the gate towards great wisdom is this way.

(9:04 PM) Thusness: like insight meditation

(9:04 PM) ??? Sama: ic

(9:04 PM) Thusness: but the meaning of it...u must know at least in a conventional sense.

(9:05 PM) Thusness: then ur master will not waste his effort naming this technique....ehehehehe

(9:05 PM) AEN: oic.. haha

(9:05 PM) ??? Sama: hehe

(9:05 PM) ??? Sama: he wont jump from his grave liao

(9:05 PM) ??? Sama: since he's already schooling

(9:06 PM) Thusness: lol

(9:06 PM) AEN: lol

(9:06 PM) Thusness: ang mo now...

(9:06 PM) AEN: half ang mo half chinese

(9:06 PM) ??? Sama: best of both worlds

(9:06 PM) AEN: haha

(9:06 PM) ??? Sama: black hair?

(9:07 PM) ??? Sama: ask ur dad ship him a PS3 lah, AEN

(9:07 PM) AEN: hahahah

(9:08 PM) Thusness: :)

(9:10 PM) ??? Sama: master said our 6 senses r like electric appliances... n awareness is the electricity

(9:11 PM) AEN: oic.. where?

(9:11 PM) ??? Sama: i forgot..

(9:11 PM) AEN: icic

(9:11 PM) ??? Sama: jue is like the dian ma

(9:12 PM) ??? Sama: then dian flow thru the yan jue, er jue,etc

(9:12 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:13 PM) Thusness: it is just an illustration.

(9:13 PM) ??? Sama: ya

(9:14 PM) Thusness: when we tok about buddha teachings, the essence should be so:

(9:14 PM) Thusness: the electricity should not be taken as an entity.

(9:14 PM) Thusness: the organs are part of the conditions for manifestations

(9:15 PM) AEN: icic

(9:15 PM) ??? Sama: ic

(9:15 PM) Thusness: when condition arises, it is the luminosity of the appearances that u must know

(9:15 PM) Thusness: u never see or know what awareness is unless through conditions where appearances manifest

(9:16 PM) ??? Sama: luminosity does it mean wot u see actually glows?

(9:16 PM) Thusness: that vividness of appearance is awareness in real time and life.

(9:16 PM) AEN: ya i tink vividness is the rite word

(9:16 PM) Thusness: not what i see glows, it is the seeing is the object is the awareness

(9:17 PM) AEN: like 'being' the seeing

(9:17 PM) ??? Sama: ic

(9:18 PM) AEN: mindfulness has a vivid quality esp when the sense of duality decreases or disappears... then u 'become' the trees, the flowers, etc

(9:19 PM) ??? Sama: ic


ChatGPT translated a passage I wrote from Chinese to English:

Here's the translation of the passage you provided:

"I feel that what I wrote yesterday was not clear, so I wanted to elaborate:

When you reify awareness, it becomes one whole, encompassing everything as its parts, just like the ocean and its waves. But when you deconstruct the waves and the ocean, the whole and the parts, it's merely the bright, luminous, pellucid, vividness of sound, taste, and color – the basis upon which waves and ocean are mere imputations of. Awareness is just a name but empty of its own existence, like how 'weather' is a term denoting rain, wind, sunlight, and all dynamic manifestations of ungraspable nature, and is not a container or singular overarching entity, nor does it transform into or modulate as them. Similarly, awareness isn't an unchanging singular overarching entity that permeates, encompasses, subsumes, or even modulates as everything. What's seen, heard, and felt is clear, vivid, luminous, and crystal-like. 'Awareness' is merely a term to describe such, not permeated/pervaded by a singular essence of awareness across all diverse sights, sounds, and sensations. Ultimately, awareness is seen as not possessing its own intrinsic nature, not just as a dualistic nature of a background witness, but also empty of a substance that possesses 'oneness with everything' or a unity with all things. And the 'awareness substance' is seen through without leaving a trace, leaving only the luminosity and clarity that is all appearances, not just a state of self-forgetfulness but a wisdom insight. As Scott Kiloby, a teacher from America, once said: 'If you see awareness as no different from everything, and those things are not separate "things", why use the term 'awareness'? You are left only with the world, your life, and the diversity of experiences.' Another teacher, Dr. Greg Goode, who initially practiced Advaita but later delved deeply into Buddhism, told me: '

It looks your Bahiya Sutta experience helped you see awareness in a different way, more .... empty. You had a background in a view that saw awareness as more inherent or essential or substantive?

I had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's treatise about the "prior entity," and I had been meditating on "emptiness is form" intensely for a year. These two threads came together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the "ten-thousand things" in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic, playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back. No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy everywhere..."

Among the practitioners I've met (be it Buddhist or non-Buddhist), of those that can realize the nonduality of perceiver and perceived, even if they transcend the duality of the seer and the seen, they still retain the oneness (inherent ontological singular overarching substance) of Advaita, not realizing the Buddhist anatta, still leaving traces. They might experience the mindlessness of 'in the seen just the seen', but still retain the view of a really existing singular pervasive mind, so experience and view are not in sync.

Thus, Master Guoru, a lineage successor of Ch'an Master Shengyan, also said in the book I gave you, 'Believing that there exists a pure mind is absolutely wrong. "True illumination without illumination", "One mind is empty of Mind", these phrases are all about the ultimate reality of all dharmas. The Record of Bodhisattva Shanwei also mentions: "In the nature of extinction, there's no extinction; in true awareness, there's no cognizance", which can be understood theoretically.' Patriarch Bodhidharma also said, 'Both delusive thoughts and wisdom cease forever; when both luminosity and illumination end, remaining serene and non-active, this is called the supreme.' Damo's discourse on No-mind: 'The disciple then suddenly realized, knowing that outside the mind there's no phenomena, and outside of phenomena, there's no mind. Every action and use became free, breaking all webs of doubt, with no more attachments.'


(Note: The translation tries to capture the essence and literal meaning of the text while ensuring comprehensibility in English. Some Buddhist terms are kept as close to their original meaning as possible.)

John Tan:

Not only that you cannot realize emptiness without the clarity, you cannot realize dependent origination without clarity, they are both talking about radiance and light.

Another important point is we do not realize that we are 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.

Nice advice and expression of anatta in recent days from Yin Ling and Albert Hong.


Thanks Soh Wei Yu. He collated all my random posts and Albert’s very nice comment, John’s training the AI 😂, and put it together.
Below is a crucial insight I wish everyone can realize.
When you bath the Buddha, the Buddha is you, the water is you, the temple is you, your hand is you, the ladle is you, and you are the nature of mind.
You are NOT the body, you are mind. You don’t die, don’t change, don’t move, and you are Buddha. Blessed Vesak. May all awaken to their true nature and stop suffering. 🙏🏻🙏🏻


Yin Ling:
First step of meditation is to ascertain the knowing MIND. Without it there is no realisation. The bird, the sky, the touch, the coffee, are all your MIND. MIND once ascertained and strengthen will take one out of “self view” to realisation & we won’t get lost.
The Satipatthana sutta is a wonderful instruction to reach insight.
“Feel the body in the body”, when practicing, don’t think. Feel.
Truly feel the body FROM inside the body. Feel the sound from the sound itself. (1) tbc
(2) feel the feelings, thoughts and all 6 senses in itself and via itself.
It is as though u Insert ur awareness into the middle of the feelings and feel from inside.
(3) practice satipatthana for months to years, consistently.
The Buddha’s mindfulness practice aim to transform our mind : 1) weaken the central self energy and 2) realising awareness has always infused in the 6 senses, not apart.
(4)satipatthana will bring u to the powerful no-self realisation, if u were taught correctly and if u practice consistently 2 hours a day.
The mind energy WILL transform rapidly in 8-12 months.
Albert Hong:
it's remarkable that hearing is exactly the sound. there is no distance or gap. seeing is exactly color. feeling is exactly sensation. there is nothing extra. just that arising color, taste, sensation, sound.
and the flavor/texture of that is exactly consciousness. 
it's remarkable really. being to extend that sense of consciousness, which we all previously only emphasized as prior to thought, as some localized sensation behind the eyes. we have to notice how that is a very subtle effort, a kind of assumption at play. 
the flavor of consciousness is exactly the sensation, the color, the smell, the sensation. like holy shit there is no hearer. no seer. no feeler. it's only ever an assumption. 
you go into sensation for example. there is no actual link between sensations. it's only that sensation, which is exactly the flavor of luminosity. and it has no real link to anything else. thoughts don't touch it, smells don't, colors don't. it's remarkable what imputation-thought can assume to glob together a seeming "thingness".
but even between one sensation and another. there is only ever that arising which is exactly the sensation. there is no prior, so you don't even have a contrast. you can never hold two things. just that sensation. how remarkable. everything is contained right there. nothing prior, hence how could there even be a sensation. where is there continuity? there is no room or time or space for continuity. and yet it magically seems like there is.
even the witness. it's just a sensation at the end of the day. nothing prior, which experiences the witness-sensation. feeling is exactly that sensation. or lets extend that as the whole sphere of beingness. again another feeling-sensation. none of this has to disappear. the extra imputation of a feeler, has to be seen as silly. never will be, never has been, just never really examined.
Yin Ling's sharing:
John Tan's conversation with AtR bot:


Here's a crucial point about the practice, by Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:

"After explaining the sixteen methods of conscious breathing, the Buddha speaks about the Four Establishments of Mindfulness and the Seven Factors of Awakening. Everything that exists can be placed into one of the Four Establishments of Mindfulness—the body, the feelings, the mind, and the objects of the mind. Another way of saying “objects of mind” is “all dharmas,” which means “everything that is.” Therefore, all of the Four Establishments of Mindfulness are objects of the mind. In this sutra, we practice full awareness of the Four Establishments through conscious breathing. For a full understanding of the Four Establishments of Mindfulness, read the Satipatthana Sutta.24

The phrases “observing the body in the body,” “observing the feelings in the feelings,” “observing the mind in the mind,” and “observing the objects of mind in the objects of mind,” appear in the third section of the sutra. The key to “observation meditation” is that the subject of observation and the object of observation not be regarded as separate. A scientist might try to separate herself from the object she is observing and measuring, but students of meditation have to remove the boundary between subject and object. When we observe something, we are that thing. “Nonduality” is the key word. “Observing the body in the body” means that in the process of observing, you don’t stand outside your own body as if you were an independent observer, but you identify yourself one hundred percent with the object being observed. This is the only path that can lead to the penetration and direct experience of reality. In “observation meditation,” the body and mind are one entity, and the subject and object of meditation are one entity also. There is no sword of discrimination that slices reality into many parts. The meditator is a fully engaged participant, not a separate observer."

(2011-12-20T22:58:59). Awakening of the Heart . Parallax Press. Kindle Edition.


level 2

If you can practice the above and go along with this understanding and contemplation of anatman, you will have profound experiential awakening to your true nature:

Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:

"When we say it's raining, we mean that raining is taking place. You don't need someone up above to perform the raining. It's not that there is the rain, and there is the one who causes the rain to fall. In fact, when you say the rain is falling, it's very funny, because if it weren't falling, it wouldn't be rain. In our way of speaking, we're used to having a subject and a verb. That's why we need the word "it" when we say, "it rains." "It" is the subject, the one who makes the rain possible. But, looking deeply, we don't need a "rainer," we just need the rain. Raining and the rain are the same. The formations of birds and the birds are the same -- there's no "self," no boss involved.

There's a mental formation called vitarka, "initial thought." When we use the verb "to think" in English, we need a subject of the verb: I think, you think, he thinks. But, really, you don't need a subject for a thought to be produced. Thinking without a thinker -- it's absolutely possible. To think is to think about something. To perceive is to perceive something. The perceiver and the perceived object that is perceived are one.
When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am," his point was that if I think, there must be an "I" for thinking to be possible. When he made the declaration "I think," he believed that he could demonstrate that the "I" exists. We have the strong habit or believing in a self. But, observing very deeply, we can see that a thought does not need a thinker to be possible. There is no thinker behind the thinking -- there is just the thinking; that's enough.

Now, if Mr. Descartes were here, we might ask him, "Monsieur Descartes, you say, 'You think, therefore you are.' But what are you? You are your thinking. Thinking -- that's enough. Thinking manifests without the need of a self behind it."
Thinking without a thinker. Feeling without a feeler. What is our anger without our 'self'? This is the object of our meditation. All the fifty-one mental formations take place and manifest without a self behind them arranging for this to appear, and then for that to appear. Our mind consciousness is in the habit of basing itself on the idea of self, on manas. But we can meditate to be more aware of our store consciousness, where we keep the seeds of all those mental formations that are not currently manifesting in our mind.
When we meditate, we practice looking deeply in order to bring light and clarity into our way of seeing things. When the vision of no-self is obtained, our delusion is removed. This is what we call transformation. In the Buddhist tradition, transformation is possible with deep understanding. The moment the vision of no-self is there, manas, the elusive notion of 'I am,' disintegrates, and we find ourselves enjoying, in this very moment, freedom and happiness."


"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."



 [8/5/23, 12:36:45 AM] Awakening to Reality Blog : ‎Messages and calls are end-to-end encrypted. No one outside of this chat, not even WhatsApp, can read or listen to them.

[8/5/23, 12:36:45 AM] Awakening to Reality Blog : ‎You created group “Awakening to Reality Blog ”

[8/5/23, 12:36:48 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Hi

[8/5/23, 12:38:13 AM] Yin Ling: Got it! Hi both haha

[8/5/23, 12:38:17 AM] Yin Ling: Thanks

[8/5/23, 12:38:36 AM] Yin Ling: First thing I’m going to do is to delete all the all posts of mine u saved 😂

[8/5/23, 12:38:44 AM] Soh Wei Yu: 🤣🤣🤣

[8/5/23, 12:38:48 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Pls dont hahahah

[8/5/23, 12:39:05 AM] Yin Ling: Long time I want to do that already

[8/5/23, 12:39:07 AM] Yin Ling: Lol

[8/5/23, 12:39:12 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Lol

[8/5/23, 8:33:57 AM] John Tan: I was telling soh to shift those conversations including fb comments into other places.  The current ATR blog is like a dumping ground.🤦

[8/5/23, 12:40:44 PM] Yin Ling: It’s a huge blog haha. But the link of the right should help direct others I guess . 

But my older posts are confusing.😅those need to go lol

[8/5/23, 12:41:13 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Replace with your newer posts then 😂

[8/5/23, 12:42:28 PM] Yin Ling: Lol noooo

[8/5/23, 12:42:41 PM] Yin Ling: Most of what ppl needs to read for guidance have been written

[8/5/23, 12:42:48 PM] Yin Ling: I think they just didn’t go and read it lol

‎[8/5/23, 7:07:07 PM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎<attached: 00000018-PHOTO-2023-05-08-19-07-07.jpg>

[8/5/23, 7:15:51 PM] Yin Ling: Hahaha yeah I sign in using another acc. Is that ok?

[8/5/23, 7:16:13 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah no problem just wanted to check

[8/5/23, 7:16:17 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Later kena hacked lol

[8/5/23, 7:16:31 PM] Yin Ling: Haha 👌

[8/5/23, 8:25:30 PM] John Tan: Jessie?

[8/5/23, 8:25:39 PM] John Tan: Ahha🤦‍♂️

[8/5/23, 8:37:02 PM] Yin Ling: 🤣 my email was created when I was 12 😂 after watching a cowboy show 🤦🏻‍♀️

‎[8/5/23, 8:39:27 PM] Yin Ling: ‎

[8/5/23, 8:40:28 PM] Yin Ling: It’s from a monk I don’t personally know but got added on in fb and then I got emailed 😂amituofo

[8/5/23, 9:46:38 PM] Soh Wei Yu: For these kind of people i just paste them my standard template:


Thought this might interest you, on nondual awareness and its nature and the subtleties of insight:

[8/5/23, 9:46:41 PM] Soh Wei Yu: 🤣

‎[8/5/23, 9:47:23 PM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎<attached: 00000030-PHOTO-2023-05-08-21-47-23.jpg>

[8/5/23, 10:45:50 PM] Yin Ling: I tried reply once already, but cannot pass through. I think I will stop. Haha. Abit hard for me to talk to monks as Though I know better , just a weird situation

[8/5/23, 10:46:20 PM] Yin Ling: My god so many 😶‍🌫️

[8/5/23, 11:08:15 PM] John Tan: Yin Ling, the shengtong vs rangtong u pasted is from which book?

‎[8/5/23, 11:32:46 PM] Yin Ling: ‎

‎[8/5/23, 11:33:05 PM] Yin Ling: 

[8/5/23, 11:33:25 PM] Yin Ling: I don’t get it 😅

[8/5/23, 11:49:28 PM] John Tan: Lol no wonder

[8/5/23, 11:52:00 PM] John Tan: Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche is Nyingma and champions the shengtong view.  I think Malcolm ever confronted him and said that habouring that sort of view is no different from advaita view.

[8/5/23, 11:52:56 PM] John Tan: Wei yu may have the text since he compiles Malcolm answers and comments

[8/5/23, 11:54:50 PM] Yin Ling: Oooo I see

[8/5/23, 11:56:14 PM] Yin Ling: But describing shentong as “aware and empty” . I find that makes sense no?

[8/5/23, 11:56:32 PM] Yin Ling: But rangtong makes sense too . All makes sense 😅😅😅

[8/5/23, 11:57:39 PM] John Tan: However it is not exactly wrong to emphasize clarity/awareness when one somehow missed the "clarity" aspect when negating inherent ness of refried mental constructs.  In order words, negation involves 2 authentications of critical insights: one is in clear seeing of how refried constructs is mistaken as real,

And 2, the direct recognition that appearances are one's empty clarity.

[8/5/23, 11:58:58 PM] Yin Ling: Yes Rangtong emphasise the former. And sheng tong emphasise the latter. 

But what I don’t understand is how do their experiential insight differs?

[8/5/23, 11:59:22 PM] Yin Ling: Can you have one without the other ? 😅 I can’t imagine

[8/5/23, 11:59:39 PM] John Tan: It is not their experiential insights differ, it is how it unfolds.

[9/5/23, 12:01:33 AM] John Tan: The two can be treated as separate which resulted in 外道 view.  Means direct taste of clarity yet without realizing it's empty nature.  This resulted in self-view.

[9/5/23, 12:03:37 AM] Yin Ling: I see.

[9/5/23, 12:04:11 AM] John Tan: For example, one can have very powerful experiences and authentication of clarity as "I-I" in phase one as in my case or sim's case but still not realized that sound, sensations, thoughts...etc (appearances) as one's radiance claritym

[9/5/23, 12:04:52 AM] John Tan: Then when we authenticate that later in anatta insight it becomes very clear.

[9/5/23, 12:05:46 AM] John Tan: For these practitioners, clarity/presence/awareness is nothing special at all and more often than not, it is missed understood.

[9/5/23, 12:09:13 AM] John Tan: Appearances are treated as external.  Even in the case of non-dual where it is clearly experienced, it is still treated that Self is special and something beyond.  Which is a mis-conception due to our inherent pattern of analysing things.

[9/5/23, 12:09:13 AM] Yin Ling: I see

[9/5/23, 12:11:31 AM] Yin Ling: So is this what Rangtong is trying to put forth?

[9/5/23, 12:13:46 AM] John Tan: These practitioners (shengtong) do not understand "self-aware" as "sounds hear itself" as u wrote or as how u understand satipathanna sutta.  They see "self-aware" as a special Awareness apart from luminous appearances.  Many can't get around that.

[9/5/23, 12:15:52 AM] John Tan: Rangtong is pointing out what u r saying.  Rangtong is not against appearances or union of appearances and emptiness.  Shengtong can be skewed towards pointing some super awareness which is advaita.

[9/5/23, 12:16:19 AM] Yin Ling: Oohh I see. Thanks. Understand now

[9/5/23, 12:16:41 AM] Soh Wei Yu: I skim through mountain doctrine on dolpopa texts before

[9/5/23, 12:16:50 AM] Soh Wei Yu: To me no different from advaita at all lol

[9/5/23, 12:16:53 AM] Soh Wei Yu:

‎[9/5/23, 12:16:59 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎

‎[9/5/23, 12:17:00 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎

‎[9/5/23, 12:17:01 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎

[9/5/23, 12:17:10 AM] Soh Wei Yu: But that is the founder of shentong

[9/5/23, 12:17:23 AM] Soh Wei Yu: The modern proponents of shentong, often are clear about anatta and empty clarity

[9/5/23, 12:17:58 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Even thrangu rinpoche taught the view of shentong but instead of the original “empty of everything else but not itself” he taught shentong as even ultimate is empty

[9/5/23, 12:18:12 AM] John Tan: However there r some rangtong practitioners that somehow does not get the clarity part but those are not the teaching of rangtong.

[9/5/23, 12:18:16 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Which imo seems to be different from the original dolpopa teaching but more aligned with anatta

[9/5/23, 12:18:43 AM] John Tan: Yes

[9/5/23, 12:19:38 AM] John Tan: It is simply tradition and sect biasedness to present rangtong as denying clarity.

[9/5/23, 12:19:44 AM] John Tan: 🤣🤦

[9/5/23, 12:20:32 AM] John Tan: Mipham also rejected shengtong.

[9/5/23, 12:21:13 AM] John Tan: Tibetan Buddhism has this problem of stereotyping and present one-sided view.🤣

[9/5/23, 12:21:37 AM] Yin Ling: Yeah to me this book seems to say Shengtong emphasise clarity whilst rangtong emphaisse emptiness of inherent existence (freedom from elaboration) but they know the other insight . 

So I was wondering why do their experiential insight differs and why do they keep arguing lol

[9/5/23, 12:21:47 AM] Yin Ling: Ya

[9/5/23, 12:22:06 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah.. i read even longchenpa anticipated and rejected shentong even if he lived before his times. He rejected the buddha nature is empty of everything else but its own existence kind of view

[9/5/23, 12:22:08 AM] Yin Ling: I see

[9/5/23, 12:24:32 AM] John Tan: In Buddha's time, there is no need to emphasize Presence and clarity.  It is the Orthodox view and taught in the vedas, upanishads, bagavatgita  throughout india.  This do not require the birth of Buddha to point out.

[9/5/23, 12:24:36 AM] Yin Ling: But it feels like an insult to shentong intelligence to say they don’t know Buddha nature is empty?

[9/5/23, 12:25:04 AM] Yin Ling: Yup

[9/5/23, 12:25:13 AM] Yin Ling: Hence he teaches no self

[9/5/23, 12:26:32 AM] Yin Ling: But now I see the point of all these arguments and debates in Tibetan Buddhism 😝

[9/5/23, 12:26:35 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Depends on who the shentong writer is.. some teachers like thrangu and many others are v clear.. still i find most buddhist teachers are also not clear today. Mostly awareness teachings

[9/5/23, 12:26:40 AM] John Tan: There maybe an overemphasis of emptiness without clarity that gave birth to yogacara teaching to bring out this clarity aspect.

[9/5/23, 12:27:49 AM] Yin Ling: Ya there is an opinion that yogscara needs to be combined with madhyamaka to produce insight in this book 🤣

‎[9/5/23, 12:27:55 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎

[9/5/23, 12:28:02 AM] Yin Ling: I forgot who said. Jamgon kongtrul I think

[9/5/23, 12:28:03 AM] Soh Wei Yu:

[9/5/23, 12:28:37 AM] Soh Wei Yu: This part.. which is the general understanding of shentong from the start shld be criticised.  But ppl like thrangu rinpoche doesnt see that way when explaining shentong

[9/5/23, 12:28:46 AM] John Tan: Shengtong and Rangtong are invention of tibetans inherited from the roots of madhyamaka and yogacara in India.

[9/5/23, 12:28:47 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Also it will fall under same criticism as this:

[9/5/23, 12:29:24 AM] Yin Ling: Ooohhhhh now I see

[9/5/23, 12:29:59 AM] Soh Wei Yu: “

Also, Mipham Rinpoche, one of the most influential masters of the Nyingma school wrote :

...Why, then, do the Mādhyamika masters refute the Cittamātra tenet system? Because self-styled proponents of the Cittamātra tenets, when speaking of mind-only, say that there are no external objects but that the mind exists substantially—like a rope that is devoid of snakeness, but not devoid of ropeness. Having failed to understand that such statements are asserted from the conventional point of view, they believe the nondual consciousness to be truly existent on the ultimate level. It is this tenet that the Mādhyamikas repudiate. But, they say, we do not refute the thinking of Ārya Asaṅga, who correctly realized the mind-only path taught by the Buddha...

...So, if this so-called “self-illuminating nondual consciousness” asserted by the Cittamātrins is understood to be a consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses, and it is merely that its subject and object are inexpressible, and if such a consciousness is understood to be truly existent and not intrinsically empty, then it is something that has to be refuted. If, on the other hand, that consciousness is understood to be unborn from the very beginning (i.e. empty), to be directly experienced by reflexive awareness, and to be self-illuminating gnosis without subject or object, it is something to be established. Both the Madhyamaka and Mantrayāna have to accept this...”

[9/5/23, 12:30:16 AM] John Tan: It is not easy to sort out all these and take some time to get use to it.

[9/5/23, 12:30:18 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm says rangtong is totally a strawman by shentong lol

[9/5/23, 12:30:26 AM] Soh Wei Yu: It doesnt actually exist

[9/5/23, 12:30:32 AM] John Tan: Ahahaha

[9/5/23, 12:31:22 AM] John Tan: This is good (Soh: pointing to the Mipham excerpt above)

[9/5/23, 12:31:46 AM] Soh Wei Yu: “Yes, realization of emptiness automatically entails having right view. 

Your next statement presumes that those debating gzhan stong and rang stong have realized emptiness.

Since rang stong is just a strawman set up by gzhan stong pas, there is really no debate between gzhan stong and rang stong since there is no rang stong Madhyamaka except in the imagination of those who call themselves "gzhan stong" Madhyamakas. 


Pure because purity has always been a nonexistence.

Sound Tantra, 3:12.5”

“I mean that there is no rang stong at all from a Madhyamaka perspective: Nāgārjuna states:

If there were something subtle not empty, there would be something subtle to be empty, 

as there is nothing not empty, where is there something to be empty?

I mean that there is no rang stong at all, apart from what the gzhan stong pas have fabricated. 

The gzhan stong controversy arose out of a need by Tibetans to reconcile the five treatises of Maitreya with Nāgārjuna's Collection of Reasoning based upon the erroneous historical idea that the five treatises were authored by the bodhisattva Maitreya rather than a human being (who incidentally was probably Asanga's teacher). 

In my opinion, the five treatises were a collection of texts meant to explicate the three main thrusts of Indian Mahāyāna sutras, Prajñāpāramita, Tathāgatagarbha, and Yogacāra. Four of the five are devoted to these three topics independently, with the Abhisamaya-alaṃkara devoted to Prajñāpāramita; Uttaratantra devoted to Tathāgatagarbha; and the two Vibhangas devoted to Yogacāra . The last, the Sutra-alaṃkara is an attempt to unify the thought of these three main trends in Mahāyāna into a single whole, from a Yogacara perspective. 

When these treatises arrived in Tibetan, at the same time, a text attributed tothe original Bhavaviveka, but probably by a later Bhavaviveka, translated under Atisha's encouragement, called Tarkajvala, presented the broad outline of what we know call today " the four tenet systems". 

In this text, the three own natures and so on were presented in a very specific way from a Madhyamaka perspective and labelled "cittamatra".

So, the gzhan stong controversy (with additional input from Vajrayāna exegesis based on a certain way of understand the three bodhisattva commentaries) is about reconciling Madhyamaka with Yogacara. 

Personally, I see no need to attempt to reconcile Madhyamaka and Yogacara. Madhyamaka is the pinnacle of sutra explication. But Tibetans did and still seem to need to do so, and they have passed on this need to their students. 

But from my perspective, one cannot go beyond freedom from extremes. 


[9/5/23, 12:35:28 AM] Yin Ling: Ooooo

[9/5/23, 12:35:31 AM] Yin Ling: Thanks


No-self (Anatta).
The most famous Buddhist doctrine of Anatta is actually not complicated, it is very obvious and very simple, and not religious. We don’t need faith, we can see it directly with our own being.
We need to realise no-self and not read and write scholarly articles about no-self. That’s a waste of time. Writing articles cannot end cyclic existence.
We have an obvious flaw in our perception that causes us to separate our physical body away from the rest of reality, and taking that as “me”.
We chop up a reality that has no boundaries into pieces and we isolate our “sense of knowing” into our little body, behind our eyes, which causes us to feel extremely claustrophobic, anxious and eventually depressed.
This fake sense of self is very harmful.
No-self is when you realise this flaw, there is no such contracted, singular, isolated, claustrophobic “self energy” hiding behind the eyes. Try to find it. You will not find it. Then your energy will open up.
You are the whole knowingness of reality.
Can you feel it? Slowly. It takes awhile to sense into that Knowingness. But once you sensed it, it’s obvious. Luminously bright.
Every single sensation, scenery, everything in reality has knowingness infused in it. Like a presence. A knowing. It is not separate from the sensation, it is infused into it, it’s the nature.
Just relax and feel into the “knowingness”. Every single part of reality has this same quality.
That’s mind. “Mu”. A closer step to your true nature.
Your body and other ppl’s body, cat, trees, sky, grass, have the SAME knowing quality. Check it out. Taste it.
Taste the whole interconnected expanse of knowingness without a solid sense of self. Taste Anatta.
Don’t need to go into jhana. It is right here. Reality is already no-self right from the beginning. It is a mark of existence. Realise it into your deepest consciousness and courageously rid off the fake self that causes so.much.problem!
Amritanshu Upadhyay
Is it the same as Nihilism emanating from scientific materialism ?

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Amritanshu Upadhyay It is not nihilism. It is not saying everything doesn't exist.. rather, what is refuted is the wrong views of existence and non-existence, or inherent existence. What is not rejected is dependent origination, and dependent origination is the correct way to understand all phenomena which is not inherently produced. When scientific materialism talks about causality, they do not go beyond notions of inherent production, production by others, and so on.
    Another point is that scientific materialism leaves out consciousness. Besides the subject of karma, rebirth and afterlife (which Buddhism accepts and is totally compatible with anatta), the anatta realization involves the realization and taste of consciousness as everything, (what Yin Ling calls "Knowingness" in her writing above) as this conversation between John Tan and AwakeningToReality-GPT reveals:
    May be an image of text that says '3:12 Facebook Done Edit What anatta? Anatta realization there never Mind, Awareness, Seeing, these for ongoing There simply seen. truly existing Reality conventions seer-s seeing- Anatta seeing through reified mental construct self". main insights relates construct, other the direct consciousness appearances correct. Anattal self that no ongoing itinvolves seeing through mental consciousness as merely negate reified construct "self" without then only conceptual understanding anatta. the Yes, that correct. Simply negating eified construct without gaining direct consciousness only conceptual anatta. anatta must through the reification consciousness direct taste as mere appearances. More'

    Soh Wei Yu
    Also see:
    John Tan
    snooSedtrh39f07a5lc8h1fu ·
    Listening to someone tutoring about "rainbow",
    The teaching of science came to my mind.
    The raindrops, the sunshine;
    The light that enters and exits the droplets;
    The reflection, refraction and light dispersion;
    All these formed the rainbow.
    But they missed the most important factor,
    The radiance of our own mind.
    1 Comment
    Jayson MPaul
    Rainbows need to have eyes in correct position, water droplets, light, radiant mind, all like so for rainbow to appear. Move slightly and rainbow is gone. Never came from anywhere, stayed anywhere, or went anywhere. The rainbow was insubstantial, but vividly displayed. All phenomena are like this.
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Look ahead and you see the table and your phone. Need "all like so" (tatha). Look behind you and that is gone, but now a new like so and not otherwise.
    Dragan Milojević
    What radiance of mind? Where is it, science needs proofs and evidence. Mind is only a perceptor and analyzer.
    John Tan
    Dragan Milojević Science can prove the sad tears of a mother are H2O but can't prove the "sadness". As human, we need both.
    But I like ur question, Where is this radiance?
    Yes where is it? Even Buddha cannot know it's whereabout.
    Labels: Dependent Origination, Emptiness, Jayson MPaul, John Tan, Luminosity, Non-Arising, Rainbow |

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1m

    Shared with Your friends
    With the amount of challenges in my life, without the Dharma, I’m probably on high dose antidepressants, and chronic sleeping tablets now.
    Probably an anxious wreck as well.
    This life is precious because I have the Dharma.
    I practice very hard because I tasted the dharma and I know the value of it. Nothing compares, ever.
    If I ever lose my insights .. it’s really the end for me. Life is not worth living anymore.