Message sent to someone, partly based on what John Tan wrote (see Chinese translation below):

Yes. The natural state is free from all elaboration and therefore does not involve dualities. However, merely being free of the perceiver-perceived/subject–object duality does not equal the “natural state.”

In the course of practice, we must clearly distinguish between “experience” and insight/“prajñā wisdom.”

When someone experiences the exhaustion of both mind and phenomena, perceiver and perceived, this is only an “experience,” similar to 坐忘/“sitting and forgetting.” It is a state or stage that has entry and exit.

Wisdom, on the other hand, is a capacity that penetrates confusion regarding perceived and perceived/subject and object, cause-effect, coming and going, and discerns the true nature of all that appears. It is not an experience, a stage, or a state to be “achieved.”

Therefore, we should not mistake a nondual state for the “natural state.” The emphasis should be on the “wisdom” that uproots ignorance.

What is unique about Buddhism is its teaching on dependent origination (缘起) and emptiness. Buddhism skillfully employs these, through the Middle Way, to help us see through all dualities and the grasping at inherency and intrinsic identity, thus awakening the mind.

In other words, Buddhism wants us to deeply inquire into and directly realize “dependencies” and “emptiness.”

An example of using dependencies to negate without falling to extremes would be mind and matter. If “mind” depends on “matter,” and “matter” depends on “mind,” then if there were no matter, how could “mind” still be “mind”? And vice versa—what does this imply?

Does it mean that mind is matter, hence everything is matter, or everything is mind?

Or does it mean there is some “stuff that is mind” and some “stuff that is matter,” interacting with each other?

If neither of these is so, then what are dependent origination and emptiness actually pointing to?

“Gathas on the Transmission of Teachings of the Seven Buddhas - Verse of Visvabhu Buddha

Borrowing the four great elements as the body;
The mind, originally unborn, arise in dependence on cognitive phenomena.
Without these phenomena, there would be no mind.

Both sin and merits are like illusions that arise and vanish.”

Even after subject and object vanish, one can still fall into either subjective idealism or materialism/physicalism, but neither is ultimate. For example, the nondualism (Advaita Vedanta) of Hinduism advocates a kind of “subjective idealism,” asserting that all subject–object distinctions dissolve into one true essence of awareness, that the entire universe is Brahman. In the West, there is a (non-Buddhist) new movement called “Richard’s Actual Freedom teaching,” which—after the dissolution of subject and object—leans toward materialism (the view that matter alone is real). These differ from that wisdom of dependent origination and emptiness which neither aligns with any extreme nor remains bound by any view of inherent nature—whether of person and thing, subject and object, or any phenomenon.

For substantialists, they must seek some fundamental essence behind the diverse phenomena—something that unifies all things under a single substance, be it called qi, energy, matter, field, consciousness, or an ultimate principle of awareness.

But for non-substantialists, they are not interested in reducing or resolving all clear appearances to energy, field, qi, matter, consciousness, or an awareness essence, nor do they fret over “If matter and awareness differ in essence, how do they interact?”—a puzzle faced by substantialists.

From the non-substantialist perspective, different phenomena do not need to share the same essence to interact. It suffices that they are empty of any intrinsic nature—coreless and essenceless. Precisely because all are empty of essence, the characteristics that appear are merely a “formation” (a manifestation of dependent origination).

Hence, the diversity of phenomena remains just as it is; they are not resolved or reduced to a single, unified fundamental essence, nor do they need to possess true existence. For example, a bell need not be “consciousness”/“awareness,” nor does mind need to be “matter.”

Because there is no essence, the characteristics experienced must a formation, a dependent arising. When essence is negated, bell, stick, air vibrations, eye drum, consciousness seamlessly relate for sound to originate as empty of essence means dependent arising.

For non-substantialists, the only “basis” is the appearance itself. They stop plainly with what is presently seen as “self-luminous” and an “empty happening,” without further positing or theorizing an ultimate ground or foundation. In other words, it is only the luminous-empty appearance.

Therefore, in the non-substantialist worldview, we only need empty, self-luminous displays and nominal conventions to designate diverse phenomena in order to explain their functions. These conventional designations are precisely the building blocks of what non-substantialists call the conventional world.

Moreover, from the non-substantialist perspective, “interconnection” or “interaction” is understood in terms of “relationalities,” without positing any kind of medium or carrier through which signals must travel.

For example, if in a certain world everything were uniformly blue, then “blue” itself would not appear. Only when another color appears does blue “magically” manifest—and it is not an independently existing entity, but something that arises purely through contrasting relationship.

Likewise, if everything moved at the same speed in the same direction, “motion” would not appear. Only when there is a difference in speed does “motion” become evident.

In such a situation, there is no hidden “carrier” conveying that difference—it is purely a relational effect.

When inherent-ness or “thingness” is absent, the role of nominal conventions becomes the building blocks of what we call the “world.”

Thus, Buddhism is not just an “Awareness teaching” that exclusively emphasizes direct authentication of one’s radiance clarity, even though that is indeed one aspect of the awakening process.

Zen Master Mazu Daoyi said:

“The myriad forms of the entire universe are the seal of the single Dharma. Whatever forms are seen are but the perception of mind. But mind is not independently existent. It is co-dependent with form.”

In Bodhidharma’s Treatise on the Awakening of the Mind (悟性论), it says:

“Seeing with insight, form is not simply form, because form depends on mind. And, mind is not simply mind, because mind depends on form. Mind and form create and negate each other.  …  Mind and the world are opposites, appearances arise where they meet. When your mind does not stir inside, the world does not arise outside. When the world and the mind are both transparent, this is the true insight.’”

(Also see link: Some Zen Masters’ Quotations on Anatman)

I also like this passage from Master Xuyun:

“In truth, ‘spirit’ is matter, matter is mind, and mind is also spirit; yet spirit is not truly spirit, matter is not truly matter, and mind is not truly mind. The Buddha pointed out that in the Three Realms (the universe), not a single phenomenon is truly established; all arise from the delusions of the true mind, giving rise to myriad phenomena. ‘True mind’ itself is nothing more than a provisional name posited in contrast to those delusory phenomena.

…

Hence we see that matter is mind, existence is nonexistence, form is emptiness, delusion is truth, affliction is bodhi, and sentient beings are all buddhas.

When one thought is confused, mind becomes matter, nothingness becomes something, emptiness becomes form, truth becomes delusion, bodhi becomes affliction, and buddhas become sentient beings—just as water surging becomes waves. But when a single thought awakens, matter is not separate from mind, something is not separate from nothing, form is not separate from emptiness, delusion is not separate from truth, affliction is not separate from bodhi, and sentient beings are not separate from buddhas—like the waves calming back into the still water. Moreover, because of confusion, we posit matter, existence, form, delusion, affliction, and sentient beings as pairs in mutual opposition. Accordingly, we establish the provisional names of mind, nothingness, emptiness, truth, bodhi, and buddhas.

If there were no confusion to begin with, the provisional terms for matter, form, delusion, existence, affliction, and sentient beings would have no basis, and likewise mind, nothingness, emptiness, truth, bodhi, and buddhas. So all talk of ‘mind only’ or ‘matter only,’ or whether there is or is not a god—all of that is simply the discriminating thoughts of the conceptual mind.

Some say: ‘If that’s so, then Buddhism is a ‘mind-only’/idealist philosophy too!’ While Buddhism does speak of “mind only,” it differs greatly from philosophical idealism. Philosophical idealism clings to the existence of mind and denies matter—a stance the Buddha described as taking the grasping mind as one’s nature and mistaking the illusory thoughts of birth and death for reality. Materialism, by contrast, clings to the existence of matter and denies mind—which the Buddha called an upside-down approach, mistaking matter as oneself, moving in cycles of birth and death, and thus perpetuating one’s own confusion. Theism divides matter and spirit into two completely separate worlds—which the Buddha called confusing the One Mind with the physical body, mistaking a single wave for the entire ocean. Each of these views is partial—like someone who sees the shadow of a cow and takes it for the real cow; or someone looking through a tube, glimpsing only the cow’s horn and thinking the horn is the entire cow, or seeing only the head and thinking that is the whole cow. There is nothing “wrong” per se, except that the entire real cow is not seen. Buddhism traces back to the source and clearly points out the actual white ox, and anyone who follows its pointing will see the entire real ox. Hence, if we wish to remedy the biases of idealism and materialism, we must rely on Buddhism.”

—From Master Xuyun’s Dharma teaching to Chiang Kai-shek: Master Xuyun Discusses Idealism

Elder Yuan Yin also said:

“7th line: ‘Asked: from where does the mind arise? It arises due to conditions.’

‘The mind originally has no arising; it arises because of external conditions!’ This is said to be a maxim of Buddha Vishvabhu (毗舍浮佛). Our mind—i.e., thought—does not exist on its own. It arises when encountering an external object, which then produces an internal image that we cling to, generating all kinds of delusion. This mind is called the ‘assembled mind,’ arising from the conjunction of mind and objects; it is nothing but the reflection of the six sense objects, entirely illusory without any real substance.

The saying in the sutras that ‘All is created by mind alone’ and that ‘The three realms are only mind; the myriad dharmas are only consciousness’—the word ‘mind’ here refers to this illusory reflective mind that arises due to external conditions. Thus, it is also part of the external world, also an object; it is not separate from matter. We must not mistake it as a subjective mind that governs the world, regarding it as some kind of “true god” to be treasured. In our practice, we must neither cling to the myriad external phenomena nor to these illusory reflections. We should eradicate both body–mind (internally) and the world (externally). Only then will the wondrously clear true mind come forth. On the other hand, if we mistake this illusory mind for a substantial, subjective entity, we obscure the true nature. Therefore, when we say ‘All is created by mind alone,’ we treat that ‘mind’ as an objective target for elimination; it is absolutely not presented as the master-controller of the myriad things. We hope all students of Buddhism understand this clearly and not misunderstand.

8th line: ‘Objects are not truly existent—both mind and objects are mere illusions!’

The sutra says: ‘Mind is not mind in itself; it is mind due to objects. Objects are not objects in themselves; they are objects due to mind.’ This sums up the interdependent, mutually-establishing relationship between mind and objects. Since mind arises because of objects, objects likewise cannot exist independently of mind. The notion of “objects” arises through causes and conditions and has no independent essence. Think of how an image reflected in a mirror, despite myriad differences in shape, cannot appear without the mirror’s reflective light. Likewise, objects cannot be established without mind. Even if there are marvelous sights, without a mind to perceive and appreciate them, they might as well not exist. Since objects are not objects in themselves, how can they declare themselves “wondrous scenery”? Mind and objects arise in mutual dependence; absent one, the other cannot stand. Therefore, both object and mind are not ultimately real but empty illusions.

Some people might argue: ‘All the things in this Saha World are the karmic results of defiled beings and thus illusory; you might say they’re illusions. But consider the Western Pure Land, which was manifested by countless eons of Amitābha Buddha’s dedicated practice, perfecting merits to create a pure realm for saving sentient beings. Shouldn’t that be truly existent, and not just an illusion?’

This is indeed a topic worthy of careful discussion. Many people now practice Pure Land, and if they do not understand the real meaning of the Pure Land or what it actually is, it’s difficult to get real traction in their practice—let alone attain the profound samādhi of Buddha-remembrance and achieve upper-grade rebirth.

On the phenomenal level, the Saha World is the evil fruit of five impurities (karmic results of beings), whereas the Pure Land is a pure world manifested by Amitābha’s completed vows and accumulated merits; hence the Saha realm is defiled and ugly while the Pure Land is sublime and splendid—markedly different. Yet since a “realm” arises from the mind, there is no realm apart from mind, nor mind apart from the realm; mind is the realm, the realm is mind. Thus the sutra says: ‘If you wish to purify your land, first purify your mind.’ ‘When the mind is pure, the Buddha-land is pure.’ This is to teach us what the Pure Land really is, so that we know how to practice effectively rather than chasing an external form and going astray.

Since there is no land apart from mind, and no mind apart from land—mind and land cannot be separated. The one, true Dharma-realm (the true mind) is neither increased by saints nor decreased by ordinary beings. Thus, the Pure Land, though pure, and the Saha World, though defiled, are equally manifestations of the same true mind—like reflections in a mirror. Though some reflections are calm and others turbulent, they are all, in the end, like the moon in water—ungraspable. One should not claim that the Pure Land, being a purer reflection, is therefore truly obtainable…

… Therefore, we need only recognize that all forms, sounds, and other sense objects are reflections of one’s own true mind—like images in a mirror. We do not cling to them. At the same time, true mind is unobtainable apart from these phenomena of sense objects; just as a mirror’s reflection is the mirror’s light itself, so mirror-light is not apart from its reflection. In this way, we do not abandon anything. By constantly practicing such observation, the mind becomes empty and unburdened, functioning freely without seeking or grasping—this is the natural Buddha! No need to wait for some ideal time or condition. I advise everyone, while you are young and vigorous, seize the moment and practice diligently. Do not let time slip by, or you will only lament in vain when youth has passed! Treasure this!”

—Source (Chinese)

-----

Chinese:

是的。自然状态远离一切戏论，因此并无二元对立。然而，仅仅是摆脱能所二元的状态，并不等同于「自然状态」。

在修行中，我们必须清楚地区分「经验」与「般若智慧」。

当有人经历到心与现象都消融、能所双亡，这只是一种「经验」，类似「坐忘」。它是一种可以进入也可以退出的状态或阶段。

智慧则是一种能力，能够洞穿能所、因果、来去的迷惑，了知所显现的一切之本质。它并不是一种经验、一个阶段或某种可以「达成」的状态。

因此，我们不应将不二的状态误认为「自然状态」，而应着重于能够根除无明的「智慧」。

佛教的独特之处在于缘起与空性。佛教非常巧妙地运用缘起和空性，通过中道来帮助我们洞穿各种二元对立和自性执，从而令心识觉醒。

也就是说，佛教希望我们深入探究并亲见「互依」/缘起与「空性」。

举个例子，心与物质之间的相互依赖可以帮助我们破除执见而不落入极端。如果「心」依赖「物质」，而「物质」也依赖「心」，那么如果没有物质，「心」还能是「心」吗？反之亦然，这意味着什么？

这是否意味着心就是物质，因此一切都是物质，或一切都是心？

或者说，有某种「心的部分」和「物质的部分」在相互作用？

如果也不是这样，那么缘起与空性究竟在指向什么呢？

佛经云：“心不自心，因物故心；物不故物，因心故物”。“心本无生因境有”

能所消亡后，还可能陷入唯心主义或唯物主义，但这些都不是究竟。就像印度教的不二论（Advaita Vedanta）所主张的一切能所消融于一真觉体的“主观唯心主义”，宇宙皆是梵，或者西方有一种（非佛教）新的教派叫做“Richard‘s Actual Freedom teaching”，能所消融后却偏向了唯物……这与那种既不归于任何一极、却能解脱一切自性见、人与物、主与客、一切法等等的缘起、空性智慧截然不同。

对于实质论者（substantialist），他们必须为多样的现象寻求某种根本的本质，以期将其万物从这一本体统一起来，不管这种本质被称作气、能量、物质、场或意识、或究竟觉体。

但对于非实质论者（non-substantialist）而言，他们并不关心要将所有明晰显现都归结为能量、场、气、物质、意识、觉体等某种终极实体；也不会纠结于“若物质与觉本质不同，它们如何相互作用”的难题——这是实质论者面临的问题。

在非实质论的视角下，各种现象之间并不需要拥有相同的本质才能互动，只要它们空无自性（无核心本质）即可。正因一切皆无自性（essenceless）、无核心（coreless），本身所呈现出的特征就只是一个“缘起（formation）”。

 因此，所有多样的现象依旧如其所是，并不会被化约到某种统一的根本本质，或者说它们并不需要具有真实存在。比如，钟并不需要是「觉体」，心也不需要是「物质」。

由于无有本质，所体验到的特征就必然是一种「形成」或「缘起的显现」。当“本质”被否定时，钟、棒、空气振动、耳膜、觉知才会无碍地彼此关联，从而使声音得以生起——因为空无本质意味着它们是相互相依、缘起而生的。

对非实质论者而言，一切的“基础”就是显现本身。他们仅仅停留在当下所见的「自明（self-luminous）」与「空性地发生（empty happening）」——并不再去推断或假设一个本体或根基。换言之，只是明空的显现而已。

因此，在非实质论的世界观里，只需要空性的、自明的显现，以及以“名言共许”来指称多样的现象，用于说明各种功能即可。这些名言约定正是非实质论者所说的世俗世界之构造基石。

此外，所谓的“互联”或“互动”，在非实质论的角度看来，是以“关系性（relationalities）”来理解的，并不需要假设某种媒介或载体来传递信号。

举例来说，如果在一个世界里，一切都统一呈现为蓝色，那么“蓝色”本身并不会显现。只有当出现另一种颜色时，蓝色才会“魔术般”地显现出来——但它并不是独立存在的实体，而是纯粹由于对比关系而呈现。

同理，如果一切都以同样的速度、同样的方向运动，那么“运动”也不会被显现。唯有速度出现差异时，“运动”才会变得明显。

在这里，并不存在什么隐藏的“载体”来传递这种差异——它本质上完全是一个“关系性”的效应。

在没有固有性/自性（inherentness）或物性（thingness）的情况下，名义约定所扮演的角色便成为构成我们所谓“世界”的基石。

因此，佛教并非那种仅强调直接验证个体光明清晰（“觉知”）的“觉知教学”（“Awareness teaching”），尽管这确实是觉醒过程的一部分。

马祖道一禅师： “森罗万象，一法之所印；凡所见色，皆是见心；心不自心，因色故有。“

达摩祖师在《悟性论》中说：“色不自色，由心故色；心不自心，由色故心。是知心色两相，俱有生灭。有者有于无，无者无于有，是名真见。夫真见者，无所不见，亦无所见，见满十方，未曾有见。何以故？无所见故，见无见故，见非见故。凡夫所见，皆名妄想。若寂灭无见，始名真见。心境相对，见生于中。若内不起心，则外不生境，境心俱净，乃名为真见。作此解时，乃名正见。”

我也喜欢虚云法师的一段话：

“实则神即是物，物即是心，心亦是神；然神亦非神，物亦非物，心亦非心。佛明三界（宇宙）本无一法（事物）建立，皆是真心起妄，生万种法；“真心”亦不过因有妄物对待而立之假名。究其实，所谓真心亦非是。譬如大海，心是水，万法（万事万物）是波浪，平静者称为水，汹涌者称波浪，波浪平静时仍是水，水汹涌时又成波浪。又因有汹涌之波浪，故称不汹涌者为平静之水；假使根本不有汹涌之相，波浪之假名固不能立，平静之假名亦何由生立？亦不过吾人随意立之假名，相信鱼类或称水为空气。故知物即是心，有即是无，色即是空，妄即是真，烦恼即菩提，众生即诸佛。

一念迷惑时，心成物，无成有，空成色，真成妄，菩提成烦恼，诸佛成众生；如水汹涌时即波浪。若一念觉悟时，物不异心，有不异无，色不异空，妄不异真，烦恼不异菩提，众生不异诸佛；如波浪不汹涌时，仍是平静之水。又因迷惑而起物有、色、妄、烦恼、众生等对待，故立心、无、空、真、菩提、诸佛等假名。

若根本不有迷，则物、色、妄、有、烦恼、众生等假名，固不能立，即心、无、空、真、菩提、诸佛等假名，亦何有立？所谓唯心、唯物，有神无神，皆是识心分别计度耳。

或云：“若是，佛学亦唯心论耳！”佛学虽说唯心，然与哲学上之唯心论悬殊。哲学上之唯心论，于心执有，于物执无，释迦所谓以攀缘心为自性，执生死妄想认为真实者。唯物论者，于物执有，于心执无，释迦所谓颠倒行事，误物为己，轮回是中，自取流转者。唯神论者，划分物质实体与灵魂实体为截然不同之两个世界，释迦所谓惑一心于色身之内，认一沤体目为全潮者。各执偏见，或因近视，认牛之影像为牛；或以管窥牛，见牛角者则认牛角为牛，见牛头者，则认牛头为牛，本无不是，弊在不见真牛全体。佛教则溯本究源，将真实白牛清楚指出，若因指观牛，未有不见真牛全体者。故欲救唯心唯物论之偏闭，舍佛教莫属。”  - 虚云法师给蒋介石开示的佛法：https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/12/master-xuyun-discusses-idealism.html

元音老人也说过：

” 第七句：‘问心何来？因境而起。’

‘心本无生因境有！’这是毗舍浮佛的名言？我人之心—即思想本来没有因对境而生起影像，执著不舍，才生起妄想，这就是心。这个心是根—心、尘—境集合而生起的，所以叫作‘集起为心’，它是六尘落谢的影子，纯属虚幻，无有实体。佛经中所说的‘一切唯心造’和‘三界唯心，万法唯识’的‘心’字就是指这个由客观外境反映而生起的虚幻影像心，所以它也是外境，也是客体，而且也不离物质，不可把它看作主观的心！当作主宰世界的真神而宝贝它。我们做功夫，既要不著森罗万象的外境！更要把这幻影妄心销尽。所谓内而身心，外而世界一起销殒，妙明真心，方才现前。反是，把这虚幻心当作主观实体！真性就被掩没不见了。因之！我们所说‘一切唯心造’的‘心’字！是把它视作被消灭的客观对象来处理的！并非说它是万物的主宰者，这要请广大学佛者搞清楚，不要误会才好！

第八句：‘境亦不有！同属幻影！’

经云：‘心不自心，因境故心；境不自境，因心故境。’这就把心与境，境与心的相因相成的关系说得一清二楚。心既因境而有，境亦不能离心独立，因境系因缘生！无有自体。比如镜影！虽有万别千差之相，如无镜光，影不能现；境亦如是，无心境无成，即或有美景佳境，无心领受鉴赏，有亦同无。以境不自境，不自谓为美妙胜境也。心与境既相对而生，离一即无，则境与心，皆非真实，同属虚幻之影明矣。或许有人要说，娑婆世界所有景物，皆我人共业所招的业果，假而非真，谓为幻影，可以说得；至于西方极乐世界，乃阿弥陀佛多生历劫精勤修行，为广大众生造福，积累功德，缘熟果满所感之真境，似不可谓为幻影。

关于这一点，确应好好讨论一下。因为现在修净土的人很多，如不把净土真相搞清楚，不明白净土究竟是怎么一回事，修行起来不易得力，更谈不到深证念佛三昧，上品往生了。

首先就相来说，娑婆是业障众生造业所招的五浊恶果，而极乐是弥陀愿满德圆所感的清净世界，故一是秽浊丑恶，一是美妙庄严，大有区别。但土从心生，离心无土，离土无心；心即土，土即心。故经云：‘欲净其土，先净其心！’‘随其心净，即佛土净！’是教我人识得净土为何物，好下手用功证取，以免徒取外相，流入歧途。

既然土外无心，心外无土，心土不相分离，而一真法界—真心—又在圣不增，在凡不减，则极乐净土系从净妙真心中流出，而娑婆秽土离清净佛性亦何可得？以是，极乐虽净，娑婆虽秽，同是真心中显现之影像，犹如镜光中显现之影，虽有形式之殊，净秽之别，但皆如水中之月，了不可得，绝不可因极乐为净月影而妄谓可得也。

。。。。

。。。所以只须识得一切色、声等尘境，俱是当人真心所现影像，如镜光所现镜影，不去取著；同时真心离尘境亦不可得，如镜影即是镜光，镜光不离镜影，故即亦无所舍。时时如此观照历练，心空意闲，任运自在，无求无得，即天真佛！还要等什么佳境良辰到来哩，奉劝大众，乘此年轻有为时，抓紧时机，努力奋斗，切莫唐丧光阴，坐失良机，待白了少年头，空悲切！珍重！“ - http://www.wmxf.net/nr/7/74727.html

 [17/6/23, 11:34:30 AM] John Tan: The explanation about the taste of no mirror reflecting and illusory reflection as empty clarity = 一枚宝镜 is good.👍 (Soh: referring to audio recording I sent which contains excerpts from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2017/01/excerpts-from-jewel-mirror-samadhi.html )

However,
1.  insubstantial non-dual must be understood from

2.  DO emptiness before freeing both mind and phenomena

3.  into freedom from all elaborations.

4. As natural state of the basis.
[17/6/23, 11:36:41 AM] John Tan: When some one hit a "bell", sentient being felt it is "external" but is it?  If it is not then is it "internal"?  If it isn't both "internal" and "external", then what does it mean?
[17/6/23, 11:57:39 AM] John Tan: Do take note that ur X is also talking about that, but y is it so different?
[17/6/23, 3:49:49 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Internal and external are both subsets of inherent existence view. In the case of one mind and i am, subjectivity is inherent.. in the case of AF, subjectivity is seen through but externality is inherent.

If instead its like chariot and parts, everything is dependently designated in the presence of the parts and conditions and these parts and conditions do not amount to anything inherently existing or produced apart from that mere name designated in dependence, then we do not have such views where subject or object or externality needs to be inherent. Mind is name only and so is phenomena.. nothing has core or essence or intrinsic existence
[17/6/23, 3:50:33 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Imo she skips to freedom from all elaborations and natural state of no mind without going through insights of anatta, dependent origination or emptiness clearly
[17/6/23, 3:50:48 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Just say silence all conventionalities into state of no mind
[17/6/23, 3:50:52 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Insight isnt clear
[17/6/23, 3:50:57 PM] Soh Wei Yu: I doubt she is clear even about anatta
[17/6/23, 3:52:28 PM] Yin Ling: Hwa shang Mahayana
[17/6/23, 4:55:53 PM] John Tan: "Hwa Shang" is a bad translation of "和尚“ Moheyan of northern Buddhism in China.  Gelug and Tsongkhapa are attacking strawman and making him a stereotype for non-mentation of Zen practice.  We know that this is not true.  Zen is nothing like that.
[17/6/23, 4:56:53 PM] Yin Ling: I see
[17/6/23, 4:57:21 PM] Yin Ling: That’s kinda mean 😂
[17/6/23, 5:00:04 PM] John Tan: Here u r talking about "inherent existence" but X isn't.  In fact many are not.  That is y non-inherent experience and dependent origination are extremely crucial for right understanding.  It is not just doing away with conventionalities and conceptualities.  But it involves several critical insights.  So what r the differences, why jumping to freedom of all elaborations this way resulted in such a different experience and understanding?
[17/6/23, 5:00:48 PM] John Tan: Tibetan has this bad habit
[17/6/23, 5:34:19 PM] Yin Ling: The object of inherent existence is left unnegated if straight jump. It’s almost impossible to liberate theoretically , just dissociate .
[17/6/23, 5:34:47 PM] Yin Ling: Maybe they debate too much 😂 everyday debate
[17/6/23, 5:36:54 PM] John Tan: Yes.  This idea of inherent existence in which "anatta" is just part of the entire spectrum is an all together insight that is made explicitly clear only by Tsongkhapa although gelug tend to turn extremely analytical.
[17/6/23, 5:41:33 PM] John Tan: Both see through conceptual conceptual constructs, but they r different.  But difference in what sense is not easy to see.  As we become clearer and used to it, we will realize that the entire mmk is actually emphasizing this particular insight.  Mmk is not just saying the conceptual layering must be eliminated like non-mentation.  When we integrate into practice, we become clearer and have more confidence.  Both mind and phenomena are both released, conventionalities r released but differently.  I have been trying to bring out the taste of this aspect on my posts in FB "weight of thoughts"...lol.
[17/6/23, 5:51:30 PM] Yin Ling: Yeah not just concepts but the whole referent itself is the conceptualisation. It’s hard for me to actualised yet lol
[17/6/23, 6:01:50 PM] John Tan: 1. A referent is a reified mental construct or "named things".  We din realize that.  We thought it is real.

2.  If we see through this, what happened?
[17/6/23, 6:17:30 PM] Yin Ling: If we see through then nothing “real” is there. 😂
[17/6/23, 6:17:43 PM] Yin Ling: Then the mind can stop elaborating and be at peace
[17/6/23, 11:55:03 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Quietening the mind actually doesnt see through the referents. Like ramana maharshi talks about silence. But the Self is seen as truly existing and solid and real. AF sees through self/Self and resides in nonconceptual pce but the referent of world as solid and real and ultimate is still there
[17/6/23, 11:55:38 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Samadhi etc, quietness doesnt necessarily release the very realness and solidness or inherency of Self and phenomena
[17/6/23, 11:55:58 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Even if one can have peak experience of no mind it is not the same as having an insight that sees through self
[18/6/23, 12:15:41 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Imo true insight of emptiness should lead to an equipoise of in the seen only the seen as med par gsal snang a “nonexistent clear appearance” or a “clearly apparent nonexistent,” , thus no seer, no seeing and nothing seen
[18/6/23, 12:15:58 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Otherwise resting in nonconceptual presence can still be a state of alaya
[18/6/23, 12:17:15 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Otherwise even if one says all conventionalities are silenced it may not be the same thing
[18/6/23, 12:19:56 AM] Yin Ling: Ya this is very difficult actually even after understanding
[18/6/23, 12:20:13 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Its actually the realness and inherentness thats released not merely mentation or labelling
[18/6/23, 12:21:38 AM] Yin Ling: Ya even the person writing on instagram“talking to higher self” is sort of holding onto Alaya in his sleep and practice
[18/6/23, 12:21:58 AM] Yin Ling: Not sure though. Just my feeling
[18/6/23, 12:23:29 AM] Soh Wei Yu: I thought so too
[18/6/23, 12:23:44 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Thats why i sent him the 7 stages but i think not easy to understand la haha
[18/6/23, 12:23:52 AM] Soh Wei Yu: But some of his stuff are interesting
[18/6/23, 12:27:35 AM] Yin Ling: Did u? Lol
[18/6/23, 12:28:06 AM] Yin Ling: Must not be easy because his practice is so mature
[18/6/23, 12:28:36 AM] Yin Ling: I mean practice for a long time
[18/6/23, 12:46:14 AM] Soh Wei Yu: I sent everybody i think can benefit 🤣
[18/6/23, 12:46:24 AM] Soh Wei Yu: In 2006 i sent eckhart tolle 🤣
[18/6/23, 12:46:38 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah
[18/6/23, 12:46:47 AM] Yin Ling: Did he reply you lol
[18/6/23, 12:49:29 AM] Soh Wei Yu: That time i sent in envelope or cd i think.. or maybe email I forgot. He didnt reply
[18/6/23, 12:49:36 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Recent one someone replied for him
[18/6/23, 12:49:38 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Sam M, Jun 24, 2022, 9:30 AM MDT:
Hello Soh,
 
Thank you for contacting Eckhart Teachings. We are deeply touched and moved by the many people that write into Eckhart and Kim, leaving no doubt there is an unprecedented shift in consciousness happening around us. Unfortunately, Eckhart is not able to send personal replies or accept gifts but sends his deepest gratitude to you for wanting to share with him.
 
We thank you for reaching out to Eckhart and wish you the very best in your journey.
Sam M | Customer Care
Eckhart Teachings | Toll Free 1-844-595-3316
support@eckharttolle.com
Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5:00 pm MT
[18/6/23, 12:51:13 AM] Yin Ling: Wow epic
[18/6/23, 12:51:35 AM] Yin Ling: Customer service 🤦🏻‍♀️
[18/6/23, 12:58:07 AM] John Tan: U have a serious addiction for sending the phases of insights.
[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.
‎[18/6/23, 11:42:13 AM] Yin Ling: ‎image omitted
[18/6/23, 11:42:13 AM] Yin Ling: 😅

———-

P.s. just recalled some nice excerpts on equipoise I shared from years ago:

Sonam Thakchoe (The Two Truths Debate: Tsongkhapa and Gorampa on the Middle Way):

"Tsongkhapa regards the nondual realization of ultimate truth as an epistemic event... ...Tsongkhapa does not hold the achievement of nondual wisdom as equivalent to the cessation of cognitive activity...

Tsongkhapa's description of the way the meditator arrives at nondual understanding is as follows. The cognitive agent experiences a fusion of subjectivity and its object, which refer here not to self and outside world but rather to elements within the meditator's own psychophysical aggregates. The meditator remains introspective, not engaging the outside world, but the outside world as such does not disappear. What occurs is instead a total cessation of the dualities between subject I and object mine, between thinker and thought, between feeler and feelings, between mind and body, between seeing and seen, and so forth. Initially a meditator perceives, for instance, that in each act of seeing, two factors are always present: the object seen and the act of seeing it. While each single act of seeing involves dissolution, the object seen and the act of seeing actually consist of numerous physical and mental processes that are seen to dissolve serially and successively. Eventually, the meditator also notices the dissolution of the dissolution itself.

In other words, the meditator first realizes the fluctuating and transitory character of the five aggregates, which is then followed by further realization of the aggregates as empty and selfless, and finally by the realization of the emptiness of even the empty and selfless phenomena. Nondual knowledge is thus arrived at, in Tsongkhapa's view, through the direct experience of seeing the truths within one's own aggregates, rather than being convinced of the truth of certain abstractions through rational argument or persuasion. Since the process here is a cognitive experience that operates entirely within the domain of one's psychophysical aggregates, it is therefore an epistemic but not a metaphysical nonduality.

This is how, according to Tsongkhapa, an arya has direct nonconceptual and nondual access to the transcendent nature of his own five psychophysical aggregates during meditative equipoise. In the wake of meditative equipoise, an arya engages with dualistic worldly activities, such as taking part in philosophical discourse, practicing different social conventions, and so on. The arya will thus make use of socio-linguistic conventions, but since the arya has eradicated all reifying tendencies, even these worldly dualistic engagements will be seen as consistent with nondual wisdom. Both non-dual and dual wisdoms, especially in the case of a buddha, Tsongkhapa argues, are fully commensurate."

"Both Tsong khapa and Go rampa describe non-dual knowledge as being like a process of mixing water. They argue that the fusion between subjectivity and objectivity, from the meditator's point of view, reaches its climax in their non-dual state in a way that is like mixing clean water from two different jars by pouring it all into one jar. Tsong khapa for example argues: "from the vantage point of the wisdom that directly realises ultimate reality, there is not even the slightest duality between object and the object-possessing consciousness. Like mixing water with water, [yogi] dwells in the meditative equipoise".' Tsongkhapa insists, however, that this metaphor should not be taken too far or too literally. It refers only to the cognitive process that occurs in total dissolution, and to the experience associated with that process, and must not be taken to represent the achivement of a metaphysical unity."

“So, as far as Tsong khapa is concerned, there is no contradiction in claiming that, from the empirical standpoint, on the one hand, non-dual wisdom constitutes the subjective pole of consciousnesses with ultimate truth as its objective counterpart; from the ultimate vantage point, on the other hand, non-dual wisdom and ultimate truth, "are free from the duality of act (bya ba) and object acted upon (byed pa)".

In the non-dual state, even the cognitive interplay between subject and object appears, from the meditator's point of view, completely to cease. This is because, as Tsong khapa points out, "duality of act and object acted upon is posited strictly from the perspective of empirical cognition".

Although the dual appearances of subject and object completely dissolve from the perspective of non-dual wisdom, and thus the meditator does not experience the mutual interaction between distinct and separate elements—between the seer and the seen—the meditator nonetheless engages in an act of 'mere seeing'. As the Buddha explains to Bahiya:

In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the

heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In

reference to the cognised, only the cognised. That is how you should

train yourself [Ud I. 10]... then Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that.

When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there

is no you there, you are neither here not yonder nor between the two.

This, just this, is the end of stress [Ud I. 101.

The experience of 'mere seeing' in a non-dual form is valid only when it is empirically grounded and when there is cognitive activity occurring between non-dual wisdom and non-dual ultimate truth.”

"Although all empirically given truths such as the aggregate of form, feelings etc., are contingently produced and have diverse conventional characters, all of them, according to Tsong khapa, are ultimately empty of the inherent arising. They share the universal characteristic (ro gcig, eka-rasa), literally, the same 'taste'. The Buddha, for example, makes this statement: "just as the great ocean has but one taste, the taste of salt, even so does this dharma and discipline have but one taste, the taste of release" [AN VIII.19].

The Samadhirajasatra (ting nge 'dzin rgyal po'i mdo) tells us: "By knowing one all are known. And by seeing one all are seen. Despite many things are said about [ultimate truth] in the conventional terms, no haughtiness should arise from it",' and furthermore, "Just as you have recognised ('du shes) personality, even so you should apply the same insight with respect to all [phenomena]. All phenomena are of the [same] nature like a clear space".

In the Gaganagamjasamadhi (Nam mkha'i mdzod kyi ting nge 'dzin), it is stated that: "Whoever by meditating on one phenomenon knows all phenomena as apprehensible like illusions and mirages, and knows them as hollow, false and ephemeral will before long reach the summum bonum (snying po) of enlightenment".

And Aryadeva also tells us that "whosoever sees one is said to see all. That which is emptiness of one is the emptiness of all" [VIII:191].

Referring to this last passage from Aryadeva, Candrakirti has this to say:

The emptiness of the essence of form is itself the emptinesses of the essences of aggregates such as feeling. Similarly, the emptiness of the essence of eye-source is itself the emptinesses of the essences of all twelve sources. Likewise, the emptiness of the essence of eye-constituent is itself the emptinesses of the essences of all eighteen constituents. Equally so are [the emptinesses of the essences of] the infinite categories of things due to the distinct divisions in things, spaces, times and references. For whatever is the emptiness of the essence of one thing, is itself the emptinesses of the essences of all things. In spite of the fact that jars and bowls for example are distinct, space is not distinct. While things such as form are distinct, insofar as they all lack of essential arising of the form etc., they are not distinct. By understanding the lack the essential arising of merely one phenomenon, one understands the lack of the essential arising of all phenomena.'

Since all phenomena are empty of any substance or essence, they are all dependently arisen and relational entities. Tsong khapa agrees.' Yet to endorse the claim that the ultimate nature of all phenomena is fundamentally the same does not, in Tsong khapa's view, make one a monist. While accepting this account of the ultimate nature of things, Tsongkhapa remains committed to a pluralistic view. "A pluralistic view of the world", as Kalupahana puts it, "is not incompatible with dependent arising (pratityasamputpada).

Pluralism in the context of dependent arising does not imply the existence of self-contradictory truths. It need not necessarily lead to a notion of an Absolute that transcends such self-contradictory truths. As far as Tsong khapa is concerned, the ultimate reality of, for instance, the table in front of my eyes, cannot be treated as simply identical with the ultimate reality pertaining to the chair that I am sitting on. The empty table cannot be the taken as identical with the empty chair since the emptiness of the table is constitutive, not only of the empty table, but of the empty conceptual-linguistic conventions imposed upon it as well. Those conventions belong exclusively to the ultimate truth of the table and are not present in the chair.

According to Tsong khapa, however, conceding this much does not prevent one from arguing for the universality of ultimate truth. Just as different objects occupy different spaces, and yet the space those objects occupy has the same 'non-obstructive' characteristic, so the ultimate realities of both table and chair are different, notwithstanding the fact that two ultimate realities have identical natures—they share 'the same taste'. Both of these emptinesses imply insubstantiality and essenceless in the negative sense, as well as dependently arisen and relational nature in the affirmative sense." 

I also wanted this translated but too lazy  (referring to http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../hearing-with-whole... )

• Like
• Reply
• 11h
• Yin LingSoh Wei Yu hahaha I scared I translate wrongly. And also lazy la.So many insights here.I think the only English version I have seen explain like that is Steve Hagen. But only one paragraPh. This one so much better.The 举身听 insight also is so good. I downloaded your whole file slowly read 1
  Like
  Reply11h
  
• ActiveSoh Wei YuYin LingHong wen liang expression of anatta into total exertion seems clearer than steve hagen but steve hagen is very clear about anatta and many other insights1
  Like
  Reply10h
  
  Edited
• ActiveSoh Wei YuI mean hong wen liang emphasis on total exertion and expressions seems stronger
  Like
  Reply10h
  
• Yin LingSoh Wei Yu oic. I have only read his “the grand delusion”. Pretty good from science perspective.Total exertion I don’t know anything yet haha. Maybe after i think I’m stable in 2 fold emptiness then I go into that1
  Like
  Reply10h
  
• ActiveJohn TanYin Ling 举身听 is total exertion. This requires no prior training, it's intuitive and gnosis. That is y even without prior knowledge or learning, u can intuit the meaning and feel the beauty of the expression; it is more of a "heart to heart" communication than logical analysis, once the "prana eye" is opened, not to cage it with arbitrary system of thoughts, that is most crucial!So don't be too worried about 2 fold but fully open this inutive "eye", it will lead u to full opening in a different way. Freedom from all elaborations or twofold de-construction is also to get one to this -- the full opening of the untainted, unmade, unconditioned suchness; unfortunately and as much as I would not like to say, the tibetan schools lack this lovely and intuitive expression. The unconditioned is left in the silent of Vimalakirti (imo). It is a different path, different system of training and therefore different expression. That is y, I advise u to read zen master 洪文亮.That said, the mmk deconstruction techniques provide us the tool to investigate in a structure and logical way that can help undercover and deconstruct the very subtle and inherent tendencies that r difficult to "detect". It is not easy to navigate these two territories imo, therefore the +A and -A of emptiness, so navigate with care and patience. I m back to my busy work again tmr so will not participate. Do take care and enjoy ur cny!1
  Like
  Reply8h
  
  Edited
• Yin LingJohn Tan oic! Thank you. Yes I read this article 3 times already in one day and am still in awe Ok will slowly navigate.Agree MMK is very good. But need to read many times to get use to the refutations. I can only read 2 chapters before getting energy imbalance Happy back to work soon John , lol1
  Like
  Reply7h
  
  
  .....
  
  (On another thread)
  
  John TanYin Ling Should not over emphasize the 7 phases of insights. Those r just some very casual sharing with a friend probably 2 decades back. They r no replacement for Pali canon of course.The 1200 pages are Soh's summary of his spiritual journal for maybe past 20 years, mainly conversations with me and some other teachers. To be frank, given Soh's exposures and interactions in the spiritual circle, the volumes of books he read and most importantly his sincerity, I do think it is a sincere compilation but may not be congruent. It can be a good reference. So just take it for 参考 (reference).Glad that it helps u see through the notion of "self/Self" ...And Happy CNY!4
  Like
  Reply2d
  
  Edited
  
  
  .....
  
  

Even after one year of vipassana the mind just notes automatically and move through the insight cycle by itself, I will just be working, exercising, and the mind just meditates like that. I can look back in and detect, oh it’s in dukkha nana now 

There’s no doubt 

Relax and see! The dhamma is under your nose! Not in the sutras, not in anyone commentary 

My words Might give ppl an idea I didn’t do concentration before that just fry vipassana but i never did drop concentration practise. It was always 50:50, if I do 6 hours meditation, 2-3 hours will be just on breath/ jhana

Now at least 1-2 hours a day coz I can easily vipassana off cushion even when seeing fireworks save time 

Happy anatta during CNY!

Soh Wei Yu thanks, as usual so resourceful ! Great article to complement what John wrote above. I will work hard to Intuit this thanks. Happy CNY