Showing posts with label Theravada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theravada. Show all posts
Someone asked: "@Soh Wei Yu

Curious what you think of this guy. He criticises pretty much all

current Buddhist schools, even most Theravada and claims they’re on

false paths. In other videos he mentions Daniel Ingram, Angelo, Delson

Armstrong and Frank Yang by name and calls them deluded. He advocates

following the early suttas and nothing else, saying we can’t deviate

from the Buddha’s words etc. He has another channel where he reads from

the suttas.

Daniel responded and wants to have an interview with him

Soh replied:

many of those who criticise daniel ingram and frank yang and angelo dont understand the anatta insight in the first place

im not sure about what insight delson has

and most teachers, even well known vipassana and theravada teachers lack the anatta insight as explained in

and this is key insight to entering the noble path, ending of self view and the first three fetters, and the key insight for liberation

but i agree that arahantship is a delusional claim. it is at most stream entry

explained very nicely in


john tan and i likes that article very much. john even added it into his AtR AI bot

as for not going against suttas, i agree one should not go against suttas

don't invent stuff

but i'm also not a sectarian theravadin that is fundamentalist about only

following suttas and disregarding anything 'mahayana' and 'vajrayana'

in fact i would say i very much appreciate the mahayana and vajrayana teachings

and follow their teachings

also, as thich nhat hanh said, the point about mahayana and nagarjuna is not to go against the suttas, in fact nagarjuna never quoted mahayana sutras. he only quoted pali canon. his aim was to correct erroneous views people developed that deviated from the suttas. -- this is in the newly published book that yin ling shared on Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka by Thich Nhat Hanh:

likewise, kyle dixon also said before, the purpose of mahayana teachings is a corrective to the wrong views of the hinayana sects that misunderstood the teachings of buddha in the suttas

i am not a fundamentalist sutta follower but i also believe sutta, mahayana sutras, vajrayana tantras and so forth, they can all be integrated in one's understanding and there is no need to 'choose' the suttas over the other teachings

but i do not believe in reinventing teachings and terms by the buddha, on what liberation, stream entry, arahantship and so on mean

also see this writing by John Tan: - What is an Authentic Buddhist Teaching?


as for first bhumi (aka Mahayana stream entry), Kyle Dixon recently shared a quote:

Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche:

Then, at the time of the supreme quality on the path of joining, one realizes that since the perceived does not exist, neither does the perceiver. Right after this, the truth of suchness, which is free from dualistic fixation, is directly realized. This is said to be the attainment of the first bhūmi.


Mr. C: "What I find interesting is that many of these so called fundamentalists don’t agree that nagarjuna has right view. They outright reject that he’s in line with the suttas whereas Mahayana states they’re compatible

I see people stating for example that the Buddha didn’t discuss emptiness, just that all phenomena are not-self, but not even claiming outright that there is no self

Of course I disagree with those kind of claims


kyle dixon has quoted many suttas talking about the emptiness of all dharmas and their illusory nature

its clear to me that the pali sutta is completely consistent with mahayana emptiness, and inconsistent with the 'little atmans' of dharmas that late abhidhamma commentators introduced into the teachings

i recommend going through part 1 to 4 of all kyle dixon's compilations that i made

has many very clear writings

in fact john tan find his dharmawheel writings to be the best among all he trained the atr AI bot with

as for those that say buddha taught not self but not no self, i already explained why that is wrong in

and kyle dixon also painstakingly explained so many times throughout reddit

because so many people are infected with this thanissaro ideology

it is a novel, but wrong idea of what buddha meant with anatman

ok one of my messages above was removed

because the facebook AI dumbly thought my anatta: not-self or no self was about porn and sexual stuff

i was saying i explained why this whole anatman is only not self but not no self wrong ideology has infected so many people online via thanissaro's novel ideology

it is also very wrong

and very misleading

in fact recently i posted another post, i dont think i should post more links here now lest facebook remove it again

but you can search on google or my blog:

Thanissaro, Consciousness without Surface, No Self vs Not-Self

it's a post made in december 2023

many of those who claims this also happen to fall into eternalist views about awareness

it's not surprising and their practice of turning anatman into a strategy of not-self becomes a means of dissociating from phenomena in order to rest in some unperturbed awareness

no different from brahman even if they do not call it by that name

this is 180 degrees different from buddhist insights into anatman, dependent origination and emptiness in some sense

a very common tendency in the thai forest tradition - see atr article "Seven Stages and Theravada (and other Buddhist traditions)?""


yes and also check out my other article "Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?", a separate article, different from the one on thanissaro

"Review complete

Jan 6, 2024

We restored your message

Hi Soh

We found that our technology made a mistake taking your post down.

Thank you for taking the time to request a review and helping us improve our systems. Our priority is keeping the community safe and respectful, so sometimes we have to take precautions.

You sent this in Awakening to Reality Chat

as for those that say buddha taught not self but not no self, i already explained why that is wrong in

Jan 6, 2024"

great its restored

Someone wrote to me (Soh) in Hardwarezone forum (Singaporean forum): "What i meant by the source here refers to what was experienced when one has reached a certain state of absorptions where nothing is left only this knowing.

Whether this is that, which is stable, permanent and solid, i don't really have an answer to that but all i can observe is "this knowing seems to be always be there".


No offend, but i don't think no-self is correct here. Buddha only said the 5 aggregates are not-self, he didn't say there is no-self.

If we look at the commentary from Thanissaro Bhikkhu, there is a termed called "Conciousness without surface" that hinted on "something" other than the 6 vijnanas that are arising due to causes and conditions but whatever it is i don't think that's all that important. The knowledge of what the 5 aggregates are is more than enough to allow for dispassion to set in.

In a note to MN 49 (source text has links to references), Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu writes the following:

Consciousness without surface (viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ): This term appears to be related to the following image from SN 12:64:

“Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?”

“On the western wall, lord.”

“And if there is no western wall, where does it land?”

“On the ground, lord.”

“And if there is no ground, where does it land?”

“On the water, lord.”

“And if there is no water, where does it land?”

“It doesn’t land, lord.”

“In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food… contact… intellectual intention… consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.”

In other words, normal sensory consciousness is experienced because it has a “surface” against which it lands: the sense organs and their objects, which constitute the “all.” For instance, we experience visual consciousness because of the eye and forms of which we are conscious. Consciousness without surface, however, is directly known, without intermediary, free from any dependence on conditions at all.

This consciousness thus differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. And, as SN 35:23 notes, the word “all” in the Buddha’s teaching covers only the six sense media, which is another reason for not including this consciousness under the aggregates. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space—in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud 1:10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8:1)—means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time.

Some have objected to the equation of this consciousness with nibbāna, on the grounds that nibbāna is nowhere else in the Canon described as a form of consciousness. Thus they have proposed that consciousness without surface be regarded as an arahant’s consciousness of nibbāna in meditative experience, and not nibbāna itself. This argument, however, contains a flaw: If nibbāna is an object of mental consciousness (as a dhamma), it would come under the all, as an object of the intellect. There are passages in the Canon (such as AN 9:36) that describe meditators experiencing nibbāna as a dhamma, but these passages seem to indicate that this description applies up through the level of non-returning. Other passages, however, describe nibbāna as the ending of all dhammas. For instance, Sn 5:6 quotes the Buddha as calling the attainment of the goal the transcending of all dhammas. Sn 4:6 and Sn 4:10 state that the arahant has transcended dispassion, said to be the highest dhamma. Thus, for the arahant, nibbāna is not an object of consciousness. Instead it is directly known without mediation. Because consciousness without feature is directly known without mediation, there seems good reason to equate the two.

Also, given that this consciousness is independent of the six senses, and that at the death of the arahant the six senses simply grow cold (Iti 44), then such an event should have no effect on it."

Soh's reply:

"Thanks again for sharing. What you are pointing at is more of the I AM. It is an important initial realization of pristine awareness and serves as a foundation for further breakthroughs in my path. However, Buddha's aim is not to teach us the I AM. There are further insights that are crucial and more important for liberation.

Have you read the links I sent earlier: , and ? I think it clarifies a lot.

Also, as John Tan/Thusness also pointed out before,

“The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept 'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when you will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies. If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be confused.

When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness.” - John Tan, 2005

“Buddhism is nothing but replacing the 'Self' in Hinduism with Condition Arising. Keep the clarity, the presence, the luminosity and eliminate the ultimate 'Self', the controller, the supreme. Still you must taste, sense, eat, hear and see Pure Awareness in every authentication. And every authentication is Bliss.” - John Tan, 2004

"What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage." - Lopon Malcolm

-- excerpts from

With due respect to Ven. Thanissaro, I do not agree with his views. I have written my views on this matter in at length and cited many scriptures.

As for consciousness without surface, I shared my views before:

Excerpts from

Myriad Objects

Anurag Jain

It is worth mentioning that Thanissaro is reputed to have a subtle eternalist bias in his thinking on Nibbāna and Viññāna Anidassanam.

His ideas on Viññāna anidassanam are absolutely NOT the same as those of someone like Ven. Ñānananda

some quotes from dhammawheel forum:

Buckwheat wrote:

I'm genuinely interested in knowing any weaknesses in Thanissaro's approach

Nyana wrote:

Ṭhānissaro has taken a small number of suttas and forced his interpretation on them to fit with his preconceived thesis about nibbāna, while completely disregarding every credible tradition of Buddhist commentary in the process.

Buckwheat wrote:

Is there another explanation for the following passage besides a consciousness beyond the all (the six sense bases)?

Nyana wrote:

Let me ask you: How can there be a consciousness beyond the six sense bases? Moreover, how could nibbāna ever be known except through the mind (manas)?

Buckwheat wrote:

(1) The term viññanam anidassanam also occurs in DN 11, where it is described as where name & form are brought to an end: surely a synonym for nibbana.

Nyana wrote:

This doesn't support his thesis in any way.


Nyana wrote:

In the endnotes to MN 49 he also asserts that nibbāna is a form of consciousness:

“Some have objected to the equation of this consciousness with nibbana, on the grounds that nibbana is no where else in the Canon described as a form of consciousness. Thus they have proposed that consciousness without surface be regarded as an arahant's consciousness of nibbana in meditative experience, and not nibbana itself.”

No Indian Buddhist author -- whether Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Mādhyamaka, or Yogācāra -- ever made this assertion that nibbāna is a type of consciousness. And in the Introduction to his translation of the same sutta he also asserts that this consciousness is not known by means of any of the six senses at all:

“The Buddha describes his awakened knowledge in a variety of ways ... by describing an awakened consciousness that is not known by means of any of the six senses at all.... Some of these assertions — in particular, the assertion of a consciousness not mediated by any of the six senses — are extremely important dhamma lessons....”

And in the endnotes to MN 38 he asserts that this consciousness is not included in the consciousness aggregate:

“The Buddha, knowing that there are two types of consciousness — the consciousness aggregate (viññāṇakkhandha), which is experienced in conjunction with the six sense media, and consciousness without surface (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ), which is experienced independently of the six sense media....”

Again, no Indian Buddhist author -- whether Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Mādhyamaka, or Yogācāra -- ever made any of these assertions. So apparently we are to believe that Ṭhānissaro has re-discovered the correct understanding of nibbāna as a form of consciousness which can only be experienced independently of the six sense media, that somehow eluded all of the best and brightest minds of Buddhist India!

His interpretation of nibbāna is very novel. It's also nonsense.


Nyana wrote:

Ṭhānissaro also thinks that his assertion of a post-mortem "unadulterated experience" of "absolute freedom from all constraints of time, space, and being" should somehow exempt him from getting entangled in wrong views. Well, it doesn't.




 · 29m



Myriad Objects

So for someone like Ven. Ñānananda, viññāna anidassanam is merely when ignorance ceases and the Arahant no longer reifies a self or objectifies a world - the Venerable likes to use the terminology “seeing THROUGH the object” - seeing the essencelessness of appearances through wisdom - but the appearances are still there, just understood properly through wisdom & there is no “independent transcendent consciousness” apart from the appearances.

For Thanissaro, viññāna anidassanam is some kind of completely independent consciousness experienced outside of space and time, it is literally considered to be like an “element” existing on its own where there is no coming or going, no sun and moon...etc.

He also states that this special consciousness is the ‘unadulterated experience of an Arahant after death.’

He argues that this consciousness is completely equivalent with Nibbāna itself.

The latter view is eternalist and has no precedent in the history of Buddhist tradition.




 · 11m



Soh Wei Yu

badge icon


Myriad Objects

I will need to post this to AtR blog for future reference.

Let me know if there are any other things I should post to the blog.




Myriad Objects

Anurag Jain

These quotations are well-explained in detail by Venerable Ñānananda without any need to resort to jumping to wrong conclusions that:

- There is some “independent transcendent consciousness apart from the six sense bases”

- That this viññāna anidassanam can even be equated with nibbāna at all

- That this refers to anything but the mind when it stops ignorantly bifurcating appearances into a reified “Self vs World”



 · 7m



Soh Wei Yu

badge icon


Thanissaro is an eternalist, like many (most) Thai forest monks, I believe.




 · 11m



Soh Wei Yu

badge icon





 · 9m

Soh Wei Yu

badge icon


All Thai forest teachers that I know of are eternalists stuck at I AM and one mind with the exception of:

Ajahn Buddhadhasa

Phra Kovit Khemananda (Ajahn Buddhadhasa's student)

Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero

Ajahn Brahmavamso


I also think Krodha/Kyle Dixon said it well on the topic of Thanissaro and anatta:

Krodha/Kyle Dixon:

"The point is that anātman is not intended to be a sort of apophatic exercise as Thanissaro suggests. Rather it is the lack of a svabhāva or inherent self in the mind. The prevailing issue with Thanissaro’s approach is that you have people who wrongly assert that the Buddha never said there is no self, which is an absurd misconception. The Buddha clearly and routinely says there is no self to be found in any phenomena anywhere.

Now, does this negate the action of “taking out the trash” as you mention, no, because that is a conventional action performed by a conventional self. We as Buddhists, do not negate the validity of conventional activities and entities as these things appear, we simply state that all conventional designations are ultimately only nominal in nature. Nominal, meaning inferential in the sense that the associated imputation suggests the validity of an entity, however if we investigate the basis of said imputation, the entity cannot actually be found because it is merely an abstraction. A useful abstraction, but not actually established or real.

In this way you can be a conventional individual who takes out the trash and performs many activities, but like an image of a tiger in a dream, there is no actual tiger present. The same goes for the appearance of you as a conventional individual taking the trash out, there is not actually an individual there when the imputed self is keenly scrutinized."

I also like what Kyle Dixon said before,

“I genuinely feel that while Thanissaro Bikkhu’s contributions to dharma are great in terms of his translations, that he does a great disservice to people trying to understand this profound dharma by promulgating this “not-self” apophatic misinterpretation of anātman. The parroting of this view is so prevalent nowadays, I do indeed feel it is necessary to object when I see it expressed. Especially in the lazy way it is usually demonstrated in brief tag line comments with no unpacking of the alleged logic behind the claim, such as, “the Buddha never said there is no self,” or “anatta doesn’t mean no self.”

To me this is an expression of this degenerate yūga and is a poisoning of buddhadharma. So while sure, I can be more gentle and polite about it if we are concerned about the tone, I very much take issue with these views, and while I am being assertive rather then hostile, I’ll concede and find a better way to communicate my utter disagreement with said views if that is deemed necessary.”

Actually Anatman realization does not negate the knowingness, the "poo roo", only that its nature is revealed to be nondual and empty of inherent existence.

"'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to  convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating  the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or  knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the  sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are  merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place  [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness." - Kyle Dixon, 2014

If you read the Amness link above you will have seen relevant quotes on this subject:


(4:20 PM) Thusness:    buddhism stresses more on direct experience.

(4:20 PM) Thusness:    there is no-self apart from the arising and ceasing

(4:20 PM) AEN:    icic..

(4:20 PM) Thusness:    and from arising and ceasing one sees the emptiness nature of 'Self'

(4:21 PM) Thusness:    There is Witnessing.

(4:21 PM) Thusness:    Witnessing is the manifestation.

(4:21 PM) Thusness:    there is no witness witnessing manifestation.

(4:21 PM) Thusness:    that is buddhism.


(11:42 PM) Thusness:    i have always said it is not the denial of eternal witness.

(11:42 PM) Thusness:    but what exactly is that eternal witness?

(11:42 PM) Thusness:    it is the real understanding of eternal witness.

(11:43 PM) AEN:    yeah i tot so

(11:43 PM) AEN:    so its something like david carse right

(11:43 PM) Thusness:    without the 'seeing' and 'veil' of momentum, of reacting to propensities.

(11:43 PM) AEN:    emptiness, yet luminous

(11:43 PM) AEN:    icic

(11:43 PM) Thusness:    however when one quote what buddha said, does he understand first of all.

(11:43 PM) Thusness:    is he seeing eternal witness as in the advaita?

(11:44 PM) AEN:    he's probably confused

(11:44 PM) Thusness:    or is he seeing free from propensities.

(11:44 PM) AEN:    he never explicitly mention but i believe his understanding is something like that la

(11:44 PM) Thusness:    so there is no point quoting if it is not seen.

(11:44 PM) AEN:    icic

(11:44 PM) Thusness:    otherwise it is just saying the atman view again.

(11:44 PM) Thusness:    so u should be very clear by now...and not to be confused.

(11:44 PM) AEN:    icic

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    what have i told u?

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    u have also written in ur blog.

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    what is eternal witness?

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    it is the manifestation...moment to moment of arising

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    does one see with the propensities and what is really it?

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    that is more important.

(11:46 PM) Thusness:    i have said so many times that the experience is correct but the understanding is wrong.

(11:46 PM) Thusness:    wrong view.

(11:46 PM) Thusness:    and how perception influence experience and wrong understanding.

(11:46 PM) Thusness:    so don't quote here and there with just a snap shot...

(11:47 PM) Thusness:    be very very clear and know with wisdom so that u will know what is right and wrong view.

(11:47 PM) Thusness:    otherwise u will be reading this and get confused with that.


(3:55 PM) Thusness:    it is not to deny the existence of the luminosity

(3:55 PM) Thusness:    the knowingness

(3:55 PM) Thusness:    but rather to have the correct view of what consciousness is.

(3:56 PM) Thusness:    like non-dual

(3:56 PM) Thusness:    i said there is no witness apart from the manifestation, the witness is really the manifestation

(3:56 PM) Thusness:    this is the first part

(3:56 PM) Thusness:    since the witness is the manifestation, how is it so?

(3:57 PM) Thusness:    how is the one is really the many?

(3:57 PM) AEN:    conditions?

(3:57 PM) Thusness:    saying that the one is the many is already wrong.

(3:57 PM) Thusness:    this is using conventional way of expression.

(3:57 PM) Thusness:    for in reality, there is no such thing of the 'one'

(3:57 PM) Thusness:    and the many

(3:58 PM) Thusness:    there is only arising and ceasing due to emptiness nature

(3:58 PM) Thusness:    and the arising and ceasing itself is the clarity.

(3:58 PM) Thusness:    there is no clarity apart from the phenomena

(4:00 PM) Thusness:    if we experience non-dual like ken wilber and talk about the atman.

(4:00 PM) Thusness:    though the experience is true, the understanding is wrong.

(4:00 PM) Thusness:    this is similar to "I AM".

(4:00 PM) Thusness:    except that it is higher form of experience.

(4:00 PM) Thusness:    it is non-dual.

Session Start: Sunday, October 19, 2008

(1:01 PM) Thusness: Yes

(1:01 PM) Thusness: Actually practice is not to deny this 'Jue' (awareness)

(6:11 PM) Thusness: the way u explained as if 'there is no Awareness'.

(6:11 PM) Thusness: People at times mistaken what u r trying to convey.but to correctly understand this 'jue' so that it can be experienced from all moments effortlessly.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: But when a practitioner heard that it is not 'IT', they immediately began to worry because it is their most precious state.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: All the phases written is about this 'Jue' or Awareness.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: However what Awareness really is isn't correctly experienced.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: Because it isn't correctly experienced, we say that 'Awareness that u try to keep' does not exist in such a way.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: It does not mean there is no Awareness.


(12:02 AM) Thusness: it is not that there is no awareness

(12:02 AM) Thusness: it is understanding awareness not from a subject/object view

(12:02 AM) Thusness: not from an inherent view

(12:03 AM) Thusness: that is dissolving subject/object understanding into events, action, karma

(12:04 AM) Thusness: then we gradually understand that the 'feeling' of someone there is really just a 'sensation' of an inherent view

(12:04 AM) Thusness: means a 'sensation', a 'thought'



inherent view


(12:06 AM) Thusness: how this lead to liberation requires the direct experience

(12:06 AM) Thusness: so liberation it is not freedom from 'self' but freedom from 'inherent view'

(12:07 AM) AEN: icic..

(12:07 AM) Thusness: get it?

(12:07 AM) Thusness: but it is important to experience luminosity

Session Start: Saturday, 27 March, 2010

(9:54 PM) Thusness: Not bad for self-enquiry

(9:55 PM) AEN: icic..

btw what do u think lucky and chandrakirti is trying to convey

(9:56 PM) Thusness: those quotes weren't really well translated in my opinion.

(9:57 PM) Thusness: what needs be understood is 'No I' is not to deny Witnessing consciousness.

(9:58 PM) Thusness: and 'No Phenomena' is not to deny Phenomena

(9:59 PM) Thusness: It is just for the purpose of 'de-constructing' the mental constructs.

(10:00 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:01 PM) Thusness: when u hear sound, u cannot deny it...can u?

(10:01 PM) AEN: ya

(10:01 PM) Thusness: so what r u denying?

(10:02 PM) Thusness: when u experience the Witness as u described in ur thread 'certainty of being', how can u deny this realization?

(10:03 PM) Thusness: so what is does 'no I' and 'no phenomena' mean?

(10:03 PM) AEN: like u said its only mental constructs that are false... but consciousness cant be denied ?

(10:03 PM) Thusness: no...i am not saying that

Buddha never deny the aggregates

(10:04 PM) Thusness: just the selfhood

(10:04 PM) Thusness: the problem is what is meant by 'non-inherent', empty nature, of phenomena and 'I'

[continued in link, too long to paste]"


p.s. my earlier posts to him:

I saw your post where you said something like you realised the source. Can you describe how was it like for you experientially? And can you also relate with the links i sent above?

What you wrote sounds like non doership.. my article clarifies the distinctions. There are two citadels of self as Ajahn Brahmavamso puts it.

I wrote last year to someone,

However, if someone claims to have awakened in the Buddhist sense, but then they say their subject object sense is still strong or present, I would say this person hasn't really attained true Buddhist awakening. Even if they claim to realise no self, it is not the true Buddhist no self insight, but only halfway there.

Like Ajahn Brahmavamso said those who practice meditation and jhanas can first overcome self by seeing through and dissolving the doer. Only later, at a more mature phase, the "last citadel of self" -- the knower -- is seen through. How can you say for example that the self is truly seen through but still hold oneself to be a knower behind the known (subject and object)? So that cannot be, obviously.

The true Buddhist insight of anatta is not only seeing through doer, but also agent, knower, perceiver, seer, hearer, be-er, being, etc etc. Total deconstruction of all self/Self. Then that I consider true insight.. and Yin Ling and Sim Pern Chong fortunately has that deep penetrative insight.”

Also here is another excerpt of something I wrote, from

  • Soh Wei YuYin Ling

    Thai forest emphasizes going through I AM at least initially but maybe not burmese and other forms of theravada.

    For example ajahn brahmavamso described anatta insight but went through I AM first.

  • Soh Wei YuAjahn brahmavamso on I AM:

    “When the Body Disappears.

    Remember "con men," "con women" as well. These con

(Long text snipped, refer to link above for full text)

  • Soh Wei YuAjahn brahmavamso on anatta insight:

    Excerpt from

    The Final Part of Bāhiya's Teaching

    "Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: in the seen will be merely what is seen, ... in the cognized will merely be what is cognized. Practising in this way, Bāhiya, you will not be 'because of that'. When you are not 'because of that', you will not be 'in that'. And when you are not 'in that', you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

    What does it mean "you will not be 'because of that'"? The Pāli is na tena. Tena is the instrumental of the word for 'that'. Na is the negative. It means, literally, "not because of that, not through that, not by that". It means in essence, you will not assume that there is a self, a soul, a me; because of, through, or by; the seen or the heard or the sensed or the cognized. The Buddha is saying that once you have penetrated the truth of sensory experience, by suppressing the Hindrances through Jhāna, you will see that there is no 'doer', nor a 'knower', behind sensory experience. No longer will you be able to use sensory experience as evidence for a self. Descartes' famous "I am because I think" is refuted. You will not be because of thinking, nor because of seeing, hearing or sensing. In the Buddha's words, "You will not be because of that (any sensory experience)".

    When the sensory processes are discarded as tenable evidence for a self, a soul or a me, then you are no longer located in the sensory experience. In the Buddha's words, "You will not be 'in that'". You no longer view, perceive or even think that there is a 'me' involved in life. In the words of the doctor in the original series of Star Trek, "It is life, Jim, but not as we know it"! There is no longer any sense of self, or soul, at the centre of experience. You are no more 'in that'.

    Just to close off the loophole that you might think you can escape non-existence of a self or soul by identifying with a transcendental state of being beyond what is seen, heard, sensed or cognized, the Buddha thunders, "and you will be neither here (with the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor beyond (outside of the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor in between the two (neither of the world nor beyond the world). The last phrase comprehensively confounded the sophists!

    In summary, the Buddha advised both Bāhiya and Venerable Mālunkyaputta to experience the Jhānas to suppress the Five Hindrances. Thereby one will discern with certainty the absence of a self or a soul behind the sensory process. Consequently, sensory experience will never again be taken as evidence of a 'knower' or a 'doer': such that you will never imagine a self or a soul at the centre of experience, nor beyond, nor anywhere else. Bāhiya's Teaching put in a nutshell the way to the realization of No-Self, Anattā. "Just this", concluded the Buddha "is the end of suffering".

    Ajahn Brahmavamso - BĀHIYA'S TEACHING

    Ajahn Brahmavamso - BĀHIYA'S TEACHING

  • 1

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview



Soh Wei YuAjahn brahmavamso criticising teachers who get stuck at I AM:

From Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond

The Buddha’s Word on the One Who Knows

Even some good, practicing monks fail to breach illusion’s last line of defense, the knower. They take “the one who knows,” “the original mind,” “the pure knowing,” or some other descriptions of the citta as the ultimate and permanent reality. To be accurate, such concepts belong to the teachings of Hinduism and not to Buddhism, for the Buddha clearly refuted these theories as not penetrating deeply enough.

For instance, in the first sutta in the first collection of Buddhist scriptures, the Brahmajāla Sutta, the Buddha described in detail sixty-two types of wrong view (micchā diṭṭhi). Wrong view number eight is the opinion that the thing that is called citta, or mind (mano), or consciousness (viññāṇa) is the permanent self (attā)—stable, eternal, not subject to change, forever the same (DN 1,2,13). Thus maintaining that “the one who knows” is eternal is micchā diṭṭhi, wrong view, says the Buddha.

In the Nidāna Saṃyutta, the Buddha states:
But, bhikkhus, that which is called “mind” [citta] and “mentality” [mano] and “consciousness” [viññāṇa]—the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: “This is mine, this I am, this is self.”…
It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self [attā] this body…because this body…is seen standing…for [as long as] a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called “mind” and “mentality” and “consciousness” arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. (SN 12,61)

However, just as the hard scientific evidence mentioned earlier cannot dislodge the view that it is oneself who is the doer, so even the hard scriptural evidence of the Buddha’s own teachings is unable on its own to dislodge the view that “the one who knows” is the ultimate entity, the attā. Some even argue that these Buddhist texts must have been changed, solely on the grounds that the texts disagree with their view!

Such irrational stubbornness comes from bhavataṇhā, the craving to be. Bhavataṇhā is so strong that one is prepared to let go of almost everything—possessions, one’s body, and one’s thoughts—as long as one is finally left with something, some tiny spot of existence, in order to be. After all, one wants to enjoy parinibbāna, thoroughgoing extinction, having worked so hard to get there. Bhavataṇhā is why many great meditators are unable to agree with the Buddha and make that final leap of renunciation that lets go of absolutely everything, including the citta. Even though the Buddha said that “nothing is worth adhering to” (sabbe dhammā nālam abhinivesāya) (MN 37,3), people still adhere to the citta. They continue to hold on to the knower and elevate it to unwarranted levels of mystical profundity by calling it “the ground of all being,” “union with God,” “the original mind,” etc.—even though the Buddha strongly refuted all such clinging, saying that all levels of being stink, the way even a tiny speck of feces on one’s hand stinks (AN I,18,13).

One needs the experiences of many jhānas, combined with a sound knowledge of the Buddha’s own teachings, in order to break through the barrier of bhavataṇhā, the craving to be, and see for oneself that what some call “the citta,” “mind,” “consciousness,” or “the one who knows” is only an empty process (...)


By the way I have information from another guy who experientially realised anatman from my blog materials that Sylvia Bay, a theravada/sutta based teacher, has experientially realised nondual anatman and not just non doership. It is rare to find teachers with such experiential realisations.

Mentioned to you as she teaches in Singapore

Regarding source, you said before, "Yes, i am able to retract to the source on most occasion through meditation and experience the pure consciousness but that's as far as i go." --

Anatman is a dharma seal that is always already so, but experientially realizing it makes all the difference.

I also wrote this before:

First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).

To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta ( that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically.

John Tan adds: "This is the seal of no-self and can be realized and experienced in all moments; not just a mere concept."


p.s. it is important to understand anatta not as a form of dissociation, in the case of dissociation there is still a you or a watcher behind watching and dissociating from aggregates. That is not the anatman insight as the links I sent you explained.


The forummer said:

perhaps the following will show the perspective from forest tradition.

and as I have mentioned previously, irregardless of whether pure consciousness/ knowing or what it is called exists is not important.

Similar to the story and analogy of a poison arrow, what matters most at hand is not to ask who shoot me, what kind of arrow and poison the person is using, rather is to take out the poison arrow.

I thank you for reaching out to me. I will rest on the subject.

Wish you a smooth journey on your quest to liberation.

Soh replied:

Yes I am aware of Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Amaro teachings and have read several books of theirs. Some parts of Ajahn Amaro writings are not bad but still prone to advaita view, same for Ajahn Chah. The oil and water part is dualistic and points to the I AM.

Discussing on the oil and water analogy in 2007:

Session Start: Thursday, 31 May, 2007

(2:47 PM) AEN: tibetan teachings seems to often say bcos the nature of our mind is luminous defilements can be removed.. like wanderer's saying the mind is not the dust, so can be removed

(2:48 PM) AEN: even ajahn chah says "the heart is just the heart; thoughts and feelings are just thoughts and feelings. let things be just as they are! let form be just form, let sound be just sound, let thought be just thought. why should we bother to attach to them? if we think and feel in this way, then there is detachment and separateness. our thoughts and feelings will be on one side and our heart will be on the other. just like oil and water - they are in the same bottle but they are separate"

(2:49 PM) AEN: then the buddha taught,

(2:49 PM) AEN: Reply with Quote

Luminous is this mind,

Brightly shining, but it is

Colored by the attachments

That visit it.

This unlearned people do not

Really understand,

And so do not cultivate the


(2:49 PM) AEN:

Luminous is this mind,

Brightly shining,

And it is free of the

Attachments that visit it.

This the noble follower

Of the way really understands;

So for them there is

Cultivation of the mind.

- Anguttara Nikaya

(2:52 PM) AEN: wat u tink

(6:29 PM) Thusness: think of?

(6:42 PM) AEN: something like there is stain on ur window, u know stain is not part of ur window tats y u can clean it away

(6:42 PM) Thusness: this is a wrong view in the absolute sense and not prajna wisdom.

(6:43 PM) AEN: oic so tats said in conventional sense?

(6:44 PM) Thusness: in the conventional sense, it should not be spoken that way too. The way ajahn chah puts it is no good. It becomes advaita.

(6:44 PM) Thusness: with all respect, that is not what the buddha taught. :)

(6:44 PM) AEN: oic

(6:44 PM) Thusness: i will explain to u later...i go eat first.

(6:45 PM) AEN: ok cya

(6:46 PM) Thusness: u have posted Phagguna Sutta in simpo site. What is such a teaching important?

(6:47 PM) AEN: uh bcos it concerns our nature?

(6:51 PM) Thusness has changed his/her status to Idle

(6:56 PM) AEN: just now i went to ABC, flipped through dalai lama's book and come across this chapter talking about mind's luminosity, then hhdl mentioned something like the window and stain and stain can be removed

(6:56 PM) AEN: then later went palelai and got 2 bks from ajahn chah, one part also mention this

(6:57 PM) AEN: like just now that part

(7:00 PM) Thusness has changed his/her status to Online

(7:01 PM) AEN: -- wanderer typed:

(7:01 PM) AEN:

(3) Know that your true nature has never ever been stained by such temporary defilements. Therefore such defilements are removable.

You have to recognize that at that moment you are angry, but you are NOT anger.

Knowing that you are NOT anger is important, because then anger is removable.

(7:01 PM) AEN:

Just like when there is a stain on your window, you know that the stain is not part of your window, that is why you will clean away the stain. If you don't believe that the stain is removable, if you thought that the stain were part of the window, then you wouldn't even attempt to clean it away.

Likewise, when your anger arises, recognize the fact that you want to and you can actually remove anger is because it was never part of your true nature. Know that the stain is clean-able. The anger and all other defilements are removable. Your original nature (often referred to as Buddha Nature, or Tathagatha-garbha, or kham) is primordially pure and unstained.

(7:02 PM) Thusness: u see this is how modern teachers teach about buddha's teaching.

(7:02 PM) Thusness: if that is the case, then who need buddha's teaching at all.

(7:02 PM) Thusness: and why the correction in the Phagguna Sutta?

(7:02 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:03 PM) Thusness: what would buddha say in phagguna sutta if this was said in the phagguna sutta?

(7:03 PM) AEN: there is no 'who', but conditions arise?

(7:04 PM) Thusness: do not say that 'not me'...change it to 'no me'.

(7:04 PM) Thusness: not me implies that there is a 'me', an 'I'.

(7:04 PM) Thusness: there are few groups of practitioners.

(7:05 PM) Thusness: one has not experienced anything at all, the I is an individual 'I'.

(7:06 PM) Thusness: there are also those that experienced 'I AMness' but has not experienced infinite expansion of 'I'

(7:06 PM) Thusness: there is another group that experienced the 'I' as the infinite I.

(7:08 PM) Thusness: there are those that experienced non-duality but continue to be under the influence of propensities, unable to experience the breadth and depth of non-dual.

(7:08 PM) Thusness: there are those that are completely one in non-dual, free of propensities of 'I'.

(7:08 PM) AEN: oic..

(7:08 PM) Thusness: why was the Phagguna Sutta taught?

(7:09 PM) Thusness: because Buddha has realised the subtlety of imprints.

(7:09 PM) AEN: icic

(7:10 PM) Thusness: Even if one has experienced non-duality, it will not be easy for him to go beyond this 'seed' if he overlooked and continue to employ dualistic interpretation.

(7:10 PM) AEN: icic

(7:10 PM) Thusness: therefore Buddha corrected these practitioners.

(7:10 PM) Thusness: even they have experienced no-self.

(7:11 PM) Thusness: unknowingly, the re-enforced and create imprints.

(7:11 PM) AEN: icic

(7:11 PM) Thusness: Phagguna Sutta is the language of no-self and emptiness.

(7:11 PM) Thusness: not only there is no 'I', there is no 'mine'.

(7:12 PM) AEN: oic

(7:12 PM) Thusness: not that 'thoughts' has no 'I', it is has no 'mine'.

(7:12 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:12 PM) Thusness: this then is dharmakaya. First is non-duality, then it is the experience of dharmakaya.

(7:12 PM) AEN: oic

(7:13 PM) AEN: so dharmakaya is non duality without any propensities left?

(7:13 PM) Thusness: when we say we are not 'thoughts', we are not 'feelings', we are not 'forms'

(7:13 PM) Thusness: then does that mean that there is an 'I' that is not transient?

(7:13 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:14 PM) AEN: wat u tink about the teaching of tathagathagarbha as being 'primordially pure and unstained' or something like that

(7:14 PM) Thusness: there is a clarity that is untouched but it must be viewed in terms of emptiness.

(7:14 PM) AEN: oic

(7:15 PM) Thusness: if this tathagathagarbha nature is taught but without knowing emptiness, then it is erroneous views.

(7:15 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:16 PM) AEN: pure and unstained shld be understood in terms of emptiness and self-liberation?

(7:17 PM) Thusness: yeah

(7:17 PM) Thusness: but stressing that pure and unstained should not be misunderstood as there is something behind.

(7:17 PM) Thusness: it is from beginning pure and unstained.

(7:18 PM) Thusness: we never lost our clarity.

(7:18 PM) Thusness: even for a moment.

(7:18 PM) Thusness: but when I said that, I do not mean that there is a clarity behind phenomenon.

(7:18 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:19 PM) Thusness: pain is clarity, otherwise why is there pain. How is it that we feel it is so real?

(7:19 PM) Thusness: isn't it clear.

(7:19 PM) AEN: oic

(7:19 PM) Thusness: when there is momentum, there is 'self', isn't this clear?

(7:19 PM) AEN: icic

(7:20 PM) Thusness: everything is as clear as it can be, as luminous.

(7:20 PM) AEN: oic..

(7:21 PM) Thusness: actually u just have to see manifestation, see conditions and that is all.

(7:21 PM) Thusness: there is no need to look for buddhahood.

(7:21 PM) Thusness: naked awareness is just this.

(7:23 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:23 PM) AEN: no need to look for buddhahood as in

(7:23 PM) Thusness: one can experience non-duality, understand non-duality thoroughly and yet still continue to reinforce the seed of 'I' due to our conventional language.

(7:24 PM) Thusness: but when one uses language of emptiness and no-self as in the case of Phagguna Sutta, the deconstruction is every moment.

(7:24 PM) AEN: oic..

(7:26 PM) Thusness: then we will know that how true the dualistic language has bonded and moulded me into experiencing an 'I' and using the way of Phagguna Sutta to deconstruction the views of the world and together with the experience of non-duality, one experiences the true breadth and depth of non-duality.

(7:27 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:27 PM) AEN: oh theres one part in ajahn chah's book that he mentioned his experience of deconstruction too

(7:27 PM) AEN:

(7:27 PM) AEN: search 'space'






Junior Member

JoinedJan 21, 2002


Reaction score0

2 minutes ago

(7:30 PM) AEN: btw ajahn chah speaks a lot on 3 dharma seals and vipassana

(7:30 PM) AEN: but somewhere he also mentions about 'that which knows'.. sounds a bit like 'i am' lol

(7:30 PM) AEN: i tink ajahn mun's lineage ppl also say tat

(7:30 PM) Thusness: yes

(7:30 PM) AEN: u also remember rite

(7:30 PM) Thusness: it becomes advaita.

(7:30 PM) AEN: oic

(7:31 PM) AEN: he said 'Thus the Buddha taught to abide as 'that which knows' [2] and simply bear witness to that which arises. Once you have trained your awareness to abide as 'that which knows', and have investigated the mind and developed insight into the truth about the mind and mental factors, you'll see the mind as anatta (not-self).

(7:31 PM) Thusness: there is nothing and no 'I' apart from manifestation.

(7:31 PM) AEN: icic

(7:31 PM) Thusness: no

(7:32 PM) Thusness: buddha taught there is only the arising and ceasing, there is nothing apart from that. Just the correct and right view.

(7:32 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:32 PM) Thusness: when we have the wrong view, we see things in the form of life and death.

(7:32 PM) Thusness: when we have the right view, we see the unborn, uncreated.

(7:33 PM) AEN: oic

(7:33 PM) Thusness: ever manifesting.

(7:33 PM) Thusness: buddha taught there is only the arising and ceasing, there is nothing apart from that. Just whether the view is correct or wrong view.

(7:34 PM) AEN: back

(7:34 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:34 PM) Thusness: when one is able to experience our nature as it is, the bliss experienced is different.

(7:35 PM) AEN: oic

(7:35 PM) Thusness: The experience and bliss of an eternal witness observing the transient and the full experience of just the transient is different.

(7:36 PM) Thusness: the bliss and clarity of no-self is of a different dimension.

(7:37 PM) AEN: icic

(7:37 PM) Thusness: u must understand that buddhism does not deny clarity, luminosity.

(7:37 PM) Thusness: but we must realise what clarity is.

(7:37 PM) AEN: oic

(7:37 PM) AEN: btw u read ajahn chah's bk b4? how u find them

(7:37 PM) Thusness: yes i have read it b4. :)

(7:38 PM) Thusness: i find that ajahn chah is proned towards "I AMness".

(7:38 PM) Thusness: that is the trace of self is still there.

(7:38 PM) Thusness: I do not know, since he is already (being claimed to be) an arhat. :p

(7:39 PM) Thusness: i prefer u to read dharma

(7:39 PM) AEN: oic he did state tat?

(7:39 PM) AEN: as in he's arhat

(7:39 PM) AEN: i heard about it also

(7:39 PM) AEN: icic

(7:39 PM) Thusness: i do not know...

(7:40 PM) AEN: i heard from e-sangha dunnu isit the same monk that criticised ajahn maha boowa... that ajahn mun and its lineage ppl, ajahn chah, ajahn maha boowa etc lean towards eternalism... then the other lineage like ajahn buddhadhasa lean towards nihilism or something like that

(7:40 PM) AEN: oic but how u know he's arhat

(7:40 PM) Thusness: i mean ppl say, not i know.

(7:40 PM) AEN: icic

(7:41 PM) Thusness: the teaching of buddha's is very profound and subtle.

(7:41 PM) Thusness: we need to practice hard to validate what that is taught.

(7:41 PM) AEN: oic

(7:42 PM) Thusness: otherwise mostly we will misinterpret.

(7:42 PM) Thusness: most likely

(7:42 PM) Thusness: ehehehe

(7:42 PM) AEN: icic..

(7:43 PM) Thusness: a person must be able to experience the dissolution of the self to a great extent before the teaching of buddha can be fully appreciated.

(7:43 PM) Thusness: that is even after he/she has experienced non-duality.

(7:44 PM) AEN: oic..

(7:46 PM) Thusness: but try not to comment on ajahn chah.

(7:46 PM) AEN: yea

(7:46 PM) Thusness: i do not want u to have another issue like lao tze.

(7:46 PM) Thusness: :)

(7:46 PM) AEN: hahaha

(7:46 PM) AEN: oh ya is tmr lol

(7:49 PM) Thusness:

(7:50 PM) AEN: btw ajahn brahm under ajahn chah u know?

(7:52 PM) Thusness: yeah

(7:52 PM) Thusness: heard of.

(7:52 PM) Thusness: why?

(7:53 PM) AEN: nothing much.. lol

(7:54 PM) Thusness: but u know wat i meant right?

(7:54 PM) AEN: yea

(7:55 PM) Thusness: however it is okie to experience the "I AMness" first. :)

(7:56 PM) Thusness: with the teaching and the experience of your teacher as guidance, moving into non-duality and the experience of dharmakaya.

(7:56 PM) AEN: icic..

Session Start: Thursday, 31 May, 2007

(8:29 PM) Thusness: just meditated for 15 mins...ahaha

(8:29 PM) AEN: lol

(8:29 PM) AEN: icic

(8:29 PM) AEN: so how was it

(8:29 PM) Thusness: forgot to tell u the part on "even ajahn chah says "the heart is just the heart; thoughts and feelings are just thoughts and feelings. let things be just as they are! let form be just form, let sound be just sound, let thought be just thought. why should we bother to attach to them? if we think and feel in this way, then there is detachment and separateness.

(8:30 PM) AEN: icic

(8:30 PM) AEN: so wat u wanted to say

(8:31 PM) Thusness: is very important.

(8:31 PM) Thusness: that is the experience of the 2nd door.

(8:31 PM) Thusness: our thoughts and feelings will be on one side and our heart will be on the other. just like oil and water - they are in the same bottle but they are separate"

(8:31 PM) Thusness: this part is advaita.

(8:32 PM) Thusness: so there is the 2nd door without the clarity of non-dual.

(8:32 PM) Thusness: but the first part is very important in terms of experience.

(8:32 PM) AEN: oic..

(8:33 PM) Thusness: some is non-duality without second door.

(8:33 PM) Thusness: but each door is to deal with a particular aspect of 'self'

(8:33 PM) AEN: icic

(8:33 PM) AEN: longchen now knows second door rite

(8:33 PM) Thusness: yeah

(8:34 PM) AEN: icic

(8:34 PM) Thusness: but the depth of the experience, dunno.

(8:34 PM) Thusness: eheheh

(8:34 PM) AEN: oic

(8:34 PM) AEN: how come second door will lead to 'things as they are'

(8:35 PM) Thusness: did u read what i said in the post to amadeus?

(8:35 PM) Thusness: on the immense clarity of isness?

(8:36 PM) AEN: tink so

(8:36 PM) AEN: cant remember now

(8:36 PM) Thusness: Isness is not just letting the passing away and not adding and subtracting to the moment.

(8:36 PM) AEN: oic

(8:37 PM) Thusness: it is the immense clarity, aliveness and vividness of the moment.

(8:37 PM) Thusness: the former is the passing away without clarity.

(8:37 PM) Thusness: the later is the clarity those not to the level of non-duality

(8:38 PM) Thusness: these 2 aspects must fuse into one to arise the realisation of self-liberation.

(8:38 PM) AEN: icic..

(8:38 PM) AEN: so the third is immense clarity of passing away

(8:39 PM) Thusness: did u c what i wrote to amadeus?

(8:39 PM) Thusness: on the post "when truth takes over"

(8:39 PM) Thusness: i said still with all the vividness, it is gone.

(8:39 PM) Thusness: but who can understand...ehhehee

(8:39 PM) AEN: oic..

(8:39 PM) Thusness: maybe

(8:40 PM) AEN: watch it understands 2nd door and clarity?

(8:41 PM) Thusness: not exactly, the experience is there.






Junior Member

JoinedJan 21, 2002


Reaction score0

A moment ago

Ajahn Amaro writings point not only to I AM/eternal witness but later into nondual, but still unable to overcome the subtle trace of substantialist nondual (view of unchanging awareness) into insubstantialist nondual of anatta. Nonetheless I like some of his writings like this one on Bahiya Sutta:

Contemplating Bahiya Sutta was led to the anatman breakthrough for me back in 2010 (after I underwent I AM and then one mind/substantial nondual):

The Knowingness or luminosity is in fact very important and serves as base for further insights so I am not trying to downplay it, otherwise understand tends to be conceptual imo. However, in my experience it is impossible to take out the poisoned arrow without the right insights into its empty nature.

Nondual anatta (insubstantialist nondual) insight is key.

2006, conversation with John Tan/Thusness:

(5:25 PM) John: For one that truly experience anatta and emptiness, he will know that there is no other way towards liberation. Dualistic view is itself suffering. There is no escape and

cannot be compromised. so though ET [Soh: Eckhart Tolle, who is at the I AM stage] talked about the silence, there is the experience but there is no liberation. There is constant struggle. do not be deceived.  though what he said about the experience is quite true.

(5:27 PM) AEN: non-effort can only come from longchen's (Sim Pern Chong) sort of 'non doer' understanding am i right

(5:27 PM) AEN: oic why no liberation?

(5:27 PM) John: one cannot experience that blissful liberated experience in a dualistic mode.

(5:28 PM) John: yes....longchen (Sim Pern Chong) is beginning to understand more... just beginning...

(5:28 PM) AEN: oic

(5:28 PM) AEN: eckhart tolle in dualistic mode?

(5:28 PM) John: there are just certain experiences that cannot be described in words.

(5:28 PM) AEN: oic

(5:29 PM) John: it is like what ken wilber say about the non-duality experience and absolutely no witness without the layer of separation... how is this possible. it is 'seeing', awaking of wisdom, awakening of anatta and emptiness nature.  no other way can lead us to liberation.

(5:30 PM) AEN: icic..

(5:30 PM) John: i mean maintaining it like every moment. I mean the description of ken wilber is there. but the depth of the experience...i got to read the simple feeling of being.

(5:31 PM) John: however by the title, i think he is still not there.  (comments by Soh: it became clearer later that Ken Wilber is at Thusness Stage 4 and have not reached Stage 5 clarity of anatta realization)

(5:31 PM) AEN: o icic

(5:31 PM) John: lol

(5:31 PM) AEN: the title? u mean the simple feeling of being. wrong?

(5:31 PM) John: i have to read first lah. the title cannot reflect out one that is fully authenticated in suchness.  nevertheless, none i have read can correctly describe it so far.

(5:33 PM) AEN: oic.. so how to correctly describe it

(5:33 PM) John: the next thing to look out is the stability.

(5:33 PM) AEN: oic

(5:34 PM) John: i think ken wilber has engaged too much in theoretical conceptualization after the experience of non-dual. Seems to retrogress....hehe

(5:34 PM) AEN: hahaha icic

(5:35 PM) John: must practice hard. ”


“He [XYZ Rinpoche] focused more on awareness as background. Without realizing the nature of mind and phenomena, karma continues to be generated.


When there is a background, one can't liberate actually but generates subtle karma IMO. Only through realizing the nature of mind and phenomena one can self liberates (karma).” – John Tan, 2018


“There is thinking, no thinker

There is hearing, no hearer

There is seeing, no seer


In thinking, just thoughts

In hearing, just sounds

In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.”


John Tan, 2007

14 Apr `07, 8:47AM

Many advaita masters have advised ppl to experience the 'Self' but the essence of liberation is not in experiencing the ‘Self’. One can experience the “I AMness”, the pure sense of existence a million times yet does not help in any aspect of enlightenment regardless of how mystical and transcendental the experience can be.

More harms are done if such experience enhanced our dualistic thought. In fact the wrong conclusion that awareness is a changeless, permanent entity is the result of distorting a non-dual experience due to the inability of our mind to go beyond its habitual dualistic thinking mechanism. When the dualistic mind attempts to understand this experience, it projects this ‘Self’ as the background to fit the non-dual experience into its dualistic framework. Such experience cannot lead to liberation because it is dualistic in nature. Any form of separation is non-liberating.

Therefore emphasis must be placed correctly on the 'no-self' aspect of awareness. Awareness is by nature non-dual. Being non-dual it is impermanent, ceaselessly and spontaneously manifesting as All. This is the clarity that must come from direct experience. There is no compromise regarding these aspects of our pristine nature. It must be thoroughly clear to experience the self-liberating nature of awareness.


Excerpt from

John Tan:

"Depending on the conditions of an individual, it may not be obvious that it is “always thought watching thought rather than a watcher watching thought.” or "the watcher is that thought." Because this is the key insight and a step that cannot afford to be wrong along the path of liberation, I cannot help but with some disrespectful tone say,

For those masters that taught,

“Let thoughts arise and subside,

See the background mirror as perfect and be unaffected.”

With all due respect, they have just “blah” something nice but deluded.


See that there is no one behind thoughts.

First, one thought then another thought.

With deepening insight it will later be revealed,

Always just this, One Thought!

Non-arising, luminous yet empty!"