If you’ve ever tried recommending awakening or mindfulness material to friends, you know the pain. What feels profoundly direct to you often feels "too slow," "too abstract," or simply "too boring" to them.

That’s exactly why I recommend Roshi Philip Kapleau’s classic, The Three Pillars of Zen.

Right now, the Kindle edition is $1.99 (price can change anytime), making it a low-risk, high-upside buy.

Get the deal here.

---

The "Nafis" Success Rate

A friend (Nafis) mentioned recently that out of all the resources he shares, he has had the most success introducing people to Dharma with this specific book.

Why does this one work when others fail?

• It cuts through the noise: Most people are trained by hyper-fast media and have zero tolerance for dry, abstract philosophy.

• It avoids the "Sleep Factor": Even great spiritual books can feel artificial or sleep-inducing to a beginner.

• The "Hook": Three Pillars is gripping because it focuses on the raw, human struggle for realization. It holds the reader's attention not by being short, but by being real.

---

1. The "Angelo DiLullo" Factor: It’s Lived Experience, Not Philosophy

There is a reason this book stayed iconic: it doesn’t just talk about awakening; it proves it.

Angelo DiLullo (author of Awake: It's Your Turn) frequently cites this as the book that triggered his own search for awakening. Why? Because of Part 2: The Enlightenment Accounts.

Before this book, "enlightenment" felt like a mythical status reserved for monks in robes on mountain peaks. Kapleau changed the game by publishing the raw, first-person accounts of ordinary laypeople—housewives, businessmen, and schoolteachers—breaking through to realization.

As Angelo has pointed out, reading these accounts destroys the excuse "I can't do this because I have a job/family." It validates that deep realization is accessible to normal people, right here, right now.

2. It Respects Your Intelligence

A lot of "accessible" mindfulness stays on the surface: calming, soothing, helpful... but it rarely presses into the root question of "Who/what am I?"

Three Pillars gives enough structure and grounding to keep a skeptical reader moving, while still pointing beyond self-improvement into direct realization. It respects the paradox that you must often strive intensely to realize there was nowhere to go.

---

How to Read It (The "Serious" Entry Plan)

If you are going to do this, do it properly. Don't treat this book like homework; treat it like a doorway.

• Day 1–2: Read the Introductory Lectures (Part 1). Highlight anything that feels "too real" or uncomfortable.

• Day 3–4: Skip to the Enlightenment Accounts (Part 2). Read one slowly. Stop when you feel moved.

• Day 5: The Inquiry Sit (30 Minutes).

• Setup: Sit on a cushion or a straight-backed chair. Keep your spine straight.

• The Technique: Keep eyes lowered but open. Choose one method:

• Option A ("Who am I?"): Drop the question "Who am I?" into the silence. Do not answer it with a thought. Look for the source of the "I" feeling.

• Option B ("Mu"): On every exhalation, silently intone the word "Mu" (No/Null) into your belly. Use it like a sword to cut through thinking.

• The Goal: Enough thinking. The purpose is to inquire into the Source and awaken the Source. The first 10 minutes are for settling; the next 20 are where the self-structure gets uncomfortable—stay with it.

• Day 6: Write 5 lines: "What am I seeking, really?"

• (Note: This is to stop you from lying to yourself. Are you here for stress relief or Truth? Aim the arrow.)

• Day 7: Re-read a key passage you highlighted—then sit 30 minutes again.

---

A Critical Note: Do Not Go It Alone

While books are powerful, self-deception is the biggest trap on this path. We often think we have "gotten it" when we have merely conceptualized it.

This is why finding a qualified guide is essential. You need someone who has walked the territory to spot where you are stuck.

For a guide on how to navigate this, read this article: Finding an Awakened Spiritual Teacher.

---

The Verdict

Trends come and go. If you want a resource that is grounded, time-tested, and practical enough to start today, this is it.

And at $1.99, it’s one of the cheapest serious "wake-up calls" you can buy.

Grab the Kindle Edition on Amazon

(Note: Prices on Amazon change frequently, so double-check before clicking buy!)

---

A Practical Option: Sanbō Zen (Harada–Yasutani / Sanbō Kyōdan)

If The Three Pillars of Zen resonates with you, you may want to look into the broader practice stream it emerged from: the Harada–Yasutani approach (often associated with Sanbō Kyōdan, now commonly presented as Sanbō Zen International).

One reason this lineage “clicks” for many modern practitioners is that it combines steady sitting (zazen) with direct inquiry / koan practice—a blend that Kapleau trained in and helped introduce to Western readers. (Historically, this stream draws from both Sōtō and Rinzai influences.)

The useful part is simple: they maintain an international network and publicly list teachers and locations, so you can explore whether there’s someone legitimate near you:

• Sanbō Zen International — Teachers Directory

• SANBŌZEN — Authorized Zen Leaders List
  

Important: a directory is only a starting point. Take your time—attend a few sits, ask how they train students, and trust your common sense around transparency, ethics, and healthy boundaries. The point isn’t to “collect teachers,” but to find a setting where practice becomes real.

Note: This is just a general introduction to the purpose of Koan. If you wish to work on Koan, find a deeply realized and qualified Zen teacher and work with him/her. – Soh

Q&A: Are Koans a Good Practice for Stage 1?

Someone asked: “Are koans a good practice for stage 1? Or just self-inquiry?”

Soh replied:

If you wish to train in Zen koans, you should find a qualified and awakened Zen master to train under.

There are many classes of koans. Self-inquiry is one of the classes of koan, for beginners to have the initial realization of I AM. This is crucial in Zen too.

You can also try this: What is your very mind right now?

The purpose of self-inquiry and similar types of koans is this: Anatta and Pure Presence

Anatta and Pure Presence

Someone told me about having been through insights of no-self and then progressing to a realization of the ground of being.

Soh: Hi [Name],

Thanks for the sharing.

This is the I AM realization. I had that realization after contemplating “Before birth, who am I?” for two years. It’s an important realization. Many people had insights into certain aspects of no-self, impersonality, and “dry non-dual experience” without doubtless realization of Presence. Therefore I AM realization is a progression for them.

Similarly in Zen, asking “Who am I?” is to directly experience presence. How about asking a koan of “What is the cup?” What is the chirping bird, the thunder clap? What is its purpose?

When I talked about anatta, it is a direct insight of Presence and recognizing what we called background presence is in the forms and colors, sounds and sensations, clean and pure. Authentication is to be authenticated by all things. Also there is no presence other than that. What we call background is really just an image of foreground Presence, even when Presence is assuming its subtle formless all-pervasiveness.

However, due to ignorance, we have a very inherent and dual view; if we do see through the nature of presence, the mind continues to be influenced by dualistic and inherent tendencies. Many teach to overcome it through mere non-conceptuality, but this is highly misleading.

Thusness also wrote:

The anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of no-self. But it must first have an intuitive insight of Presence. Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights.

Labels: Anatta, Luminosity

On Zen Koans (2009)

John Tan: Yes Emanrohe,

That is precisely the question asked by Dogen: “If our Buddha Nature is already perfect, why practice?” This question continues to bother him even after the initial glimpse and that led him to China in search for the answer that eventually awakened his wisdom into the non-dual nature of Awareness.

Therefore we must understand that in the Zen tradition, different koans were meant for different purposes. The experience derived from the koan “before birth who are you?” only allows an initial glimpse of our nature. It is not the same as Hakuin’s koan of “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” The five categories of koan in Zen range from hosshin that gives the practitioner the first glimpse of ultimate reality to five-ranks that aims to awaken the practitioner to the spontaneous unity of relative and absolute (non-duality).

Only through thorough realization of the non-dual nature (spontaneous unity of relative and absolute) of Awareness can we then understand why there is no split between subject and object as well as seeing the oneness of realization and development. Therefore the practice of natural state is for those that have already awakened to their non-dual nature, not just an initial glimpse of Awareness. The difference must be clearly understood. It is not for anyone and it is advisable that we refrain from talking too much about the natural state. The “natural” way is in fact the most challenging path; there is no shortcut.

On the other hand, the gradual path of practice is a systematic way of taking us step by step until we eventually experienced the full non-dual and non-local nature of pristine awareness. One way is by first firmly establishing the right view of anatta (non-dual) and dependent origination and practice vipassana or bare attention to authenticate our experience with the right view. The gradual paths are equally precious; that is the point I want to convey.

Lastly there is a difference between understanding Buddha Nature and God. Not to let our initial glimpse of pristine awareness overwhelm us. :-)

Edited by Thusness 05 May `09, 10:35PM

View, Path, and Fruition (2009)

Thusness: Ha… this is a very late reply and yes what you said is very true.

It is difficult to have someone that is so-trained academically and scientifically to provide us such deep insight in the spiritual discipline. The article is very clear, well structured and organized. We should learn how to treasure good stuff. :)

I will just jot down some of my thoughts after reading it.

Although much is mentioned in the article about divided consciousness, the ‘strength’ of making a practitioner sink back to a divided consciousness is overlooked. We should never underestimate the power of this bond. That is, given a 1,000 practitioners that have sufficient glimpses of the pristine-ness or even awaken to the non-dual nature of Awareness, the tendency for these practitioners to fall back to ’divided consciousness’ remains surprisingly strong. Why despite all the blissful experiences, the tendency to fall back to a divided state continues to be powerfully strong? In transpersonal psychology, holotropic breathwork is one technique that deals with the deeply held bond of the subconscious and unconscious mind. Unleashing these deeply held bonds can cause transpersonal experiences that include communication with mythic deities, recalling past life memories, OBEs and memories of perinatal events. Regardless of whether these experiences are delusional or hallucinatory, we must not overlook the vast impact of ‘bonds’ on consciousness.

Next, I will just touch a little on the importance of the relationship between the view, path and fruition as I think to experience the therapeutic effect from a particular form of practice, “syncing” the view, path and fruition is crucial. The significance of the relationship surfaced while I was reading this article and was triggered by your question 2 days back about whether Genpo Roshi is talking about anatta in this video.

While Dr. John Welwood outlined the different path of practices from pre-reflective identification, to the practice of conceptual reflection, to pure witnessing, to transformation and self-liberation, his focus is mainly on the aspect of how direct and effective each method is in narrowing the gap of subject-object duality. To me it is more important to have clarity on the exact experiential fruition that can be derived from adopting a particular view and path of practice.

For example if someone were to ask will dissolving ‘personality’ result in a non-dual experience? We need to know what the experience of “impersonality” is like and what methods of practice that will lead to the experience of “impersonality” and the role “impersonality” plays in non-dual presence.

To illustrate, let’s take the question you asked about Genpo Roshi. There is no doubt that Genpo Roshi is speaking about anatta -- “there is witnessing, there is no witness”. However the ‘path’ he uses is clearly a ‘desync’ from his ‘views’ of anatta. He uses a ‘stepping back witnessing method’ which is essentially a reflective process; frankly using the “stepping back technique” to experience anatta is quite contradicting and can be counter-productive. I must say it is not an effective way to bring about an experiential non-dual insight of anatta.

In Zen tradition, different koans were meant for different purposes. For example the experience derived from the koan “before birth who are you?” is not the same as the Hakuin’s koan of “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” The five categories of koan in Zen ranges from hosshin that gives the practitioner the first glimpse of ultimate reality to five-ranks that aims to awaken the practitioner to the spontaneous unity of relative and absolute.

Similarly different techniques can also be devised to allow a practitioner to experience the different qualities of Awareness. The experience of “impersonality” is not the same as the experience of the “pristineness” of our nature; the experience of “oneness” is also not the same experience as spontaneity; the experience of non-dual without a subject and object split does not necessarily result in the thorough insight of anatta; the experience of anatta is also not the same experience when a practitioner thoroughly sees the emptiness nature of phenomena. Thus, the master that prescribes the medicine must have deep clarity and wisdom of the view, path, fruition and conditions of the students. It is not a one-for-all sort of medicine.

Lastly no one religion has monopoly over Truth much less a tradition. The techniques of spontaneous perfection in Mahamudra and self-liberation in Dzogchen that are described by Dr. John Welwood will naturally be realized by a Zen practitioner that passes the five-rank koan. Even in the basic teachings of Buddha, as long as we have complete and thorough insight of anatta and the principle of Dependent Origination, practitioners will also naturally enter the pathless path of self-liberation. :)

Further Quotes by John Tan

John Tan: Alejandro, I would separate non-arisen and emptiness from the luminosity. IMO, it's a separate pointing. The one hand clapping here directly points to the luminosity.

What is the way that leads the practitioner to “the direct taste”? In Zen, koan is the technique and the way.

The one hand clapping koan is the instrument that leads one to directly and intuitively authenticate presence = sound.

Let’s use another koan for example, “Before birth who am I?” This is similar to just asking “Who am I?” The “Before birth” here is to skillfully lead the thinking mind to penetrate to the limit of its own depth and suddenly completely cease and rest, leaving only I-I. Only this I as pure existence itself. Before birth, this I. After birth, this I. This life or ten thousand lives before, this I. Ten thousand lives after, still this I. The direct encounter of the I-I.

Similarly, the koan of the sound of one hand clapping is to lead the practitioner, after initial breakthrough into I-I, not to get stuck in dead water and attached to the Absolute. To direct the practitioner to see the ten thousand faces of presence face-to-face. In this case, it is that “Sound” of one hand clapping.

Whether one hand claps or before both hands clap, what is that sound? It attempts to lead the practitioner into just that “Sound”. All along there is only one hand clapping; two hands (duality) are not needed. It is similar to contemplating “in hearing always only sound, no hearer”.

As for the empty and non-arisen nature of that Sound, Zen koans have not (IMO) been able to effectively point to the non-arisen and emptiness of one’s radiance clarity.

On Koans and Emptiness (MMK vs. Zen)

John Tan: Liu Zhi Guan Zen koans relate more to the direct pointing of one's radiance clarity, whereas MMK [Mūlamadhyamakakārikā] is about letting the mind see its own fabrications and allowing it to free itself from all elaborations (non-Gelug) or free itself from all fabrications (Gelug). The most crucial insight of both Gelug and non-Gelug (IMO) is to let the mind realize the primordial purity (emptiness) nature of both mind/phenomena.

Although Mipham treated Gelug's freedom from self-nature as categorized ultimate, I can only tell you I disagree. Both are able to achieve their objectives (IMO). In fact, if you were to ask for my sincere opinion, I prefer freedom from self-nature (Gelug) as, if understood properly and with experiential insight, it will lead to both +A and -A of emptiness.

If we were to treat the conventional (conceptuality) as the cause of ignorance, it prevents some very valuable insights that will take probably a lot of time to detail out. I will not go too detailed into that.

In short, seeing through intrinsic existence will similarly allow practitioners to see through conceptual constructs (non-conceptualities), see through duality (non-dual) and substantiality (essencelessness). Phenomena lack of self-nature also lacks sameness or difference; therefore, their primordial purity will likewise be realized, and selflessness also results in natural spontaneity. Yet because practitioners put freedom from self-nature at a higher order, they will not be bound by conceptualities and can embrace the conventional fully.

Refining the View

John Tan (2020): Be it Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana; be it Dzogchen, Mahamudra or Zen; they do not deviate from the definitive view of the 3 universal characteristics of dharma. Therefore experiences and realizations must always be authenticated with right view, otherwise we end in wonderland that is neither here nor there.

The "who am I" of Advaita and "before birth who am I" may have the same initial "realization" -- the face to face direct authentication of one's original face, and followed by a series of similar mind-shaking experiences but when subject to Madhyamaka ultimate analysis, they fall short of the prajna that Buddhism is talking about. Therefore keep the realization but refine the view.

(To someone at the I AM phase)

Pointers and Dialogue

Having said that John Tan did devise a “koan” as a pointer to emptiness:

John Tan: “Now” is not a container to him but rather a ground for him to land.

Say that there is... Share with him the post about Daniel's post on anatta and emptiness.

Then say there is a related koan that I ask you to [use for] a direct taste of the emptiness of the "here and now" but requires one to have direct experience of non-dual presencing:

Appreciate the vivid, lurid scenery in non-dual and ask, Where is this scenery?

On Anatta:

John Tan: André, to me "no awareness" in anatta is like telling us not to stop moving air to experience wind so that we can experience the blowing directly, effortlessly, and naturally.

Dependent origination is to explain the conventional relationship between wind and moving air to establish its validity conventionally and frees the inherent and dualistic rigidity.

Emptiness is very special, it is a koan.

The convention "wind" is empty and non-arisen. What is that "wind"? Why express that it originates in dependence and is empty and non-arisen?

(On the last point: also see Daniel's Post on Anatta/Emptiness)

Comments

Mr. LZG: Before I am born, who was "I"? The sound of wooden block hitting the table.

Soh Wei Yu: That is not the "correct answer" to that koan. Although, there are no correct answers to koan so memorizing one is beside the point—the only correct answer is your own satori. But if you give this answer, the Zen master will tell you it is wrong.

Conversation — 27 October 2012

Soh: I just heard—now attending his talk. But he asked about the source: where do thoughts come from, where does cause and effect come from, who am I?

John: One day, get the opportunity to tell him why Zen becomes one with action is because of the realization that the source is not necessary. Although what is needed now is the direct experience of I AM.

Soh: What do you mean?

John: What answer does he expect?

Soh: Should be the I AMness. He is going through a list of koans. He rejected people hitting the floor for that question. He said, “You came from hitting the floor?”

John: [Laughs] Yeah, the I AM. You didn’t tell him?

Soh: [Laughs]

John: For Zen, the seven phases of insights will have to be rewritten for them to understand. But koan now has become a Q&A game. Unlike the past. Like studying a 10-year series.

Soh: I see. “For Zen the 7 phases of insights will have to be re-written for them to understand” — how is it to be rewritten?

John: Shorten to directly point.