Showing posts sorted by date for query inherent views. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query inherent views. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Soh

I often say, self enquiry is not a mantra. It's not something you just repeat mentally "who am i.. who am i..." it's not that sort of practice. It is an investigation, an exploration, an inquiry into the true nature of identity and the true nature of consciousness.

The inquiry/koan "Before Birth, who am I?" has a dual purpose: the elimination of all conceptual identification (ego) and to discover one's underlying radiant Consciousness, or Pure Presence/Beingness.

During my journey of self-enquiry, which spanned over two years (2008-Feb 2010), involving meditative contemplations such as “before birth, who am I?” During the process, this line of questioning, we eliminate all the candidates for my self -- I am not my hands, my legs, my name, my thoughts. They come and go and are observed, they are not me. So what am I? As John Tan said before, “you cannot know the “Ultimate Source” without the process of elimination”. What does it eliminate? The conceptual identification of self with various mentally constructed and perceived objects. This is why "before birth" is asked, as it directs the mind to this elimination. And what does that elimination reveal? Who am I, what is this radiant Being that stands alone revealed after that process of elimination?

Ramana Maharshi said:

1. Who am I?

The gross body which is composed of the seven humours (dhatus), I am not; the five cognitive sense organs, viz. the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their respective objects, viz. sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour, I am not; the five cognitive sense- organs, viz. the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion, and procreation, which have as their respective functions speaking, moving, grasping, excreting, and enjoying, I am not; the five vital airs, prana, etc., which perform respectively the five functions of in-breathing, etc., I am not; even the mind which thinks, I am not; the nescience too, which is endowed only with the residual impressions of objects, and in which there are no objects and no functioning’s, I am not.

2. If I am none of these, then who am I?

After negating all of the above-mentioned as ‘not this’, ‘not this’, that Awareness which alone remains - that I am.

3. What is the nature of Awareness?

The nature of Awareness is existence-consciousness-bliss"

- continue reading at https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/who_am_I.pdf

This line of questioning (before birth, who am I?) led me to a moment in silent meditation where everything subsided, leaving only a doubtless unshakeable certainty of pure existence and presence.

So eliminating concepts until none is left with some prompting like self enquiry or zen koan will allow one to reach a complete state of stillness (stillness of the conceptual mind) and authenticate presence/clarity/radiance directly.

While this method effectively dissolves conceptual attachments and reveals the radiant core of Consciousness, it fails to address the view of inherency and the dualities of subject and object or the deeper insight of both self and phenomena as merely nominal and overcome views that reifies the four extremes. Sometimes we call it "inherentness" in short, and inherentness means concepts being reified and mistaken as real. But that requires deeper insights and realisations and is crucial for releasing the deeper afflictive and knowledge obscurations. Merely the pausing of conceptual thinking or even revealing one's Radiance is insufficient to realise its nature.

At this point, after radiance is realized, as John Tan points out, "before we can hop into the next path and focus on radiance and natural state, without recognizing implication of conventional and seeing through them, there will be ongoing cognitive as well as emotional obscurations. How deep and far can you go? Much less talking about natural state when one can't even distinguish what is conventional and what is ultimate."

John Tan said before:

“When we authenticate radiance clarity directly, we have a first hand experiential taste of what is called the "ultimate free from all conceptual elaborations" but mind is not "free from conceptual elaborations".”

"John Tan also said before: "If non-conceptuality does not end up in non-mentation, then it will have to involve special insight that sees through conventional constructs that lead to direct authentication of suchness/pure appearances. Experiential insight of this relationship between the dissolution of mental constructs and empty clarity is Prajna. Realising this, one can then extend to body-construct and eventually to all other much more subtle constructs until natural state free of any artificialities."

"Actually anatta is a good direct method of pointing, analysis can later be used to support this direct experiential insight. Not easy for the path of analysis to trigger such insight. It will have to have a sudden leap or break-through much like koan."

(Commenting on someone else:) "This is like freedom from all elaborations into natural state. But instead of realizing the natural state that is primordially pure, one can be misled and led into non-conceptuality of non-mentation."

I also wrote some time back:

"Seeing selfness or cognizance as a subject and phenomena as objects is the fundamental elaboration that prevents the taste of appearances as radiance clarity.. then even after anatta, there are still the subtle cognitive obscurations that reified phenomena, arising and ceasing, substantial cause and effect, inherent production and so on.

So elaboration is not just coarse thinking like labelling but to me is like a veil of reification projecting and distorting radiant appearances and its nature.

Another way to put it is that the fundamental conceptual elaboration that obscures reality/suchness is to reify self and phenomena in terms of the extremes of existence and non existence through not apprehending the nature of mind/appearance.

...

If you mean just authenticate radiance clarity like I AM, then it’s just nonconceptual taste and realisation of presence.

That moment is nondual and nonconceptual and unfabricated but it doesnt mean the view of inherency is seen through. Since fundamental ignorance is untouched the radiance will continue to be distorted into a subject and object."

"The process of eradicating avidyā (ignorance) is conceived… not as a mere stopping of thought, but as the active realization of the opposite of what ignorance misconceives. Avidyā is not a mere absence of knowledge, but a specific misconception, and it must be removed by realization of its opposite. In this vein, Tsongkhapa says that one cannot get rid of the misconception of 'inherent existence' merely by stopping conceptuality any more than one can get rid of the idea that there is a demon in a darkened cave merely by trying not to think about it. Just as one must hold a lamp and see that there is no demon there, so the illumination of wisdom is needed to clear away the darkness of ignorance." - Napper, Elizabeth, 2003, p. 103"

It is important however to note that Gelug and non Gelug authors may have different definitions of conceptualities, as John Tan pointed out years ago: “Not exactly, both have some very profound points. Mipham "conceptualities" is not only referring to symbolic layering but also self-view which is more crucial. Mipham made it very clear and said the gelug mistake "conceptualities" as just symbolic and mental overlay, which is not what he is referring then he laid down 3 types of conceptualities. Same for dharmakirti also...there is the gross definition and the more refine definitions.”

However, for the purpose of beginners trying to realize the I AM, just going through and focusing on self-enquiry and the process of elimination mentioned earlier is sufficient to result in Self Realisation.

You should read this article https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/the-direct-path-to-your-real-self.html as this author was able to bring several to the realization of I AM, and explains well the process of self enquiry and the process of elimination.

Question: "What are the simplified steps to self enquiry/I AM as referred to in the ATR guide?"

Answer: "For the purpose of the initial awakening:

“Hi Mr. H,

In addition to what you wrote, I hope to convey another dimension of Presence to you. That is Encountering Presence in its first impression, unadulterated and full blown in stillness.

So after reading it, just feel it with your entire body-mind and forgot about it. Don't let it corrupt your mind.😝

Presence, Awareness, Beingness, Isness are all synonyms. There can be all sorts of definitions but all these are not the path to it. The path to it must be non-conceptual and direct. This is the only way.

When contemplating the koan "before birth who am I", the thinking mind attempts to seek into it's memory bank for similar experiences to get an answer. This is how the thinking mind works - compare, categorize and measure in order to understand.

However, when we encounter such a koan, the mind reaches its limit when it tries to penetrate its own depth with no answer. There will come a time when the mind exhausts itself and come to a complete standstill and from that stillness comes an earthshaking BAM!

I. Just I.

Before birth this I, a thousand years ago this I, a thousand later this I. I AM I.

It is without any arbitrary thoughts, any comparisons. It fully authenticates it's own clarity, it's own existence, ITSELF in clean, pure, direct non-conceptuality. No why, no because.

Just ITSELF in stillness nothing else.

Intuit the vipassana and the samantha. Intuit the total exertion and realization. The essence of message must be raw and uncontaminated by words.

Hope that helps!” - John Tan, 2019

Ken Wilber on I AMness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA8tDzK_kPI

-- excerpt from the abridged AtR guide, which you can read for self-enquiry pointers: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/06/the-awakening-to-reality-practice-guide.html

On the difference between glimpses and doubtless self realization: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/12/i-am-experienceglimpserecognition-vs-i.html

......

self enquiry (asking Who/What am I?) can lead to the I AM realization. You can read the abridged AtR guide, which you can read for self-enquiry pointers: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/06/the-awakening-to-reality-practice-guide.html

Also, Angelo wrote:

Inquiry for First Awakening

The inquiry that leads to first awakening is a funny thing. We want to know “how” precisely to do that inquiry, which is completely understandable. The thing is that it’s not wholly conveyable by describing a certain technique. Really it’s a matter of finding that sweet spot where surrender and intention meet. I will describe an approach here, but it’s important to keep in mind that in the end, you don’t have the power (as what you take yourself to be) to wake yourself up. Only Life has that power. So as we give ourselves to a certain inquiry or practice it’s imperative that we remain open. We have to keep the portals open to mystery, and possibility. We have to recognize that the constant concluding that “no this isn’t it, no this isn’t it either...” is simply the activity of the mind. Those are thoughts. If we believe a single thought then we will believe the next one and on and on. If however we recognize that, “oh that doubt is simply a thought arising now,” then we have the opportunity to recognize that that thought will subside on its own... and yet “I” as the knower of that thought am still here! We can now become fascinated with what is here once that thought (or any thought) subsides. What is in this gap between thoughts? What is this pure sense of I, pure sense of knowing, pure sense of Being? What is this light that can shine on and illuminate a thought (as it does thousands of times per day), and yet still shines when no thought is present. It is self illuminating. What is the nature of the one that notices thoughts, is awake and aware before, during, and after a thought, and is not altered in any way by any thought? Please understand that when you ask these questions you are not looking for a thought answer, the answer is the experience itself.

When we start to allow our attention to relax into this wider perspective we start to unbind ourselves from thought. We begin to recognize the nature of unbound consciousness by feel, by instinct. This is the way in.

At first we may conclude that this gap, this thoughtless consciousness is uninteresting, unimportant. It feels quite neutral, and the busy mind can’t do anything with neutral so we might be inclined to purposely engage thoughts again. If we recognize that “not interesting, not important, not valuable” are all thoughts and simply return to this fluid consciousness, it will start to expand. But there is no need to think about expansion or watch for it. It will do this naturally if we stay with it. If you are willing to recognize every thought and image in the mind as such, and keep your attention alert but relaxed into the “stuff” of thought that is continuous with the sense of I, it will all take care of itself. Just be willing to suspend judgement. Be willing to forego conclusions. Be willing to let go of all monitoring of your progress, because these are all thoughts. Be open to the pure experience. Just return again and again to this place of consciousness with no object or pure sense of I Am. If you are willing to do this it will teach itself to you in a way that neither I nor anyone I’ve ever seen can explain, but it is more real than real.

Happy Travels.

For further reading check out:

Do watch this: https://youtu.be/ZYjI6gh9RxE?si=6M4zn5tHE7fQlJcr

You can try inquiring, “Before birth, Who am I?”

Inquiring that for two years led to my Self Realization in feb 2010.

And if that doesn’t work for you, try this:

Yuan Yin Lao Ren:

In the past there was a Master who contemplated, "what is the original face before my parents were born?" He contemplated for many years, but did not awaken. Later on he encountered a great noble person and requested for his compassionate guidance. The noble one asked: "What koan did you contemplate?" He replied: "I contemplated what is the original face before my parents were born?" Noble one replied: "You contemplated too far away, should look nearby." He asked: "How should I look nearby?" Noble one replied: "Don't look into what is before your parents were born, need to look at: before a thought arise, what is it?" The Zen practitioner immediately attained great awakening.

Everyone that is sitting here, please look at what is this before a moment of thought's arising? IT is radiating light in front of everybody's [sense] doors, the brightness radiates everything yet is without the slightest clinging, nothing is known and nothing is seen yet it is not similar to wood and stones, what is This? IT is right here shining in its brilliancy, this is awakening to the Way. Therefore it is said, "the great way is not difficult, just cease speech and words"!

More quotes:

I wrote to my mother:

English translation from Chinese:

Contemplating Zen [Koan] is about inquiring what exactly is our original face, what is our Self-Nature, it is not about achieving a meditative state. It is rather to discover, to realize, what exactly is our Self-Nature/Awareness. One must reach a state of utter doubtlessness/certainty to be considered '[Self-Realization]'.

After the utter cessation of all thoughts, one must turn one's light around to find out, What am I? What is it that is Aware? If there is a thought which answers 'it is this or that' then that's wrong, because the real answer lies not in words and letters. Therefore cast aside those thoughts and continue inquiring, turning the light around. This is the most direct method to apprehend one's Mind.

You should meditate everyday. Master Yuan Yin asks his students to meditate two hours a day. If you are unable to quiet your mind to a state of no-thought, it will be difficult to realise. You should think carefully what is the best method for you to still your mind? Is it meditation? Or is it chanting the Buddha's name and reciting mantras? Whatever methods which calms the mind will do, but you have to practice everyday, not only practice intermittently or occasionally.

However, reaching a state of no-thought is not awakening. Upon reaching a state of no-thought, continue turning the light around to find out Who is that which is the Clear Knowingness? What is it? Then you will realise your Self-Nature. Otherwise your meditation is merely a state of stillness, not yet realising Self-Nature. Realizing Self-Nature is only Apprehending one's Mind, it is not yet realizing Nature [the nature of mind and phenomena] (the principle of the twofold emptiness of persons and phenomena as realized by a first bhumi Bodhisattva), therefore one must continue. Hence, "Apprehending Mind and Realising Nature" consists of two parts: first apprehend one's Mind (True Mind), later realize [Empty] Nature. Therefore practice hard to Apprehend Mind and Realize Nature.

The Sixth Ch'an Patriarch said: It is useless to learn the dharma without recognising original Mind.

Question: "Thank you so much for your kind welcome and answers. These quotes and posts are beautiful and I find them really useful, it will take me a bit more time to get through the further reading links. I think you are the one who posted the abridged ATR on SoundCloud which is what I listened to! Thank you again for that.

Strange that FB doesn't allow me to create paragraphs on desktop lol. In addition to the posts, it would be really helpful if there could be a summary of the abridged ATR guide in terms of steps to follow. For eg:

1- meditate daily (or chant mantras etc) to achieve the state of no-thought. Obviously step 1. My question: is Contemplating the Koan ‘who am I before birth/thought’ to be done alongside meditation (just focusing on breath when I realise a thought has come, until gradually thoughts cease)? Eg. if I do an hour of meditation, then half an hour on the koan? To be honest I have gone through periods where I can meditate regularly but then it can become inconsistent due to time restraints. I want to try to change this, please pray for me!

2- ‘Upon reaching a state of no-thought, continue turning the light around to find out Who is that which is the Clear Knowingness?’ This seems to be step 2, but I’m not clear on exactly how we turn the light around once I do ghetto that stage of no-thought stillness? Is this in visualisation? Or is this merely continuing to ask the koan/contemplating who am I before birth?

Please do correct me as having a numbered list of steps I need to follow helps me to make sense of all the info I am taking in and keep it focused when I refer back to it. It would be even more helpful if someone could sum up each chapter/section of the abridged ATR, there are many people with different types of learning difficulties and I myself know such people who I could share it with."

Soh replied: "I didn't do self inquiry in a step by step way. Self enquiry is a direct path, so you can awaken instantaneously if your conditions are ripe (e.g. Ramana Maharshi, Eckhart Tolle), but for me it took 2 years, others may take other varying periods of time. But you must have an earnest interest to discover what your Self is, so the inquiry must be genuine.

Here's an excerpt from the AtR practice guide:

"Soh:

Hi,

Steps are not necessary in self inquiry, because this method is meant to cut through all steps, thought-inference-process, conceptualizations, to directly awaken to your True Self. This is why Koan and Zen is known as the method and school of Sudden or Instantaneous Awakening, not gradual or step-by-step awakening. This is the Direct Path.

For example,

Hear a bird chirping. What/who is hearing? (silence)

Silence means you aren't trying to answer the question using your mind (because the answer cannot be found there - the more you try to figure out with your mind the more time is wasted because you are looking at the wrong direction), but instead you are directly looking at 'What Hears' and experiencing your True Self, your Hearing-Nature/Pure Awareness. The inner cognizer (I AM) turns within and cognizes itself, its true nature.

The pure silence underneath the sound is your true nature, but it is not an inert nothingness, in fact not even silence as such, but more accurately a featureless wide-awake space which perceives all sounds, all sights, all thoughts, etc. It cannot be understood by the mind. You have to trace the hearing, the radiance, the seeing, to its Source.

If you truly and successfully traced all perceptions to its Source, you will realize and experience a Certainty of Being, an undeniability of your very Consciousness which is formless and intangible but at the same time a most solid self-evident fact of your being.

However if during the process of self-inquiry a thought arise like "could this be it, what is Awareness, etc", just ignore the thought, don't attempt to answer them using the mind/logic, but continue turning the light around, asking "Who am I" or "Who is aware of the thought?" and so on. Turn away from all doubts to the Doubtless Certainty/Undeniability of Being/Consciousness, and all your doubts and questions are resolved in an instant.

As Jason Swason said:

“By turning the attention to the mind, immediately there are doubts. More thoughts rush in to question the questions, confirm or contradict other thoughts. A maddening cycle...

Notice when thoughts are paused there are no doubts; the certainty of (doubtless) Being is obviously present; the unquestionable FACT of EXISTENCE. Notice that the Being is ALWAYS presently shining, effortlessly and spontaneously. Stay with that undeniable non-conceptual confidence. Your Being has always been present for every single experience. That natural cognition in which all experiences arise is not a person.

Be as you ARE and not what you imagine yourself to be.”

“I was doing self inquiry yesterday with my back straight and legs crossed in the position of sitting meditation, contemplating 'Who am I', 'Before Birth Who am I'... with an intense desire to know the truth of my being. As the thoughts subside, an intense and palpable sense of beingness and presence, the only 'thing' that remains that I feel to be my innermost essence... became very obvious... very very vivid and intense, and feels like a constant background in which everything is taking place, thoughts (almost none at that moment, but arise afterwards) that arise are also taking place in this unchanging background... and there is this certainty and doubtlessness about this I AM-ness, IT is absolutely real and undeniable. IT/I AMness/The Witness is the only solid and undoubtable Presence and is clearly present with or without thoughts.” - Soh’s E-Book & Journal, February 2010 entry

"

Don't worry about learning difficulty. Learning is of the mind, of concepts, what you are trying to discover is prior to all thoughts and concepts, it is what you are even before all thoughts, so learning disability cannot prevent you from discovering it in any way as it is not something 'learnt', it is just what you are and discovering what you are, your birthright.

Turn the light around means directing the light of awareness upon itself. Awareness, the radiant core of your Being, has an aspect that may be described as 'luminous' but it is not a visual thing, so you do not need to visualise anything. It is the intensity of your Presence-Awareness, the Knowingness of your pure consciousness that is called luminous, so feel and discover that intensity of your Beingness, that Presence-Awareness, even without a thought. Visualisation is a thought, what you are trying to discover is the essence of Being, of what you truly are, prior to thought. So cast aside thoughts and find out what are you before any thought?

As John Wheeler said ( https://awakeningclaritynow.com/awakening-to-the-natural-state-guest-teaching-by-john-wheeler/ ), "Right now, as you read this, you exist and you are aware that you exist. You are undoubtedly present and aware. Before the next thought arises, you are absolutely certain of the fact of your own being, your own awareness, your own presence. This awareness is what you are; it is what you always have been. All thoughts, perceptions, sensations and feelings appear within or upon that. This awareness does not move, change or shift at any time. It is always free and completely untouched. However, it is not a thing or an object that you can see or grasp. The mind, being simply thoughts arising in awareness, cannot grasp it or know it or even think about it. Yet, as Bob says, you cannot deny the fact of your own being. It is palpably obvious, and yet, from the time we were born, no one has pointed this out. Once it is pointed out it can be grasped or understood very quickly because it is just a matter of noticing, ‘Oh, that is what I am!’ It is a bright, luminous, empty, presence of awareness; it is absolutely radiant, yet without form; it is seemingly intangible, but the most solid fact in your existence; it is effortlessly here right now, forever untouched. Without taking a step, you have arrived; you are home. No practice can reveal this because practices are in time and in the mind. Practices aim at a result, but you (as presence-awareness) are here already, only you don’t recognize it till it is pointed out. Once seen, you can’t lose it, and you don’t have to practice to exist, to be."

Eckhart Tolle said in The Power of Now, "So when you listen to a thought, you are aware not only of the thought but also of yourself as the witness of the thought. A new dimension of consciousness has come in. As you listen to the thought, you feel a conscious presence - your deeper self - behind or underneath the thought, as it were. The thought then loses its power over you and quickly subsides, because you are no longer energizing the mind through identification with it. This is the beginning of the end of involuntary and compulsive thinking. When a thought subsides, you experience a discontinuity in the mental stream - a gap of "no-mind." At first, the gaps will be short, a few seconds perhaps, but gradually they will become longer. When these gaps occur, you feel a certain stillness and peace inside you. This is the beginning of your natural state of felt oneness with Being, which is usually obscured by the mind. With practice, the sense of stillness and peace will deepen. In fact, there is no end to its depth. You will also feel a subtle emanation of joy arising from deep within: the joy of Being.

It is not a trance-like state. Not at all. There is no loss of consciousness here. The opposite is the case. If the price of peace were a lowering of your consciousness, and the price of stillness a lack of vitality and alertness, then they would not be worth having. In this state of inner connectedness, you are much more alert, more awake than in the mind-identified state. You are fully present. It also raises the vibrational frequency of the energy field that gives life to the physical body.

As you go more deeply into this realm of no-mind, as it is sometimes called in the East, you realize the state of pure consciousness. In that state, you feel your own presence with such intensity and such joy that all thinking, all emotions, your physical body, as well as the whole external world become relatively insignificant in comparison to it. And yet this is not a selfish but a selfless state. It takes you beyond what you previously thought of as "your self." That presence is essentially you and at the same time inconceivably greater than you. What I am trying to convey here may sound paradoxical or even contradictory, but there is no other way that I can express it."

You can also read my article https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/02/the-transient-universe-has-heart.html on the aspect of luminosity.

More on turning the light around upon itself, tracing the radiance of all perceptions to the Source so that you discover the Source that You Are:

Chinul's Approach of Returning to the Source

Question: What is the mind of void and calm, numinous awareness?

Chinul: What has just asked me this question is precisely your mind of void and calm, numinous awareness. Why not trace back its radiance rather than search for it outside? For your benefit I will now point straight to your original mind so that you can awaken to it. Clear your minds and listen to my words.

From morning until evening, all during the 12 periods of the day, during all your actions and activities - whether seeing, hearing, laughing, talking, whether angry of happy, whether doing evil or good - ultimately who is it that is able to perform all these actions? Speak! If you say that it is the physical body which is acting, then at the moment when a man's life comes to an end, even though the body has not yet decayed, how is it that the eyes cannot see, the ears cannot hear, the nose cannot smell, the tongue cannot talk, the hands cannot grasp, the feet cannot run?

You should know that what is capable of seeing, hearing, moving and acting has to be your original mind; it is not your physical body. Furthermore, the four elements which make up the physical body are by nature void; they are like images in a mirror of the moon's reflection in water. How can they be clear and constantly aware, always bright and never obscured - and, upon activation, be able to put into operation sublime functions as numerous as the sands of the Ganges? For this reason it is said: "Drawing water and carrying firewood are spiritual powers and sublime functions."

There are many points at which to enter the noumenon. I will indicate one approach which will allow you to return to the source.

Chinul: Do you hear the sound of that crow cawing and that magpie calling?

Student: Yes.

Chinul: Trace them back and listen to your hearing-nature. Do you hear any sounds?

Student: At that place, sound and discrimination do not obtain.

Chinul: Marvelous! Marvelous! This is Avalokitesvara's method for entering the noumenon. Let me ask you again. You said that sounds and discrimination do not obtain at that place. But since they do not obtain, isn't the hearing-nature just empty space at such a time?

Student: Originally it is not empty. It is always bright and never obscured.

Chinul: What is this essence which is not empty?

Student: Words cannot describe it.

Don't conceptualize 'how to do this', don't complicate it. What's more important is that you really want to find out what you are and you inquire earnestly into the Source, into what you truly are. That's it. Day and night, whether in sitting meditation, or even in daily life throughout the day (as much as you can), you inquire.

Another quote from the AtR practice guide:

“Something I always say when you are doing self enquiry or any other contemplations and meditations, this is crucial:

"We think it's all about like, again, because of our modern mind, we almost think everything can be solved through some sort of technology. Right, oh, I just need to do it different, there must be some secret trick to inquiry, that's our technological mind-set. Sometimes that's a mindset that is very useful to us. But, we don't want to let that dominate our spirituality. Because as I witnessed, the intensity of the living inquiry that's more important than all the techniques.

When somebody Just Has To Know. Even if that's kind of driving them half crazy for a while. And, that attitude is as important or more important than all the ways we work with that attitude, you know, the spiritual practices, the meditations and various inquiries and various different things, sort of practices. If we engage in the practices because they are practices, you know like, ok I just do these because this is what I'm told to do, and hopefully it will have some good effect. That's different than being engaged, when you're actually being deeply interested in what you're inquiring about, and what you're actually meditating upon. It's that quality of real, actual interest, something even more than interest. It is a kind of compulsion, I know I was saying earlier don't get taken in by compulsion, but there is/can be a kind of compulsion. And that's as valuable as anything else going on in you, actually."

- Adyashanti "

Question: “ Thank you Soh, much appreciated.

I'm familiar with some of the material but i'll work my way through it all again.

Can you say anything more specifically about the quality of the question "what is aware of self" as opposed to "who am I"? If it leaves me in an "emptier" experience is it necessarily a better question for me, or is it important to keep trying to deconstruct that ickily shifting sense of self that "who am I" points at?”

Soh replied: “ Who am i doesnt point at sense of self, it lets you see that the sense of self is not in fact who you are. You are what is aware and prior to that sense of self. So all objects conceived or perceived that is mistaken as Self are naturally negated as neti neti - not this, not this. And so you revert back to the Source, or the pure Beingness prior to all concepts and sense of self.

Who am i points at the pure I-I prior to all conceived sense of self and perceived objects. In other words it points to the same thing as “what is aware” is pointing at.

The fact that the sense of self is as you put it, “ickily shifting” is already a hint to you that it is not in fact who you truly are at all, it is not your true self. So inquiring who am I naturally negates that shifting sense of self as being a possible candidate for who you are. And so seeing this you naturally deconstruct that and trace back to the Source in self enquiry.”

https://www.facebook.com/groups/207646316294607/posts/2330941190631765/ -

THE CONSCIOUSNESS THAT KNOWS, "I AM"

Ramana Maharshi describes the sense of 'I' as the fundamental, self-evident awareness that is always present. It is the consciousness that knows, "I am." This 'I' is not the body, mind, or ego but the pure, unchanging awareness that underlies all experiences. Ramana often refers to this as the 'I-I' or the true 'I'.

To know that it is the true 'I' Ramana speaks of, one must recognize that it is ever-present and self-luminous. Unlike the transient thoughts and sensations that come and go, this 'I' remains constant. It is the silent witness to all that occurs without being affected by it. When all thoughts and identifications with the body and mind are relinquished through self-inquiry, what remains is this pure sense of being.

Ramana advises that through persistent self-inquiry, asking "Who am I?" and turning attention inward, the false identifications fall away. The true 'I' reveals itself not as an object to be seen but as the very essence of our existence. It is experienced as a deep, inherent sense of presence and peace, devoid of attributes, distinctions, or forms.

In essence, this sense of 'I' is simply the state of pure awareness, the unchanging consciousness that is always present. Knowing it is the true 'I' comes from the direct experience of this unbroken, self-evident awareness that transcends all temporary experiences and phenomena."

Soh

A reader’s question (paraphrased)

A reader writes to share a recurring experience during self-inquiry. They recall a retreat where a teacher confirmed that the “I am” sense could be located as a “subtle sensation” within. The reader has been wrestling with this instruction for a long time; as they investigate, the experience deepens into “a sensation and something else that isn't something,” but they often feel a stab of fear and reflexively pull back into distraction just as they seem close to penetrating it.

Seeking clarity, the reader consulted an AI chatbot (Grok) about this “subtle sensation” that arises when asking “Who am I?”. The AI identified it as “knowingness,” “bare awareness,” or “mind’s luminosity” (citing Buddhist terms like rigpa or citta-pabhā), but described it as the final subtle object or “veil” of ignorance before non-dual recognition. The reader found this explanation helpful in understanding their fear, assuming this sensation is the final barrier. The reader asks for my view on this “subtle sensation” and the AI’s interpretation that it is the mind’s luminous quality appearing as an object.

Soh's Reply:

I am an AI enthusiast, but sad to say, LLMs are misleading for your question. I tried asking your question to ChatGPT and Gemini, both gave very disappointing responses. So it's not only Grok that is disappointing, although I think Grok's answer seems worse than the other two.

The first sense of self you initially identify (the "first impression is of a very subtle sensation"), that is not the I AM or Witness or Luminous Mind realization. It is almost always.. a coarse sense of self (or what Ramana calls the I-thought), and when you investigate that, it seems to appear somewhere either in the head, or the chest, etc, a subtle reference point that you identify as yourself somewhere inside your body (and you may not even have a very clear idea of 'where' initially until you examine further).

That is not who you truly are and is not the Self that is realized through self-enquiry. So you have to push the inquiry further, because that sense of self located somewhere is still an object of awareness which comes and goes, and is not who you are (so it is negated in self-enquiry as neti neti -- not this, not that), so who are you? Who or what is aware of that?

Do watch this video by Dr. Greg Goode, it will clarify things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYjI6gh9RxE

And also my article on self-enquiry should clarify things as well: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/05/self-enquiry-neti-neti-and-process-of.html

You have to be patient, it took me 2 years of inquiry to reach self-realization with many glimpses prior that.

1. The True 'I AM' Realization

The true I AM realization is not referring to that vague sense of an individualized being somewhere in the body, but rather refers to a non-dual realization of all-pervasive Presence. But this I AM realization (Thusness Stages 1 and 2: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html) is not to be mistaken as the realization of non-dual or anatman (no-self), which are Thusness Stages 4 and 5.

Sim Pern Chong, who went through similar insights, wrote a few years ago:

"Just my opinion... For my case, the first time i experienced a definitive I AM presence, there was zero thought. just a borderless, all pervading presence. In fact, there was no thinking or looking out for whether this is I AM or not. There was no conceptual activity. It was interpreted as 'I AM' only after that experience. To me, I AM experience is actually a glimpse of the way reality is.. but it is quickly re-interpreted. The attribute of 'borderlessness' is experienced. but other 'attributes such as 'no subject-object', 'transparent luminosity, emptiness are not understood yet. My take, is that when 'I AM' is experienced, you will be doubtless that it is the experience."

John Tan also said:

"John Tan: We call it the presence or we call it, um, we call it the presence. (Speaker: is it the I AM?) I AM is actually different. It's also presence. It's also presence. I AM, depending on... You see the definition of I AM also not. So, uh. Not really the same for some people, like Geovani? He actually wrote to me saying that his I AM is like localized one in the head. So it's very individual. But that is not the I AM that we are talking about. The I AM is actually a very uh, like for example, I think, uh. Long Chen (Sim Pern Chong) actually went through. It's actually all encompassing. It's actually what we call a non-dual experience. It's actually a very, um. There's no thoughts. It's just a pure sense of existence. And it can be a very powerful. It is indeed a very powerful experience. So when, let's say when you are. When you're very young. Especially when you are ...my age. When you first experience I AM, it is very different. It's a very different experience. We never experienced that before. So, um, I don't know whether it can be even considered as an experience. Um, because there is no thoughts. It's just Presence. But this presence is very quickly. It's very quickly. yeah. It's really quickly. Um. Misinterpreted due to our karmic tendency to of understanding something in a dualistic and in a in a very concrete manner. So very when we experience the we have the experience, the interpretation is very different. And that the, the, the wrong way of interpretation actually create a very dualistic experience." - Excerpt from AtR (Awakening to Reality) Meeting, March 2021

It is this very all-pervasive Presence that is then mistaken as the ultimate background, the ground of being for all phenomena to pop in and out while itself being unchanged and unaffected. Elaborated in: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html

2. The Direct Path: Don't Downplay the 'I'

It is important not to mistaken this 'neti neti' process that is part and parcel of self-enquiry with the Buddhist Anatman teaching. They are two different things. In Neti Neti and Self-Enquiry, the purpose is directed to realizing what Presence-Awareness is, what your Self is, what the Source is. You cannot downplay the Self. You can put aside Buddhist No-Self or contemplation on impermanence or no-self aside until later on, if inquiry and direct path is your approach.

As John Tan said (Posts by Thusness/PasserBy in 2009 DhO 1.0):

“Hi Gary,

It appears that there are two groups of practitioners in this forum, one adopting the gradual approach and the other, the direct path. I am quite new here so I may be wrong.

My take is that you are adopting a gradual approach yet you are experiencing something very significant in the direct path, that is, the ‘Watcher’. As what Kenneth said, “You're onto something very big here, Gary. This practice will set you free.” But what Kenneth said would require you to be awaken to this ‘I’. It requires you to have the ‘eureka!’ sort of realization. Awaken to this ‘I’, the path of spirituality becomes clear; it is simply the unfolding of this ‘I’.

On the other hand, what that is described by Yabaxoule is a gradual approach and therefore there is downplaying of the ‘I AM’. You have to gauge your own conditions, if you choose the direct path, you cannot downplay this ‘I’; contrary, you must fully and completely experience the whole of ‘YOU’ as ‘Existence’. Emptiness nature of our pristine nature will step in for the direct path practitioners when they come face to face to the ‘traceless’, ‘centerless’ and ‘effortless’ nature of non-dual awareness.

Perhaps a little on where the two approaches meet will be of help to you.

Awakening to the ‘Watcher’ will at the same time ‘open’ the ‘eye of immediacy’; that is, it is the capacity to immediately penetrate discursive thoughts and sense, feel, perceive without intermediary the perceived. It is a kind of direct knowing. You must be deeply aware of this “direct without intermediary” sort of perception -- too direct to have subject-object gap, too short to have time, too simple to have thoughts. It is the ‘eye’ that can see the whole of ‘sound’ by being ‘sound’. It is the same ‘eye’ that is required when doing vipassana, that is, being ‘bare’. Be it non-dual or vipassana, both require the opening of this 'eye of immediacy'”

3. The Meaning of Anatman (No-Self) vs. Presence

Once the "I AM" is realized, one may eventually breakthrough to Anatman (No-Self). It is crucial to understand that Anatman does not mean the denial or non-existence of Awareness or Luminosity. Insight into anatman removes the "view of inherentness", and the "dualistic view" of a background "subject" separate from the "object.", so that one realizes the true face of awareness as this seamless activity that fills the entire universe, vivid and empty.

I will not elaborate on this part as you can read up the details in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html and https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2017/11/anatta-and-pure-presence.html

Do watch this: https://youtu.be/ZYjI6gh9RxE?si=6M4zn5tHE7fQlJcr

Also watch this: https://youtu.be/MTvyLfCd9jI?si=9sUAHomIpD76iQn-

Soh

Kyle Dixon (Krodha) shared:

Here are some examples of Dzogchen differing its view from the substantialist nonduality of Yogācāra, which could be argued as an analogue to something like Advaita Vedanta in certain ways: 


The Inlaid Jewels Tantra, for example, rejects the Yogācāra definition, stating:  


"Untainted vidyā is the kāya of jñāna (tib. ye shes). Since svasaṃvedana (rang gyis rig pa or 'rang rig') is devoid of actual signs of awakening, it is not at all the jñāna of vidyā (rig pa'i ye shes)."


Ju Mipham states regarding the substantialist Yogācāra view in Liquid Gold:


"The Cittamatrin Yogācārins deconstruct both subject and object in a mere empty intrinsically knowing gnosis (jñāna)."


The difference between that svasaṃvedana of Yogācāra and the svayaṃbhūjñāna of ati is, as he says:  


"When the pairing of the dhātu and vidyā is deconstructed, there is no focal point upon which to grasp. Once it is understood that the final premise, “this is ultimate,” is deconstructed in the state of inexpressible emptiness, one enters into the nondual jñāna (tib. ye shes) that all phenomena of the inseparable two truths are of the same taste."


Longchenpa writes regarding the Yogācāra view that Dzogchen even rejects that dharmatā is "nondual," he says: 


།གང་ལ་གཟུང་བ་དང་འཛིན་པ་མེད་པར་རྟོགས་པའི་རིག་པ་དེའི་ངོ་བོ་ལ་ནི་རང་བྱུང་གི་ཡེ་ཤེས་སུ་ཐ་སྙད་བཏགས་ཀྱང༌། རང་རིག་རང་གསལ་ལོ་ཞེས་རྣལ་འབྱོར་སེམས་ཙམ་པ་ལྟར་མི་འདོད་དེ། ཕྱི་ནང་མེད་པས་ནང་གི་སེམས་སུ་མ་གྲུབ་པ་དང༌། རང་གཞན་མེད་པས་རང་གི་རིག་པ་ཁོ་ནར་མ་གྲུབ་པ་དང༌། གཟུང་འཛིན་ཡོད་མ་མྱོང་བས་དེ་གཉིས་དང་བྲལ་བར་མ་གྲུབ་པ་དང༌། ཚོར་རིག་གི་ཡུལ་ན་མེད་པས་མྱོང་བ་གཉིས་མེད་དུ་མ་གྲུབ་པ་དང༌། སེམས་དང་སེམས་བྱུང་མེད་པས་རང་གི་སེམས་སུ་མ་གྲུབ་པ་དང༌། གསལ་མི་གསལ་དུ་མེད་པས་རང་གསལ་དུ་མ་གྲུབ་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །རིག་མ་རིག་ལས་འདས་པས་རིག་པ་ཙམ་དུའང་གདགས་སུ་མེད་པ་འདི་ནི། མཐའ་བྲལ་ཡོངས་སུ་རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་ཞེས་བྱ་སྟེ། མཚོན་ཚིག་གི་ཐ་སྙད་རང་བྱུང་གི་ཡེ་ཤེས་དང༌། བྱང་ཆུབ་ཀྱི་སེམས་དང༌། ཆོས་སྐུ་དང༌། དབྱིངས་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་ཆེན་པོ་དང༌། རིག་པ་རང་གསལ་རྗེན་པ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་ཀྱང༌། བརྡ་ཤེས་པའི་ཕྱིར་བཏགས་པ་ཙམ་ལས་རང་ངོ་བརྗོད་མེད་ཆེན་པོར་རྟོགས་པར་བྱའོ། །དེ་ལྟར་མ་ཡིན་པར་མིང་ལ་དོན་དུ་ཞེན་ནས་སེམས་ཙམ་པའི་རང་རིག་རང་གསལ་གཟུང་འཛིན་གཉིས་མེད་ཀྱི་ཤེས་པ་དང་ཁྱད་པར་མི་རྙེད་དོ།  


"Though the essence of knowledge (rig pa) that realizes there is nothing apprehended or apprehending is conventionally designated “self-originated pristine consciousness,” rang rig rang gsal is not asserted in the way of the Cittamatrin Yogacārins [svasaṃvedana] because (1) since there is no inside or outside, the inner mind is not established; (2) since there is neither self nor other, a reflexive knowing (skt. svasaṃvedana, tib. rang gyi rig pa) is not established at all; (3) since there is no apprehended object or apprehending subject, freedom from duality is not established; (4) since there is no object to experience, experience is not established as nondual; since there are no minds and mental factors, one’s mind is not established; (5) since there is neither clarity (gsal ba) nor absence of clarity (mi gsal ba), intrinsic clarity (rang gsal) is not established. (6) Because of being beyond knowing or unknowing, even knowing does not exist as a designation—this is called “the great total perfection beyond extremes (mtha’ bral yongs su rdzogs pa chen pa).” Though illustrative conventions are expressed such as “self-originated pristine consciousness,” “bodhicitta,” “dharmakāya,” “the great naturally perfected dhātu,” and “naked, intrinsically clear cognizance (rig pa rang gsal),” other than being mere terms for understanding symbols, the real nature must be realized as a great inexpressibility.  


Otherwise, there is no difference at all with the Cittamatrin’s self-knowing and self-illuminating consciousness devoid of an apprehending subject and an apprehending object through clinging to meaning in a name."


------------------------------


Lopön Tenzin Namdak explains the samaya of the basis called gcig pu which represents a generic characteristic (samanyalakṣaṇa):


"That is Chigpu (gcig pu) - without any partition. It means that each individual being has a mind and the nature is of a very similar quality.


Don't think that there is just one nature (for everyone). Don't think it is like the sun, that there is just one sun but its rays cover everywhere. Each being has mind and wherever there is mind, there is nature - it is not separate from mind but nature is not just the same (one). Each individual being has nature and this nature is practiced and realized by the individual; it is the individual who takes the result.


When the text says Thigle Nyagchig, it means similar quality; emptiness, clarity and unification are the same everywhere.


For example, if you cut down one stick of bamboo you can see it is hollow and so you don't need to cut down all the bamboo. In a similar way, if you realize (the nature of your mind) it is your mind which liberates in to nature. All sentient beings who have mind are integrated with nature. That is Thigle Nyagchig. That is what single means.


If you depend on consciousness, that is breaking the Dzogchen vow (damstig). That is the main thing."


[...]


"If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learned in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your damstig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen. Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (nature) is one with individual partitions, that this "one" pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen damstig and goes against the Dzogchen view. Hopefully you have understood clearly."


In a conventional sense, each conventional Buddha has their own mind (citta), and each mind has its own nature (citta dharmatā) that is intended to be recognized. Dharmakāya is a buddha's citta dharmatā, or *cittatā.* Which means dharmakāya is the dharmatā of a buddha’s mind. The dharmakāya is a buddha's jñāna.  


We can say that each conventional buddha has their own conventional gnosis (jñāna), because ultimately there is no jñāna, and no dharmakāya. The characteristic of jñāna is a buddha's knowledge of emptiness. The dharmakāya is a buddha's realization of emptiness, which is known individually.  


In the yogic direct perception (yogapratyakṣa) of emptiness, there are no distinctions between phenomenal entities because entities cannot be found, hence like the Śrīmāladevi says, the dharmakāya is the "space-like gnosis of the tathāgatas."  


The generic basis (spyi gzhi) is just a generic set of qualities, essence (ngo bo) and nature (rang bzhin), which are characteristics that all minds possess.


The foundational structure for understanding this topic is somewhat elaborate, and can't be communicated in a brief post - or even a single post since there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration. However, the "individual and universal" are found to be complimentary when understood to be descriptions of what is called a "generic characteristic" (samanyalakṣaṇa). The dharmakāya is the nature (dharmatā) of a mind. That nature, or dharmatā is a generic characteristic, which is an abstraction.  


You'll often see statements such as the dharmakāya is "neither one nor many," and this is easily misunderstood. The intended meaning however is that as a generic characteristic, the dharmakāya is not "one," because it is present in countless individual minds wherever those minds are found, and it is not "many," because wherever it is found, it is identical in expression. Similar to the heat of fire. Heat is also "neither one nor many," it is not "one," because it is present in countless individual instances of fire wherever fire is found, and it is not "many," because wherever heat is found, it is identical in expression. The dharmakāya is the same, for example, the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says:  


"Likewise, the dharmakāya has the characteristic of the nonduality of oneness and difference [it is not one nor many] because the tathāgatagarbha is not different [in expression], while innumerable mind streams reach fully perfect awakening [individually]."


The dharmakāya is the generic characteristic of an individual mind. In Dzogchen teachings for example, the jñānas of ka dag and lhun grub are called the "generic basis" or spyi gzhi because they are the essence (ngo bo) and nature (rang bzhin) of thugs rje, which is the instantiation of an individual consciousness. This means that ka dag and lhun grub are generic characteristics, and the basis is therefore not a real essence. Not actually established in any way. 


In Dzogchen teachings we don't really speak of conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, but the principle still applies. What is essentially being said, is that the dharmakāya, which is unconditioned, is the generic characteristic (samanyalakṣaṇa) of the conditioned, one's mind.  


The point being made here is that one's mind has always been so-called “unconditioned” dharmatā, the dharmakāya, from the very beginning, however due to delusion, this is not recognized, and we mistakenly conceive of an individual mind even though there is no such thing.  


The mind is therefore unreal from the very beginning, but due to our confusion, we mistakenly conceive of a mind, and as a result, we must endeavor to recognize that the mind is actually insubstantial and not established in any way. We call that essenceless nature, the mind's dharmatā, the dharmakāya, but since there is no actual mind to have a nature, there also is no actual nature. The dharmatā of the mind is simply something to recognize about the mind, and once we recognize this, then it is seen that there never was a mind in the first place to even possess a nature.  


Buddhas and realized beings do not see the allegedly conditioned mind as a conditioned "mind," because they know the true nature of what we mistakenly conceive of as "mind." As the Lokadharaparipṛcchā says:  


"Lokadhara, it is not the case that unconditioned phenomena exist separate from conditioned phenomena, or that conditioned phenomena exist separate from unconditioned phenomena, for the characteristic of the suchness of the conditioned is the unconditioned. Why is this? There is nothing conditioned within the conditioned, and nothing unconditioned within the unconditioned."


This theme is also found in Dzogchen wherein there is actually nothing conditioned in the allegedly conditioned, and since the conditioned cannot be established, the unconditioned cannot be established, like Nāgārjuna says.  


The Six Dimensions says:  


"Dharmatā free from proliferation is originally pure; it is the basis of an intrinsically pure nature; it is free from words and syllables; it cannot be confirmed through expression; it is free from all conventional reification; it is without concepts of apprehended objects and apprehending subjects; it is without buddhas and without sentient beings; it is without phenomena and without perception of phenomena; no one, no thing, nothing at all. When the essence of such nonexistence (med pa) is confirmed with some words: the essence (ngo bo) is original purity (ka dag) and the nature (rang bzhin) is natural perfection (lhun grub)."


The Rig pa rang shar rejects Advaita Vedanta, mentioning Ādi Śaṅkara by name.


Vimalamitra states:


The basis, the state of initial original purity, is liberated because its essence is not established at all.


The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra:


Since there is no ultimate, also the name “relative” does not exist.



------------------------------------


And then all of these teachers stating that Dzogchen is compatible with the Madhyamaka view and emphasizes emptiness, which obviously undermines something like Advaita Vedanta.


From Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:  


"Furthermore, since one must rely on Nagarjuna’s reasonings in order to realize the essence of Dzogchen, it is the same for Mahamudra. Those who studied at the shedras (philosophical universities) in Tibet studied *The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way* and Chandrakirti’s *Entering the Middle Way* and other similar texts over the course of many years. Mahamudra and Dzogchen were not studied, however, because it is the Middle Way texts that are filled with such a vast array of different arguments and logical reasonings that one can pursue the study of them in a manner that is both subtle and profound. In the Mahamudra teachings as well, we find statements such as this one from Karmapa Rangjung Dorje’s Mahamudra Aspiration Prayer:  


'As for mind, there is no mind! Mind is empty of essence.' 


If you gain certainty in mind’s emptiness of essence by analyzing it with the reasoning that refutes arising from the four extremes and with others as well, then your understanding of Mahamudra will become profound. Otherwise, you could recite this line, but in your mind it would be nothing more than an opinion or a guess.


If you study these reasonings presented in 'The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way', when you receive Mahamudra and Dzogchen explanations of emptiness and lack of inherent reality, you will already be familiar with what is being taught and so you will not need to learn anything new. Mipham Rinpoche composed a brief text called 'The Beacon of Certainty', in which he states: 'In order to have perfect certainty in "kadag" (primordial purity) one must have perfect understanding of the view of the Consequence or Prasangika school. Kadag, or original, primordial purity, is the view of Dzogchen, and in order to perfect that view, one must perfect one’s understanding of the Middle Way Consequence or Prasangika school’s view. What this implies is that the view of Dzogchen kadag and the view of the Consequence or Prasangika of Chandrakirti's school are the same."


From Tulku Tsullo's instruction on the view of Dzogchen:  


"Therefore, whether in sutra or in tantra, there is consensus that the only direct antidote to the ignorance of clinging to things as real - which lies at the root of our karma and disturbing emotions - is the wisdom that realizes emptiness. So for Dzogchen practitioners, too, it is extremely important to realize emptiness."


The sgra thal gyur tantra states:  


"Nonexistent therefore appearing, appearing therefore empty. The inseparable union of appearance and emptiness with its branches."


Zilnon Zhepa Tsal said:  


"How could liberation be attained without realizing emptiness? And how could emptiness be realized without the Great Perfection [Dzogchen]? Who but I offers praise such as this?"


The Dalai Lama states:  


"We need a special form of wisdom - the wisdom that realizes emptiness - to act as the direct antidote to the cognitive obscurations. Without this wisdom, which can be realized through the Great Perfection... we will not have the direct antidote to the cognitive obscurations. So this point is conclusive."


Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje [Chatral Rinpoche's heart disciple] states:  


"The Madhyamika consider the Prasangik as the perfect Rangtong view. The Dzogchen trekcho view as Kadag (primordially pure view) and the Prasangik view is the same. The emptiness is the same, there is no difference... It is important to understand that the words primordially pure [kadag] is the Dzogchen terminology for the Prasangic Emptiness. [The ancient Nyingmapa Masters like Long Chenpa, Jigme Lingpa, Mipham, were] Prasangikas [Thalgyurpas]... the Prasangika Madhyamika sunyata [tongpanyid] and the Dzogchen sunyata are exactly the same. There is no difference. One hundred percent [the] same."


Longchenpa says:  


"This system of the natural great perfection is equivalent with the Consequentialist [Prasangika] Madhyamaka’s usual way of considering freedom from extremes and so on. However, emptiness in Madhymaka is an emptiness counted as similar to space, made into the basis; here [in Dzogchen] naked pellucid vidyā pure from the beginning that is not established; that, merely unceasing, is made into the basis. - The phenomena that arise from the basis are apprehended as being free from extremes, like space."


David Germano:  


"While a detailed analysis of the relationship of these classical Great Perfection texts to the Madhyamaka Prasangika tradition is quite beyond the scope of my present discussion, at this point I would merely like to indicate that even in The Seventeen Tantras (i.e. without considering Longchenpa's corpus) it is very clear that the tradition embodies an innovative dialectical reinterpretation of the Prasangika notions of emptiness, rather than a mere sterile 'diametric

opposition' to them that Karmay suggests."


Ju Mipham Rinpoche states in his commentary on the Madhyamakālaṃkāra, the dbu ma rgyan gyi rnam bshad 'jam dbyangs bla ma dgyes pa'i zhal lung:  


"Without finding certainty in primordial purity (ka dag), just mulling over some 'ground that is neither existent nor nonexistent' will get you nowhere. If you apprehend this basis of emptiness that is empty of both existence and nonexistence as something that is established by its essence separately [from everything else], no matter how you label it (such as an inconceivable self, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Īśvara, or wisdom) except for the mere name, the meaning is the same. Since the basic nature free from the reference points of the four extremes, that is, Dzogchen (the luminosity that is to be personally experienced) is not at all like that, it is important to rely on the correct path and teacher. Therefore, you may pronounce 'illusionlike,' 'nonentity,' 'freedom from reference points,' and the like as mere verbiage, but this is of no benefit whatsoever, if you do not know the [actual] way of being of the Tathāgata’s emptiness (which surpasses the limited [kinds of] emptiness [asserted] by the tīrthikas) through the decisive certainty that is induced by reasoning."


Chögyal Namkhai Norbu states:  


"Madhyamaka explains with the four 'beyond concepts,' which are that something neither exists, nor does not exist, nor both exists and does not exist, nor is beyond both existing and not existing together. These are the four possibilities. What remains? Nothing. Although we are working only in an intellectual way, this can be considered the ultimate conclusion in Madhyamaka. As an analytical method, this is also correct for Dzogchen. Nagarjuna's reasoning is supreme."


and,


"That view established intellectually we need to establish consciously in dependence upon one’s capacity of knowledge and on convention. The way of establishing that is the system of Prasanga Madhyamaka commented upon by the great being Nāgārjuna and his followers. There is no system of view better than that."


From Jigme Lingpa:


"I myself argue ‘To comprehend the meaning of the non-arising baseless, rootless dharmakāya, although reaching and the way of reaching this present conclusion 'Since I have no thesis, I alone am without a fault', as in the Prasanga Madhyamaka system, is not established by an intellectual consideration such as a belief to which one adheres, but is reached by seeing the meaning of ultimate reality of the natural great completion."


Chokyi Dragpa states:  


"On the path of trekchö, all the rigidity of mind's clinging to an "I" where there is no "I", and a self where there is no self, is cut through with Madhyamika Prasangika reasoning and the resulting conviction that an "I" or a "self" does not exist. Then, by examining where mind arises, dwells and ceases, you become certain of the absence of any true reality."


Again from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:  


"The great scholar and master, Mipham Chokle Namgyal, said, “If one seeks to master the basic nature of alpha purity, or kadak, it is necessary to perfect one’s understanding of the view of the Prasangika, or the Consequence School.” Alpha purity describes the basic nature of mind as it is expressed in the dzogchen descriptions. If one wishes to realize dzogchen, alpha purity, or trekcho, as it is also called, then one must perfect one’s understanding of the Consequence School. That is, one must realize that the nature of reality transcends all conceptual fabrications; it cannot be described by any conceptual terms. This is the aspect of the 'expanse.' If one recognizes this, then it is easy to realize the mahamudra because, as Milarepa sang:


The view: is original wisdom which is empty. Meditation: clear light free of fixation. Conduct: continual flow without attachment. Fruition: is nakedness stripped of every stain."


From Acarya Dharmavajra Mr. Sridhar Rana:  


"The meaning of Shunyata found in Sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen, or Mahamudra is the same as the Prasangic emptiness of Chandrakirti, i. e. unfindability of any true existence or simply unfindability. Some writers of Dzogchen and Mahamudra or Tantra think that the emptiness

of Nagarjuna is different from the emptiness found in these systems. But I would like to ask them whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable; whether or not the significance of emptiness in these systems is also not the fact of unfindability- no seeing as it could also be expressed. Also some Shentong scholars seem to imply that the Shentong system is talking about a different emptiness. They say Buddha nature is not empty of qualities therefore, Buddha nature is not merely empty, it also has qualities. First of all the whole statement is irrelevant. Qualities are not the question and Buddha nature being empty of quality or not is not the issue. The Buddha nature is empty of Svabhava (real existence). Because it is empty of real existence, it has qualities. As Arya Nagarjuna has said in his Mula Madhyamika Karika: “All things are possible (including qualities) because they are empty.” Therefore the whole Shentong/ Rangtong issue is superfluous. However, in Shentong, Buddha nature is also empty and emptiness means unfindable. In short, the unfindability of any true existence is the ultimate (skt. paramartha) in Buddhism, and is diametrically opposed to the concept of a truly existing thing called Brahman, the ultimate truth in Hinduism."


from Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche:  


"The practice of tregcho is essential when it comes to realizing the originally pure nature of mind and phenomena. This nature is emptiness, the basic state of the Great Perfection. For this reason, a thorough grounding in the view of Madhyamaka can be a great help when receiving instructions on tregcho. With the correct view of emptiness, one can meditate effectively on original purity [ka dag]."


and a final warning from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:  


"If we still believe in existence, if we have some type of belief in something substantial, if we think that there is something that truly exists, whatever it might be, then we are said to fall into the extreme called eternalism or permanence. And if we fall into that extreme, we will not realize the true nature of reality."


--------------------------


Here is a post I made on Dzogchen and Advaita: 


Moreover, in comparing Buddhist principles such as the nature of mind, or dharmakāya with something like the Brahman of Vedanta, there are distinct differences. Brahman on the one hand is a transpersonal, ontological, truly established ultimate. Whereas dharmakāya is a buddha’s realization of śūnyatā, emptiness, brought to its full measure at the time of buddhahood, which results from the cultivation of jñāna, or a direct non-conceptual, yogic perception of emptiness. Dharmakāya is the nature of a personal continuum of mind, is epistemic and personal in nature, and is not a truly established ultimate nature.  


Emptiness is actually the antithesis of that which the puruṣa of Advaita represents; it is the absence of a svabhāva, or an essence, whereas puruṣa is actually an essence. Unlike the puruṣa of Advaita, emptiness is a non-reductive and non-affirming negation (prasajya-pratiṣedha) of all phenomena both compounded and uncompounded. Such a view is not shared by Advaita, which despite its attempts to classify its puruṣa as a subtle nature, even free of characteristics in the case of nirguṇabrahman, posits that brahman is still an essence that possesses the quality of being free of characteristics (nirguṇa), and this is the critique that Bhāviveka levels at Advaita. Bhāviveka lived during a time in India where there were many polemical debates and interactions between different traditions, addresses the distinctions in many of his expositions. This excerpt from his Tarkajvālā is especially pertinent and addresses this issue of Advaita's puruṣa possessing characteristics:  


"If it is asked what is difference between this dharmakāya and the paramātma [bdag pa dam pa] (synonymous with Brahman) asserted in such ways as nonconceptual, permanent and unchanging, that [paramātma] they explain as subtle because it possesses the quality of subtlety, is explained as gross because it possesses the quality of grossness, as unique because it possess the quality of uniqueness and as pervading near and far because it goes everywhere. The dharmakāya on the other hand is neither subtle nor gross, is not unique, is not near and is not far because it is not a possessor of said qualities and because it does not exist in a place."


Thus we see that that dharmakāya is not an entity-like "possessor" of qualities. Conversely, brahman which is an ontological entity, does possess characteristics and qualities.   


Dharmakāya is not an entity at all, but rather a generic characteristic (samanyalakṣana). As the Buddha says in the Saṃdhinirmocana, the ultimate in Buddhism is the general characteristic of the relative. The dharmakāya, as emptiness, is the conventional, generic characteristic of the mind, as it is the mind’s dharmatā of emptiness, its actual nature that is to be recognized. Liberation results from the release of the fetters that result from an ignorance of the nature of phenomena, and this is how dharmakāya is a non-reductive and insubstantial nature.  


The differentiation of brahman as an entity versus dharmakāya as a generic characteristic is enough to demonstrate the salient contrasting aspects of these principles. Dharmakāya is an epistemological discovery about the nature of phenomena, that phenomena lack an essential nature or svabhāva. Alternatively, brahman is an ultimate ontological nature unto itself. Dharmakāya means we realize that entities such as brahman are impossibilities, as Sthiramati explains, entities in general are untenable:  


"The Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is emptiness, because there are not only no imputable personal entities in emptiness, there are also no imputable phenomenal entities, there are therefore no entities at all."


Here is another succinct and pertinent excerpt from the Tarkajvālā, regarding the difference between the view of the buddhadharma and tīrthika (non-Buddhist) systems:  


"Since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasivness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different."


Advaita posits a nondual, singular, ultimate puruṣa, whereas the Buddhist view involves recognition that the diversity of countless and discrete, conventional individual entities are themselves endowed with a conventional nondual essence because they ultimately do not have an essence at all.  


The first verse of the Rig pa khyu byug points this:  


"The primal nature (prakṛti) of diversity is nondual." 


You cannot have a nondual nature of diversity if there is no diversity. Advaita Vedanta states that only the singular puruṣa is nondual in nature.  


Further, the puruṣa of Advaita involves an ontological nonduality. An ontological nonduality (advaita) is monistic in nature. Buddhism champions a different type of nonduality (advāya), which is epistemic instead of ontological.  


An ontological nonduality is where everything is reduced to a single substance that exists alone by itself, which is the definition of monism. For example if subject and object were merged and we then held a view that the union of the two as a single X is truly substantial and valid.  


On the other hand, an epistemological nonduality is simply a recognition that the nature of phenomena is free from the dual extremes of existence and nonexistence, hence "nondual". This is a non-reductive nonduality because it does not leave anything in its wake, there is no X left over once the nature of phenomena is recognized. Hence the iconic “emptiness of emptiness.”  


In epistemic nonduality the nature of a conditioned phenomenon (dharma) and its nonarisen nature (dharmatā) are ultimately neither the same nor different, hence they are "nondual", because the misconception of a conditioned entity is a byproduct of ignorance, and therefore said entity has never truly come into existence in the first place. This means that the allegedly conditioned entity has truly been unconditioned from the very beginning. And to realize this fact only requires a cessation of cause for the arising of the misconception of a conditioned entity, i.e., a cessation of ignorance. If dharmins and dharmatā were not nondual then it would be impossible to recognize the unborn nature of phenomena because that nature would be rendered another conditioned entity.  


The implications of this means that buddhadharma in general are not actually proposing a real dharmatā or ultimate nature. Which directly contradicts a teaching like Advaita Vedanta.  


Further, Advaita Vedanta is rooted in a Sāṃkhya worldview, which differs from the Abhidharma framework that Buddhism is based on, that right there creates a firm distinction in the overall way these two systems function and view the world.  


However beyond the fact that Advaita Vedanta is a sanatanadharmic view as opposed to buddhadharma, according to Buddhist systems such as Dzogchen, Advaita is a false view that is incapable of producing liberation as defined by buddhadharma in general. The *Rigpa Rangshar* for example lists Advaita Vedanta under various wrong views, and even mentions Ādi Śaṅkarācārya by name in addressing Advaita.  


For other refutations of Advaita Vedanta you can read Śāntarakṣita‘s Tattvasaṃgraha, or Bhāviveka’s Tarkajvālā, which are two main sūtrayāna level writings which dedicate some attention to contrasting these systems. One might object and say during the time of Buddha Śākyamuni there was no Advaita Vedanta so the Buddha never addressed Advaita directly, however Sāṃkhya yoga was around during the Buddha’s time, and given the Buddha separated and distinguished his dharma from these other views such as Sāṃkhya, and Sāṃkhya is the underlying worldview that Advaita is based on, we can know (or confidently infer) that the Buddha would have also objected to Advaita Vedanta.  


Sometimes people balk at these comparisons and say this is too much of a generalization, Advaita Vedanta is a variegated system, there is Sṛīṣṭīdṛīṣṭivāda, Dṛīṣṭisṛīṣṭīvāda, Māyāvāda or Vivartavāda and Ajātivāda, and of course that is fair, buddhadharma is the same way, however ultimately, just as it is the case with Buddhism, despite these diverse subsystems, the underlying framework is in essence ubiquitous and uniform. We do not deviate from that framework despite the presence of varying methodologies or views within the system, and Advaita is no different. Even the much vaunted Ajātivāda which essentially an Advaita rendition of nonarising which cribs the Buddhist notion of nonarising, anutpāda, does not escape the consequences and implications of Advaita’s eternalist view. And for this reason buddhadharma would also state that Ajātivāda is incompatible with its view.  


We can look to the Madhyamakālaṃkāra for the buddhist refutation of Advaita’s Ajātivāda:  


"Therefore, the tathāgatas have said 'all phenomena do not arise' because this conforms with the ultimate. This "ultimate" in reality, is free from all proliferation. Because there is no arising and so on, nonarising and so on isn't possible, because its entity has been negated." 


The above excerpt also exemplifies why emptiness is itself empty, and why emptiness is non-reductive. Advaita Vedanta cannot justifiably make the same claim about its puruṣa.  


Are they similar in some ways? Sure. Is there benefit to be derived from understanding Advaita Vedanta on its own terms? Certainly. Can a practitioner of Buddhism potentially understand Buddhism better by understanding the views and nuances of Advaita Vedanta? Absolutely. My own teacher studied Advaita Vedanta systematically for this express purpose. But at the end of the day they are two different systems, with different bases, paths and results.