“[3:29 PM, 6/25/2020] John Tan:
Thought of how to explain the difference in anatta and advaita nihilism.
[3:40 PM, 6/25/2020] John Tan:
When a person in ignorance, why is he so blinded? If there is no I, shouldn't
him be already free?
Sentient being: if there is no I
in ignorance, then you are therefore free.
Anatta: There is no I in
ignorance, you are precisely THAT ignorance, therefore fully and entirely
blinded.
What anatta insight is telling us
is the "I" and "ignorance" are the same phenomenon. This
also tells us that even when in ignorant, there is complete and effortless
non-dual experience, anatta is a seal.
[2:52 PM, 6/27/2020] Soh Wei Yu:
The Beauty of Virtue
Thought is
movement between “what
is” and “what
should be.” Thought
is the time
to cover that
space, and as
long as there
is division between
this and that
psychologically, the movement
is the time
of thought. So
thought is time
as movement. Is there time as
movement, as thought, when there is only observation of “what is”? That is, not
observation as the observer and the observed, but only observation without
the movement of
going beyond “what
is.” It is
very important for
the mind to
understand this, because
thought can create
most marvelous images of what is
sacred and holy, which all religions have done. All religions are based on
thought. All religions
are the organization
of thought, in
belief, in dogma, in rituals. So unless there is complete understanding
of thought as time and movement, the mind cannot possibly go beyond itself.
We are
trained, educated, drilled
to change “what
is” into “what
should be,” the
ideal, and that
takes time. That
whole movement of
thought to cover
the space between
“what is” and
“what should be”
is the time
to change “what
is” into “what
should be”—but the
observer is the
observed, therefore there
is nothing to change, there is
only “what is.” The observer doesn’t know what to do with “what
is,” therefore he
tries various methods
to change “what
is,” controls “what is,” tries to suppress “what is.” But
the observer is the observed: the “what is”
is the observer.
Anger, jealousy, are
also the observer;
there isn’t jealousy
separate from the
observer—both are one.
When there is
no movement as thought in
time to change
“what is,” when
thought perceives that
there is no
possibility of changing “what is,” then that which is—“what is”—ceases
entirely, because the observer is the observed.
Go into
this very deeply
and you will
see for yourself.
It is really
quite simple. If
I dislike someone,
the dislike is not different
from the “me”
or the “you.”
The entity that
dislikes is dislike
itself; it is
not separate. And
when thought says,
“I must get
over my dislike,”
then it is
movement in time
to get over
that which actually
is, which is
created by thought.
So the observer—the
entity—and the thing
called “dislike” are
the same. Therefore
there is complete immobility. It is not the immobility of being
static, it is complete motionlessness and therefore complete silence. So time
as movement, time as thought achieving a result, has come totally to an end,
and therefore action is instantaneous. So the mind has laid the foundation and
is free from disorder; and therefore there is the flowering and the beauty of
virtue. In that foundation is the basis of relationship between you and
another. In that relationship there is no activity of image; there is only
relationship, not one
image adjusting itself
to the other
image. There is
only “what is” and not the changing of “what is.” The changing of “what
is,” or transforming of “what is,” is the movement of thought in time.
When you have come to that point,
the mind and the brain cells also become totally still.
The brain which
holds memories, experience,
knowledge, can and
must function in
the field of
the known. But
now that mind,
that brain, is
free from the activity of time
and thought. Then the mind is completely still. All this takes place
without effort. All
this must take
place without any
sense of discipline, control, which belong to
disorder.
You know,
what we are
saying is totally
different from what
the gurus, the
“masters,” the Zen philosophers say, because in this there is no
authority, there is no following another.
If you follow
somebody, you are
not only destroying
yourself but also the other. A religious mind has no authority
whatsoever. But it has intelligence and it applies that intelligence. In the
world of action there is the authority of the scientist, the doctor, the man
who teaches you how to drive, but otherwise there is no authority, there is no
guru.
So, if you have gone as deeply as
that, then the mind has established order in relationship, and understands the
whole complex disorder of our daily lives. Out of the comprehension of that
disorder, out of the awareness of it, in which there is no
choice, comes the
beauty of virtue,
which is not
cultivated, which is not brought
about by thought.
That virtue is
love, order, and
if the mind
has established that
with deep roots,
it is immovable,
unchangeable. And then
you can inquire into the whole
movement of time. Then the mind is completely still. There is no observer,
there is no experiencer, there is no thinker.
There are
various forms of
sensory and extrasensory perception. Clairvoyance, healing,
all kinds of
things take place,
but they are
all secondary, and
a mind that
is really concerned
with the discovery
of what is
truth, what is
sacred, will never touch them.
The mind
then is free
to observe. Then
there is that
which man has
sought through centuries,
the unnameable, the
timeless. And there
is no verbal
expression of it.
The image that
is created by
thought completely and
utterly ceases because there is
no entity that wants to express it in words. Your mind can only discover
it, or come
upon it, when
you have this
strange thing called
love, compassion, not
only for your
neighbor, but for
the animals, the
trees, for everything.
Then such a mind itself becomes
sacred.
~ J Krishnamurti, 'This Light in Oneself: True Meditation'
[2:53 PM, 6/27/2020] Soh Wei Yu:
reminds me of what you said 'you are the ignorance'
[6:52
AM, 6/28/2020] John Tan: Yes”
p.s. John Tan also said years ago,
"After this insight, one must also be clear of the way
of anatta and the path of practice. Many wrongly conclude that because there is
no-self, there is nothing to do and nothing to practice. This is precisely using "self view"
to understand "anatta" despite having the insight.
It does not mean because there is no-self, there is nothing
to practice; rather it is because there is no self, there is only ignorance and
the chain of afflicted activities. Practice therefore is about overcoming
ignorance and these chain of afflictive activities. There is no agent but there is attention.
Therefore practice is about wisdom, vipassana, mindfulness and concentration.
If there is no mastery over these practices, there is no liberation. So one
should not bullshit and psycho ourselves into the wrong path of no-practice and
waste the invaluable insight of anatta.
That said, there is the passive mode of practice of choiceless
awareness, but one should not misunderstand it as the "default way"
and such practice can hardly be considered "mastery" of anything,
much less liberation."
In 2013, Thusness said, "Anapanasati is good. After your insight [into
anatta], master a form of technique that can bring you to that the state
of anatta without going through a thought process." and on choiceless
awareness Thusness further commented, "Nothing wrong with choice. Only
problem is choice + awareness. It is that subtle thought, the thought
that misapprehend (Soh: falsely imputes/fabricates) the additional
"agent"."
“A state of freedom is always a natural state, that is a state of mind
free from self/Self. You should familiarize yourself with the taste
first. Like doing breathing meditation until there is no-self and left
with the inhaling and exhaling... then understand what is meant by
releasing.”