Eric wrote:

This begs the question 'What is discriminating supreme knowledge?'. How does one look straight at appearance-emptiness, sound-emptiness, and awareness-emptiness in order to be directly released?

Thank you for sharing, and I hope to hear a reply from you.


My reply:

First realise anatta. No thinker or seer besides self luminous thought, sight and sound. Subject action object is seen through like rainer rains the rain is seen through.

In that moment of immediate and nondual perception of manifestation

Look at its nature, where has that appearance come from? Does it come from somewhere? Does it come from itself? Does it arise causelessly? And if not, what is the mechanism that allows for the appearing of appearances? If what arises, arises via dependencies, does it have any existence of its own? Does it arise, abide or subside?

By investing in such a manner the nature of vivid mind/appearances becomes clear

Staring into at the reflection of my face on the screen

It is obvious the reflection on the screen is dependent on my eyes, the lights, and the movement of my hands

It is obvious that the reflection does not amount to a truly existing face being created or arising inside the iphone

It is obvious that none of these elements exist separately or independently

Even though each of these do not meet, they are intimately connected in a seamless movement or activity

None of these domains have an independent existence in and of its own

Each appearance, being nondual and luminously clear, the vivid reality/display of pure presence/luminous mind, is at once in seamless connection as a seamless activity with all (conditions) that is

And yet although I said the reflection is dependent on eye and so on

I do not mean that the conditions such as The Eye has an independent existence

We are used to thinking of causes and effects as pre existing things that can effect or cause something else to come into existence

In truth the principle of conditionality is not compatible with such flawed and common understandings of causation

For example, have we considered the fact that an eye is not an eye? Or that The Eye is empty of eye or eye-ness of eye? And likewise consciousness is empty of consciousness?

For an eye (or, visual consciousness) is dependently designated on the function of seeing


On the vividness of red colour of the rose

And the vividness of the red colour of the rose makes eyes what it is

For what we call eye is simply a convenient label for an organ that makes sight possible

And what is an eye if not for its function of seeing?

So whatever we defined such as an eye cannot be understood apart from the other conventions that make the convention “eye” meaningful

It is not an entity which exists in and of itself apart from the conditions, parts and functionalities and other conventions that defines it

Whatever we refer to, such as an eye, a rose, and so forth cannot be found or pinned down as an entity besides its parts, functionality, dependencies, appearances, designating consciousness

There is not a (truly existing) originating cause or condition of an effect

For the cause defines the effect and the effect defines the cause

Cause is not before and effect is not after

The cause is cause because the effect is effect

The Son makes the Father a Father, it’s not that Father came first before Son, in the act of co-dependent origination, no originator nor origination can be found

nothing has truly originated, arisen, been created, nor is there a creator in an appearance and no true cause or condition can be found to exist in and of its own

Whatever appearance we encounter, meet, is a seamlessly (dependently originating) originating non-originated appearance

Just like reflections, mirages, dreams, nothing truly existing can be found in the reflections

Like a reflection, nothing truly arising (coming into existence) could be found despite the moon vividly showing on the surface of the lake

Neither the reflection of the moon nor the moon in the sky could be found to exist in and of itself apart from all the conditions, functions, and dependent designations that define it

None of them infers an entity that is created or arising anywhere Nor a “that which originates”

Vivid appearances ceaselessly manifest without amounting to something arising, abiding or ceasing

Like painting on the surface of the lake with your fingers, vividly appearing yet not leaving traces

Like the endless stream of images dependently originating with the fingers scrolling on the screen of this iPhone through Facebook, not ever amounting to something truly arising, coming into being, abiding somewhere and going somewhere. No cat has came from the top and left from the bottom of the screen on your iPhone nor exist inside your iPhone. It does not come into existence of its own accord and cannot be separated from your act of seeing it.

What does not arise from other, from itself, nor causelessly, does not truly arise or come into being. They are like reflections, mirages and dreams. Vividly present yet absent, and the whole field of experience is equal to empty space, not in the sense that nothing is seen but nothing is tangible, nothing seen or heard actually amounts to “something”.

Wisdom arise by getting acquainted with right view through learning and meditative contemplation, and it will be counter productive to fall into seeking a state of non conceptuality. Yet when the wisdom of the nature of appearance arises.. there is no longer a need to conceptualise emptiness and instead one simply rests in the flow of empty clarity in vivid appearance. Dependently originating appearance arises as unborn wisdom

H.H. The 8th Karmapa, Mikyo Dorje:
"From the perspective of both analysis and the seeing of noble ones, mere dependent origination and also the completely releasing liberation that is based on it are inexpressible as something other than perfect nirvana. Hence, neither something to be attained, nor the means to attain it, nor any attainment are established.
However, at this point, it is also not said that “these do not exist.” Nor are they expressed as being both existent and nonexistent or being neither.
Thus, without thinking or apprehending anything and without any effort, one evenly rests in just this uncontrived and relaxed great ease in which there is nothing to do. Then, no matter what inner and outer appearances of the six collections [of consciousness] and their objects (the bearers of the nature [of phenomena]) emerge, through discriminating supreme knowledge and mindfulness, all of them are realized as their true nature, the natural state of emptiness.
Just like snowflakes falling [and melting] on a hot stone, one looks straight at appearance-emptiness, sound-emptiness, and awareness-emptiness and is directly released."

Wrote a comment to someone posting about non-meditation who emphasized the point "How ridiculous and deluded to think that practices, meditation, study or realizations can improve the perfect awareness that is always what you already are."

I wrote:

"On the one extreme is the view that through practices one can somehow reach Buddha-nature in the future, which comes with the sense of distance, time, separation, and sense of self. Buddha-nature is all-pervasive and whole in its immediacy, how can it be reached in the future through practice?

On the other extreme is of a static, immobile Buddha-nature separate from the ordinary activities of sitting, walking, sleeping, chopping wood and carrying water. Nothing is clearer and more direct than these simple activities when subject and object is severed. We walk not in order to achieve enlightenment but as a manifestation of our true nature.

When sitting, sitting is sitting, not me sitting. Recently I visited a Zen master. He asked a group of students, (pointing at a bell) what is this? Some said it's a bell, he replied you are attached to name and form. If you only hit the floor or remain mute, he says you are attached to emptiness. I simply picked it up and rang it. He said "Correct!" So, a "zen" answer will be just ring it -- there is just the ringing, no subject and object, only spontaneous action, only sound. Non-meditation and non-practice is not lazing all day doing nothing, but severing the delusion of subject and object. When the gap between actor and action is refined till none, that is non-action, non-meditation and that non-action is at the same time total action.

In that act of ringing, is the ringing, and mind two or one? Again if we say they are one or two, we fall into dualism or concepts. Just ring it - that's enough. That total action reveals the true face of mind, the true face of the bell, the true face of ringing. If there is still a sense of an actor achieving a goal through an action, that is not non-meditation or practice-enlightenment.

Dogen:

"Zen master Baoche of Mt. Mayu was fanning himself. A monk approached and said, "Master, the nature of wind is permanent and there is no place it does not reach. When, then, do you fan yourself?"

"Although you understand that the nature of the wind is permanent," Baoche replied, "you do not understand the meaning of its reaching everywhere."

"What is the meaning of its reaching everywhere?" asked the monk again. The master just kept fanning himself. The monk bowed deeply.

The actualization of the buddha-dharma, the vital path of its correct transmission, is like this. If you say that you do not need to fan yourself because the nature of wind is permanent and you can have wind without fanning, you will understand neither permanence nor the nature of wind. The nature of wind is permanent; because of that, the wind of the buddha's house brings forth the gold of the earth and makes fragrant the cream of the long river."

....

A monk said to Chao Chou, “I have just entered this monastery. Please teach me.”
Chao Chou said, “Have you eaten your rice gruel?”
The monk said, “Yes, I have.”
Chao Chou said, “Wash your bowl.”
The monk understood."

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

I replied:

Hi ____

Thanks for the sharing.

This is the I AM realization. Had that realisation 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 realisation 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 colours, sounds and sensations, clean and pure. Authentication is 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 don't 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

Wrote on facebook:

Without awareness there can be no objects, (there is no “unheard sound”) and without objects there can be no awareness, (seeing is dependently designated with “sight”) not because there are two distinctly existing things depending or interacting with each other but because they are merely dependently designated and have no existence of its own to speak of. For example you cannot speak of a sun without sunlight or a computer screen without the images, they are dependently designated and without any intrinsic existence. Just like a computer screen that doesn’t display images is not a computer screen, a knowing is labelled as such in dependence on the known, so both subject and object are severed - nondual clarity is vividly presencing as all appearances without needing to collapse subject into object or object into subject.

There is no denial of knowing known or “you” like there is no need to deny a conventional car. But if “you” or “knowing known” is just a label for vroomyumouch, just like car is merely imputed based on the parts and functions, then there is also no intrinsically (independent, changelessly) existing “you” or “car”. So you or car is not denied but simply a convenient label, so you can still use conventions but are not bound by them, just like when you talk about weather you don’t think of an entity but directly experience the rain falling wind blowing clouds forming and parting and so forth. When we say sensing we don’t get bound by subject action or object but directly sense the coolness, heat, softness and so forth.

The realisation of true mind, the luminous vivid presence is also important. But mind is no mind - empty of intrinsically existing entity. And being empty of mind, it is as dogen said,

“And just what is this wondrously pure, bright mind? It is the great earth with its mountains and rivers, along with the sun, the moon, and all the stars.”

....

Objects are merely conventionally and dependently designated as such. It cannot be understood apart from or excluding other conventions that make them meaningful otherwise it becomes erroneous (the same goes for everything - from self, to cars, to awareness, to whatever). A sound is not an object besides hearing, besides awareness - there is no such thing as an unheard sound. This part I believe you agree, the other part however in Buddhadharma's emptiness teaching is that awareness is also dependently designated in relation to what's experienced. So it's a two-way dependence unlike the one way dependence in Advaita. Hearer and hearing is only meaningful in reference to sound (and vice versa) - in truth there is no hearer, no hearing, no sound, the bell ringing has no subject or object -- direct immediacy of just this awareness as ringing.

But you'll interject, what about the formless consciousness that underlies and exists beneath, and in the absence of, thoughts and sensations? That pure infinite formless sense of Existence which is a mere formless sense that I AM? I too have realised that through self-inquiry a long time ago. But now I see that too is also another manifestation of consciousness, another face of Presence, no more and no less Presence than a sound, a sight, etc. It cannot be understood apart from manifestation, and apart from the conditions that defines it.

...

In my experience, manifestation is limitless. When walking, it's not legs walking, the entirety of everything is walking. Any sort of abiding, be it in the fiction of a subject or an object, even in a grasped image of 'infinite formless consciousness', is still limitations

...

You're saying there is an ocean independent of its wave (a limitation) reflecting back on itself without investment in wave. I'm saying the wave is none other than the entirety of the ocean, including the conditions that makes it wave - the wind, etc

To me, the latter is 'more' 'limitless'

Taken from http://dogenandtheshobogenzo.blogspot.sg/2011/02/zazen-polishing-tile-to-make-mirror.html

Ted

I like this quote but does anyone know who translated it and the source of that text?

---

Subhuti asked: "Is perfect wisdom beyond thinking? Is it unimaginable and totally unique but nevertheless reaching the unreachable and attaining the unattainable?"

The Buddha replied: "Yes, Subhuti, it is exactly so. And why is perfect wisdom beyond thinking? It is because all its points of reference cannot be thought about but can be apprehended. One is the disappearance of the self-conscious person into pure presence. Another is the knowing of the essenceless essence of all things in the world. And another is luminous knowledge that knows without a knower. None of these points can sustain ordinary thought because they are not objects or subjects. They can't be imagined or touched or approached in any way by any ordinary mode of consciousness, therefore they are beyond thinking."

"Bodhidharma asked, "Can each of you say something to demonstrate your understanding?"
Dao Fu stepped forward and said, "It is not bound by words and phrases, nor is it separate from words and phrases. This is the function of the Tao."
Bodhidharma: "You have attained my skin."
The nun Zong Chi[note 6][note 7] stepped up and said, "It is like a glorious glimpse of the realm of Akshobhya Buddha. Seen once, it need not be seen again."
Bodhidharma; "You have attained my flesh."
Dao Yu said, "The four elements are all empty. The five skandhas are without actual existence. Not a single dharma can be grasped."
Bodhidharma: "You have attained my bones."
Finally, Huike came forth, bowed deeply in silence and stood up straight.
Bodhidharma said, "You have attained my marrow." [38]"

Also see: Luminosity vs Clarity
The Sun Does Not Rise or Set
The Unbounded Field of Awareness
Jax's Message
Fully Experience All-Is-Mind by Realizing No-Mind and Conditionality

Jamgon Mipham:

Accordingly, in the case of a beginner, it is possible for mere nonexistence (med rkyang tsam), the negation of truly existent phenomena, to arise as a mental object. But a person whose Madhyamaka investigation has hit the mark will perfectly distinguish the difference between the lack of inherent existence and mere nonexistence; and will be quite certain that a phenomenon's lack of inherent existence is inseparable from its dependent arising. Such an extraordinary mode of apprehension indeed acts as an antidote to the precipitous extremes of both substantialism and nihilism. For as long as, according to one's mode of apprehension, one is either refuting things or establishing them, one is not actually in the nature beyond all conceptual extremes. When, with reasoned analysis, one arrives at the certainty that phenomena do not dwell in any of the four extremes, and when one settles evenly in the dharmadhatu, by way of the self-cognizing primordial wisdom, this will have the power to dispel all conceptual constructs. Thus one will gain confidence in ultimate reality, in 'which there are no misconceptions to dispel and no progress to make. One will have confidence in the genuine meaning of "freedom from mental activity" as explained in the Prajnaparamita-sutra.

Wrote to someone:

The red petals are not red petals of an inherently existing flower. Flower is conventionally designated in dependence on the petals, there is no flower core anywhere. So it might be more accurate to say the petals “are” the flower. Even the red appearance is dependently originating with no real substance to be found, I.e. unreal - dogs don’t see red, so it is a nonoriginating reflection/appearance in any case, like the reflection of the moon on water, only appearing in dependence on certain conditions but never actually referring to an actual thing being created or abiding or ceasing anywhere. Like scrolling through facebook posts or watching a movie, no actual things or persons or objects are created despite their appearances. This is not to say "what you see is all there is" but "what you see does not amount to something truly existing or truly arising" and whatever "things" - self, cup, table, sky, car, flower, are all conventionally designated in dependence on parts, conditions, functions, designating consciousness and when analysed no true existence can be found.

The universe is like that. Nothing that appears in dependence on conditions exists intrinsically by its own power or essence. But of course it is not a rejection of phenomena and its causal efficacy, as explained in the chapter on the four noble truths in madhyamikakarika. It is precisely because conventional empty phenomena are not intrinsically existing that they could arise due to conditions and cease through practicing the path, otherwise they would be forever “there” like a moon in the lake would be stuck there if it were real and intrinsic. So we have to understand emptiness through dependent origination and understand the causal efficacy of conventional empty phenomena, otherwise we are falling into nihilism and rejecting the four noble truths, etc.

When we talk about illusion, there is a difference between water-moon and rabbit-horn. Appearances are like water-moon being dependently originated, without substance and base but not non-existent, whereas true existence/inherent existence is illusory in the sense of being "horns of rabbits", it does not exist even conventionally. If we merely see non-existence, or negate conventionalities and their valid functionalities, that is nihilism. The sun, even if hidden behind the clouds and thus "unseen", is still exerting a causal function of heating up the earth. On the other hand if we treat these things (e.g. the sun) as real and substantial instead of dependently designated/dependently originating and thus unreal, then we are having substantialist tendencies. The sun is also designated in dependence on its functions like 'heat', just like the flower is designated in dependence on the petals, and other conditions. So seeing this, we do not think of the sun as a substantial thing causing a substantial thing to happen, for the heating and sun are dependently designated. But that is not to deny "sun" or "heating" conventionally and their causal efficacy.

"In brief from empty phenomena
Empty phenomena arise;
Agent(cause), karma(action), fruits(effect), and their enjoyer(subject) -
The conqueror taught these to be [only] conventional.

Just as the sound of a drum as well as a shoot
Are produced from a collection [of factors],
We accept the external world of dependent origination
To be like a dream and an illusion.

That phenomena are born from causes
Can never be inconsistent [with facts];
Since the cause is empty of cause,
We understand it to be empty of origination."

- Nāgārjuna
.....

“Earlier we saw that both the Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika argue that only ultimately intrinsic reality (svabhāva) enables things to perform a causal function (arthakriya). The Svātantrika Madhyamaka rejects this, and it instead argues that things are causally efficient because of their conventionally intrinsic reality (svabhāva) or unique particularity (svalakṣaṇa). The Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka, however, rejects both these positions, and argues only what is conventionally non-intrinsic reality (niḥsvabhāva) is causally effective, for only those phenomena, the conventional nature of which is non-intrinsic, are subject to conditioned or dependent arising. Conventional reality (here treated as dependently arisen phenomenon), given it is causally effective, is therefore always intrinsically unreal, and hence lacks any intrinsic reality even conventionally. Hence that which is conventionally (or dependently) coarisen is always conventionally (or dependently) arisen and strictly does not arise ultimately.”

"Nāgārjuna's central argument to support his radical non-foundationalist theory of the two truths draws upon an understanding of conventional truth as tied to dependently arisen phenomena, and ultimate truth as tied to emptiness of the intrinsic nature. Since the former and the latter are coconstitutive of each other, in that each entials the other, ultimate reality is tied to being that which is conventionally real. Nāgārjuna advances important arguments justifying the correlation between conventional truth vis-à-vis dependent arising, and emptiness vis-à-vis ultimate truth. These arguments bring home their epistemological and ontological correlations ([MMK] 24.14; Dbu ma tsa 15a). He argues that wherever applies emptiness as the ultimate reality, there applies the causal efficacy of conventional reality and wherever emptiness does not apply as the ultimate reality, there does not apply the causal efficacy of conventional reality (Vig.71) (Dbu ma tsa 29a). According to Nāgārjuna, ultimate reality's being empty of any intrinsic reality affords conventional reality its causal efficacy since being ultimately empty is identical to being causally produced, conventionally. This must be so since, for Nāgārjuna, “there is no thing that is not dependently arisen; therefore, there is no such thing that is not empty” ([MMK] 24.19, Dbu ma tsa 15a)."

- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india/

Wrote to someone,

“Recently been reading Zen Master Seung Sahn. He is also very clear. The teachers in his lineage teaching in the Singapore dharma center Kwan Yin Chan Lin are also consistently clear in terms of realisation of anatta.

As I wrote:

What’s important is that the insight must be clear. The teachings must be clear. It’s impossible to overcome the propensities of dualism without the correct insights. I’m not bothered about the terms, words they use or even whether he or she is unconventional or traditional.

For example, recently I started reading Zen Master Seung Sahn writings. I noticed that although he uses the term true self a lot, his insights are clearly anatta. He is not talking about a background or ultimate self behind everything.

Seung Sahn said “your true self has no outside, no inside. Sound is clear mind, clear mind is sound. Sound and hearing are not separate, there is only sound.”

Thusness also said, “Seung Sahn is anatta. Self/self is not important to him at all””

(Update by Soh: we are mistaken about this. See https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/07/this-is-impersonality-aspect-not-anatta.html)

Nowadays OCR softwares are very powerful. I took a photo of a page from a book using my phone, used the free app Office Lens to convert the image into text in word document. It is fast and accurate.

Here’s a teaching by Zen Master Seung Sahn which is converted using OCR, it’s from the book  “Only Don’t Know: The Teaching Letters of Zen Master Seung Sahn”, also it’s somewhat relevant to my previous encounter with a Zen Master from this lineage (See Total Exertion):

WHAT IS STRONG SITTING?

Toronto, Canada
January 29, 1977

Dear Soen Sa Nim,

I miss you very much and wish that I did not live so far away from you. Every day I sit Zen and bow 108 times— Lawlor and I do this together. But often when I'm bowing and sitting, I am thinking:

"What will I make for dinner? What shall I wear to work? Thinking is no good." All thinking!

You say—"Put it all down. Only go straight." But isn't there some balance about practice? Maybe I should do more sitting. You talk about strong sitting. What is this?

What am I? I ask this more and more through my day. But there is so much thinking!

I hope you are well, and I send you my great love.

Sherry

February 22, 1977

Dear Sherry,

How are you? Thank you for your letter.

You told me that you and Lawlor have been practicing  gether every day—that is wonderful. A lot of thinking, no thinking, a little thinking—it doesn't matter. You say, "thinking is no good." This is no good. This is being attached to your thinking. Only try, try, try, and your thinking will rest. Then finally, at bowing time, only bow; at sitting time, only sit; at chanting time, only chant. This is possible. If you keep practicing, this will happen.

In your letter you asked me about balance in your practice and about strong sitting. If you are attached to something, your mind and your body will be unbalanced. If you don't make anything, your mind and your body become one, and will be perfectly balanced, and everything will be complete and clear.

Strong sitting means not checking your mind and feelings. At times everyone has many thoughts and feelings while sitting. This is correct. Don't worry. But many people check themselves. "I am no good. What do other people think of me? I am always thinking. How can I cut off all thinking? How do you only go straight? How do you put it all down?" This is being attached to thinking. Thinking itself is not bad or good Just don't be attached to thinking. Don't worry about every. thing. Thinking is thinking; feeling is feeling. Don't touch. Only go straight—don't know. That is strong sitting.

If you keep this strong-sitting mind, your mind will be clear moment to moment. Clear mind means keeping your correct situation. When you drive, just drive. Then when you come to a red light, stop. When it turns green, go. That is the correct situation. Correct situation means just-like-this.

I understand your mind. Your mind constantly checks your mind. But if you practice and try every day, your checking mind will rest, and you will be able to keep a just-like-this mind. Then when you see the sky, only blue; when you see a tree, only green. Your mind is still. Then saving all beings is possible.

I hope you only go straight— don't know, keep a mind which is clear like space, attain Enlightenment, and save all beings from suffering.

Yours in the Dharma,

S. S.




You can find many similar teachings by him in https://kwanumzen.org/resources-collection/2017/9/15/teaching-letters-of-zen-master-seung-sahn

Zen Student: Could you speak about when you sit zazen away from Zen Center, and you sit alone? Could you speak about that?
Suzuki-rōshi: Oh, sit alone. By yourself? True zazen, you know, cannot be sit by yourself, you know. That you sit there means that every one of us [is] sitting with you. That kind of zazen is true zazen. Even though you are sitting in Japan or Tibet, you know, you are sitting with all the people in the world. That kind of feeling you must have in your zazen. You include — your practice include everything. That is our practice, you know. When you are you on your cushion, everyone sitting on their own cushion. That is our zazen.