Awakening to Reality

can you please describe how you were investigating Presence? ie. if I wanted to do the same, how would I go about it?

Author

Nick Wilson

Sure. I'll give you the lead up to it as well since the mindset was probably a condition leading to the insight. Having got comfortable in presence (in the seeing, just the seen, no seer for all senses), I was reading this blurb from the blog: The section labelled "On Emptiness" in http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../on-anatta-emptiness.... While this was happening I was investigating where is that voice that occurs when reading, is located. I had been getting more comfortable recently looking at where thoughts occur directly and not psyching myself out because they don't seem to exist in space. I did this for awhile noticing how the reading continues, the eyes move on their own, and this voice of the text is appearing as a vague somewhere. After getting really settled at looking at this voice and how it is non-local (doesn't have a location of itself) which gives a feeling of it's emptiness, I realized that presence itself is still being grasped at, specifically the clarity aspect. I investigated this by looking directly at presence itself (which also has no location) and seeing that it doesn't have clarity as an attribute as it's existence. More that there is presence and we give it the attribute "clarity" with our mind as a conceptual designation only. It doesn't inherently exist like that. At this point from my previous practices in seeing things as conceptual designations only, the mind saw presence was empty and stopped grasping it. At that moment I saw how there was still subtle grasping at the clarity of presence and how it was even nicer to let that go.

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection

- Reply
- 21h

Nick Wilson

That's fantastic, thanks so much Jayson. I've just tried to read your post without the voice. I can't do it! but it feels like I almost can. Very hard to see words without voicing them

I've found a similar but easier thing in listening to music. Have you noticed how your mind plays the music you're hearing a split sencod after you hear it? The mental impression of the music I guess. It's easy enough to shut that down and just pay bare attention but it feels quite similar to your reading voice thing. I will ponder the fine points of your investigation when I meditate in the morning lol..

- Reply
- 19h

Ina Clapp

Thank you for posting

- Reply
- 14h

John Tan: That is great insight but not just thoughts, sound, smell..etc. what abt colors, lights...vividly vision? Where is the lurid scenery right before the eyes now? Don't privileged mind over phenomena or phenomena over mind.

It does not only apply only to referent of conceptual constructs r not found, even non-dual presence is not found...taste this not found deeply...the -A...

Then look at DO....if mind is de-constructed, there is no mind and into anatta, and phenomena too r deconstructed....without privileging either mind or phenomena, move deeply into dependent designation/origination, taste the formation, deconstruction and see the freedom of natural and spontaneous perfection.

Post anatta, insight is not so much about the radiance of presence, that is a given, it is the +A and -A taste...

- Reply
- 12h

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../daniel-post-on...

JT:

Knowing is not enough...but taste the depth of how this "not found" becomes the wisdom that frees.

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Daniel's Post on Anatta/Emptiness

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 12h

Author

Putting aside Presence, Penetrate Deeply into Two Fold Emptiness · 8m

Yes exactly. I have been doing the not found tastes a lot recently. How mind is not found, thoughts are not found, I've done the vivid scenery not found in the past as well. Appearance is, but in no location at all

- Reply
- 51m

Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
JT:
Not found is more tasty than full presence 🤣🤣🤣
If extended to all appearances, then the entire body mind will be pervaded by this single taste of "not found" -- immensely spacious and free, natural and spontaneous. He should spend some quality time on that.
Then relate this taste to essencelessness and understand the conceptual relationship and experiential taste of:
--Essencelessness and the 8 extremes.
--Essencelessness and dependent designations.
--Essencelessness and total exertion.
--Essencelessness and the manifold of appearances.
1

· Reply
· 2m

Jayson MPaul
Author
Thanks! I will do that. Not found is more tasty than full presence 😁
1
· Reply
· 1m

Soh Wei Yu

JT:

Means see the essencelessness of what appears and refine the view of essencelessness according to the abv instead of relating through presence. Put presence aside · 12m

Soh Wei Yu

JT: U should focus on that instead of PCEs, it will help u relinquish fear, attachment and energy imbalances, radiance of presence will b soft and light, yet natural and immense. · 8m

Author

Seems like this: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../putting-aside...
Putting aside Presence, Penetrate Deeply into Two Fold Emptiness

Soh Wei Yu

JT: Yes related

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=28648&start=20

10/21/2012 3:44 PM: John: U expressed well in Total exertion. That is actualizing and being less dogmatic

10/21/2012 3:50 PM: John: As of now, u should hv no trace of innate clarity anymore...

10/21/2012 3:55 PM: John: After a while, u will forget everything abt this innate clarity...like view being actualized and cast aside

10/21/2012 4:01 PM: John: Ur practice entering the 3 states seem to progress well. All the six entries and exists must b beaming bright and energetic for u now..to penetrate the 3 states...

10/21/2012 4:02 PM: John: In addition ur faith and merit must be there

10/21/2012 4:02 PM: John: Practice hard

....

[9:23 AM, 6/3/2020] John Tan: Now if luminosity is intrinsic and inherent in all cognitive states of our continuum, how can it b prasangika?

[9:25 AM, 6/3/2020] John Tan: This is the issue of mahamudra and dzogchen despite claiming that mmk is the definitive view.

(Soh: Mahamudra and Dzogchen also teaches the emptiness of Awareness, so this is referring to certain teachers, texts and writings I just pasted to him)

Also important and relevant:

Wetness and Water

Malcolm:

The idea that things have natures is refuted by Nāgārjuna in the MMK, etc., Bhavaviveka, Candrakīrti, etc., in short by all Madhyamakas.

A "non-inherent nature" is a contradiction in terms.

The error of mundane, conventionally-valid perception is to believe that entities have natures, when in fact they do not, being phenomena that arise from conditions. It is quite easy to show a worldly person the contradiction in their thinking. Wetness and water are not two different things; therefore wetness is not the nature of water. Heat and fire are not two different things, therefore, heat is not the nature of fire, etc. For example, one can ask them, "Does wetness depend on water, or water on wetness?" If they claim wetness depends on water, ask them, where is there water that exists without wetness? If they claim the opposite, that water depends on wetness, ask them, where is there wetness that exists without water? If there is no wetness without water nor water without wetness, they can easily be shown that wetness is not a nature of water, but merely a name for the same entity under discussion. Thus, the assertion that wetness is the nature of water cannot survive analysis. The assertion of all other natures can be eliminated in the same way.

...

Then not only are you ignorant of the English language, but you are ignorant of Candrakīrti where, in the Prasannapāda, he states that the only nature is the natureless nature, emptiness.

Then, if it is asked what is this dharmatā of phenomena, it is the essence of phenomena. If it is ask what is an essence, it is a nature [or an inherent existence, rang bzhin]. If it is asked what is an inherent existence [or nature], it is emptiness. If it is asked what is emptiness, it is naturelessness [or absence of inherent existence]. If it is asked what is the absence of inherent existence [or naturelessness], it is suchness [tathāta]. If it is asked what is suchness, it is the essence of suchness that is unchanging and permanent, that is, because it is not fabricated it does not arise in all aspects and because it is not dependent, it is called the nature [or inherent existence] of fire, etc."

Labels: Ācārya Malcolm Smith, Emptiness, Madhyamaka |

DHARMAWHEEL.NET

Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 23h

[9:26 AM, 6/3/2020] John Tan: That [heat being a characteristic of fire] is precisely not prasangika and is rejected that heat is a characteristic of fire and wetness is a characteristic of water.

[9:27 AM, 6/3/2020] John Tan: In tsongkhapa difficult points, he rejected awareness.

- Reply
- 23h

Anyway it's a good insight you're having. Adding this to post-anatta contemplation in AtR guide.

- Reply
- 23h

John Tan asked if you are a student of Malcolm

Author

Alessandro Socio Migliori

I am not. I don't have a teacher at the moment. I followed the Mahasi method in the beginning and then dug into your blog. Most recently I have been following directions from Lama Lena on Mind-Mind looking as described in her Dzogchen videos tho.

- Reply
- 22h

where you on retreat yesterday or the previous time?

- Reply
- 18h

Alessandro Socio Migliori

Author

Not sure what you are asking here, but I have not been on retreat. Most of my practice these days takes place during the course of the day. Also what previous time are you referring to?

- Reply
- 18h

Alessandro Socio Migliori

there was a pointing out this week and last week

- Reply
- 18h

Author

Oh you are talking about Lama Lena? I was not in either. I was watching some older videos from 2019.

- Reply
- 18h

When you post about the ending of rigpa, you mean the ending of a substantialized awareness right? Not the ending of the cognizance/luminosity? I think of rigpa as the latter, not the former, so it is surprising to hear of it "ending."

(I saw your response to me about this earlier but I didn't see this point clarified.)

- Reply
  23h

Means what

is pointing to.

If you are not clear about what he is saying, you can ask him to elaborate...

Okay thank you, it is clear. I am surprised then that Malcolm uses the word "rigpa" to mean a reified presence as opposed to its usual definition as empty cognizance.

- Reply
- 22h

It means seeing, awareness and knowing is exhausted. This was my question to Anurag the other day.

- Reply
- 22h

But Jayson MPaul is pointing to an even subtler insight post-anatta.

- Reply
- 22h

Even AF Richard didn't see what Jayson MPaul is saying

- Reply
- 22h

https://www.kiloby.com/.../the-case-against-awareness-a...

Regarding emptiness of awareness:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../no-awareness-does...

KILOBY.COM

The Case Against Awareness – A Little Blasphemy Goes a Long Way

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22h

Perhaps it is just a terminology issue I am hung up on. The clarity / luminosity does not "stop" (because "when" could that even happen?). But it is no longer seen as the property of anything. It is totally empty.

Or maybe I should just ignore this for the time being

- Reply
- 22h

Check out those two articles, I think it will be clearer for you

- Reply
- 22h

Thank you. I think I am saying the same thing as those articles (which I read before). If I am not (as you seem to be suggesting) then I look forward to discovering that.

- Reply
- 22h
- Edited

I read the article of Scott Kiloby you posted. He is deconstructing the Awareness as Witness model i.e an awareness to which arisings appear. However what I am saying is that all phenomena are awareness. Now the confusion generally arises with this statement is that of a substantial Awareness moulding phenomena like gold is made into various ornaments. This is negated by the fact that Awareness is attributeless (free of all conceptual dualities - like substance/formless etc.) So one can say that Awareness is a conventional designation which is used to designate the fact that no phenomena have any inherent essence. Thus the word Awareness maps exactly to the word Emptiness. I also cleared that I use this word more because I want to say that Advaita is not reifying any "thing", "essence" or "background" in using the word Awareness. It has just started receiving some bad rap

What I meant by "seeing never gets exhausted" is that there is never a moment when there are no appearances. I did not talk of an impersonal background seer.

Attn:

- Reply
- 12h
- Edited

you write "luminosity... is not seen as a property of any thing". There are no "things" separate from luminosity. And luminosity is not any thing either.

- Reply
- 12h

I wrote "anything" and not "any thing." May seem like a minor difference, but words get really hard here, as I'm sure you appreciate. Another way to say it is that luminosity is not a property or attribute, period. Similarly, I'm sure Jayson did not mean that there are "things" when he wrote "Everything seemed to get "closer" or more intimate."

As he clarified below, he is using the word "presence" to indicate the subtle objectification of clarity. Sticking with that terminology, I think

Soh

is pointing out that rigpa-as-presence is exhausted, not that clarity is exhausted. Since I always understood the word "rigpa" to mean the empty clarity/luminosity anyway, I was surprised to hear Malcolm say that it is exhausted.

For some reason my language is still not connecting with Soh, and although I don't know why, I'm not sure it's worth worrying about right now.

- Reply
- 11h

, I understand what you wrote now and earlier too. I was not actually trying to point out anything to you, just making things more clear

- Reply
- 10h

language is always slippery, especially as we inch closer and closer to non-duality. What helps here is a little generosity from parties on both sides of the dialogue to clear things out. One thing we have to understand is that there are no "objective" referents to words. So I may use Awareness to imply or reify it as an essence, as is done in the Witness stage. This has its uses at a certain stage of self inquiry. Post collapse of Witness, Awareness is seen to be empty of all conceptual dualities/attributes. So the same word can be or rather is used in Advaita to denote Awareness as nature of all phenomena free from the four extreme views. [The last is mentioned by Gaudapada in Mandukya Karika]

"“Verse 4.83. Childish persons verily cover It (fail to know It) by predicating of It such attributes as existence, nonexistence, existence and non-existence and absolute nonexistence, derived respectively from their notion of change, immovability, combination of both and absolute negation.”

If this is understood it is not necessary for me to match my vocabulary.

I mention all this in my Stages of Self Inquiry page on my website. https://neevselfinquiry.in/stages-of-self-inquiry/

NEEVSELFINQUIRY.IN

Stages of Self Inquiry

- Reply
- 10h
- Edited

I agree with most of what you have written. One thing I don't understand is why you capitalize Awareness, or why "It" is capitalized in the Gaudapada quote. This definitely gives the impression of trying to establish the luminosity, as opposed to it being totally empty. A Buddhist might say there is no "It" or even "it," and that communicates something quite different to me, despite words having no objective referents.

- Reply
- 4h

BTW awareness and awareness cannot be synonyms, because emptiness is the mere fact that nothing can be ultimately established. There is a very important reason that Buddhist masters harp on the emptiness of the luminosity, and don't spend as much time talking about the luminosity (or "awareness") itself. If Advaita spent as much time tearing down awareness in the same way, it would be easier for me to see the parallel. Even the quote you give doesn't communicate to me that radical negation.

- Reply
- 3h
- Edited

I capitalize Awareness to denote it to be different from ordinary awareness that people mean: with a subject object duality. Every person knows he is aware. But we are talking about Awareness as the nature of phenomena.

For the rest, I can't comment anything more because it contains your personal impressions or preferences. One is free to go either which way.

If you feel Advaita has not spent time tearing down anything you can have a dialogue with me on what concept it has left deconstructed, I shall help you out with it. If you need a little help on understanding that quote, I can help you. It is the chatuskoti or the tetralemma or the four cornered negation spoken in a slightly condensed way.

- Reply
- 2h
- Edited

I guess you have to read more carefully. I have never "established" Awareness "inherently" anywhere. The tetralemma is precisely meant to obviate that. Since you had some difficulty in understanding it I shall repeat it again in a more detailed way.

One cannot say that

1. Awareness exists

2. Awareness does not exist

3. Awareness both exists and does not exist.

4. Awareness neither exists nor not exists.

You can interchange the word Awareness with phenomena as Awareness is phenomena.

- Reply
- 2h
- Edited

if you say "there is no 'it' " implying "There is no Awareness", you fall into the error of one of the four extreme views. (i.e - the second view above)

- Reply
- 2h
- Edited

John Tan said,

“Not sure what Anurag meant by nothing is established but sounded like instead of "freedom" from the 4 extremes of the tetralemma, there seem to b an establishment of a super Awareness that "transcends" the 4 extremes. Tetralemma has always been quite problematic

that is y Tsongkhapa added qualifiers like "exist conventionally" and "not exist ultimately" to present the tetralemma in a more logical fashion whereas other schools simply see the purpose is to pacify the mind from all views, notions and concepts instead of finding "something" that can transcend or satisfy all the 4 conditions.

Anyway it will be seen as quite final by any practitioner that collapses both subject and object into pure seeing. Unless 缘 arises to relinquish both awareness and phenomena, whatever said will be quite futile for now.”

- Reply
- 38m

- Reply
- 25m

Albert Hong

When you mean clarity do you mean as a subtle object?

Author

Albert Hong

I believe that is the same thing as what I meant. I was grasping clarity as inherently existing in presence. But like with any attribute (ie color), it is not located in the object. So perhaps presence is the subtle object in this case.

- Reply
- 21h

Albert Hong

As Lama Lena says. YarrrrTawa

- Reply
  17h

Michael Bridge

Is it a fair characterization of your post to say any sensation of awareness is merely inferred and/or conceptualized (or similarly, any possible categorization of awareness must be a thought)?