1 Comment

Dragan Milojević

Tan, you sound like a life coach

1

• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 4w

6 Comments

Irmina Wrona

Hi John, thank you for sharing. Great contemplation thought for today

2

1

1

1

• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 3w

• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 3w

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/rfo2m0/awareness_as_notself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Krodha = Kyle Dixon

level 1
krodha

 · 2 days ago

"How
 could "this" awareness (which knows life, death, and the states in
between, rather than ordinary vijnana) not be considered self? If it is
the one irreducible constant that remains when bodies, minds, and
objects pass, surely it would be considered one's true nature?"


Krodha:
When
 anātman is applied to the mind’s cognizance, the realization associated
 with that insight means we recognize, non-conceptually, that there is
not a seer of sights, or a hearer of sounds, etc.
For
 deluded sentient beings who dwell in dualistic consciousness, or
vijñāna, it experientially feels like there is an internal observer that
 is experiencing external phenomena that reside at a distance from the
observing cognizance.
In realizing
 anātman, that internal observer collapses and the practitioner realizes
 that there has never actually been a subjective observer at any point
in time. No seer of sights, no hearer of sounds, etc. That collapse of
the internal substratum removes the basis for a self, and the mind
awakens and realizes that the self is not real, and never has been. In
that insight it can still seem like phenomena are “over there” or “out
there” however the sights and sounds are just no longer mediated by an
internal reference point.
But just
 like the feeling of an internal observer can collapse, the feeling of
things being “out there” can also collapse, and that is the second fold
of anātman which applies to phenomenal appearances, which is synonymous
with emptiness or śūnyatā.
Rebirth
 only occurs because that internal observer remains in tact, because the
 fetters of I-making and mine-making persist. Buddhas have eliminated
those obscurations and so rebirth does not occur for them.
In
 short anātman in the context of awareness concerns the bifurcation of
experience into subject and object. The self is just this observing
reference point and the identity based on that reference point. But when
 that reference point disappears in awakened insight then the self is
completely gone for as long as that equipoise lasts. For Buddhas that
equipoise is unfragmented, for āryas it is fragmented and for deluded
sentient beings that equipoise is absent.

10








level 2
InfiniteQuestion5

Op · 2 days ago

Hi
 Krodha, thanks for a thorough take on the question. In reference to the
 nondual perception, however, what does one make of the apparent field
of phenomena that continue to arise? Is it regarded as "it is what it
is," AKA without name and "true reality," as a spontaneous activity?

2








level 3
krodha

 · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

For
 Buddhas the field of phenomena does not appear as external but as their
 own display. Essentially meaning that knowing and what is known are not
 different. What is known is itself the activity of knowing.
Rongzom:
Buddhas
 and bodhisattvas are the knowers, and unmistakable true reality is the
object of knowledge. Therefore, it is stated that there is no difference
 between knowledge and the object of knowledge.
Kūkai:
Although
 mind is distinguished from form, they share the same nature. Form is
mind, mind is forms. They interfuse with one another without difficulty.
 Therefore, knowing is the objects of knowledge, and the objects,
knowing. Knowing is reality, reality knowing.

7









level 4
xenobum

 · 2 days ago

can I just say, thank you for making these concepts much simpler to understand. you've helped me tremendously over the years.

4










level 4
InfiniteQuestion5

Op · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

Thanks!
 So, in essence... Buddhas are manifesting spontaneous wisdom and
purity? How does this fit in with the overlapping mindstreams idea of
Yogacara, in which various sentient beings collaborate to form realms?
Edit:
 Had a reread of the quotes a few times to wrap my head around them...
on reflection, it seems to be suggesting that all Buddhas are simply
instances of pure knowing. So in that sense, whatever manifests would be
 the activity of knowing. Hard to fully grasp!

1
- https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/rfo2m0/awareness_as_notself/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
[9:51 pm, 15/12/2021] John Tan: 👍 Kyle answer is good and rightly point out that anatta Initially only dissolve internal reference of self, "externality" as well as "physicality" will still need to be de-contructed and exhausted.
[9:53 pm, 15/12/2021] John Tan: Btw I rem writing something to u abt dependent designation that seer dependent on seen is no seer and seen dependent on seer is nothing seen. U know when is it?


Soh:

John TanSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:34am UTC+08 when we talk about illusion, there is a difference between water-moon and rabbit-horn. Appearances r like water-moon being dependently originated, without substance and base but not non-existent whereas inherent existence is rabbit horn, it is non-existence and does not exist even conventionally.


John TanSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:30am UTC+08
Therefore when seer is dependent on seeing/seen, there is no seer. When seen is dependent on seer/seeing, there is nothing seen.
Soh Wei YuSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:30am UTC+08
shld i post this?
John TanSunday, March 22, 2015 at 7:28am UTC+08When we see dependencies, we must also see the absence of phenomena. That is although phenomena appears, by its mere dependencies, it is absence. Absence when sought using Madhyamaka analysis.



John Tan: Yes




Soh:
John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:33pm UTC+08
U hv direct insight of anatta, y r u not able to understand seer dependent of seeing and seen as no seer? Because u r comparing direct insight of anatta (non conceptual experience) with conceptuality.
John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:28pm UTC+08
"Ultimate analysis" is just a way of analyzing the validness of true existence therefore dependent arising phenomena r not within the (ultimate analysis) scope. It is not used to negate conditioned existence that dependent originates.
Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:28pm UTC+08
Seen dependent on seeing and seer is nothing seen.. that makes sense.. can u expand what u mean seeing the way of the conventional is different from nonconceptual mode
John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:24pm UTC+08
What it meant is when madhyamikas employ "ultimate analysis" -- a systematic approach of analyzing the validity of ultimate/absolute mode of being, causality is impossible. Means if phenomena inherent exist, causality is impossible. Therefore it is not denying causality, contrary it is affirming causality by seeing emptiness of phenomena.
Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:18pm UTC+08
When fan and blowing are severed via seeing dependent designation, its casuality cannot be established? Like as in fan being inherent causal power of wind
John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:17pm UTC+08
For example "causality is impossible in ultimate analysis". What does that mean?
John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:13pm UTC+08
The 2 models of 2 truth of Mipham suits u better becoz it emphasizes meditative experiences. As for the gelug, u must be very careful of the way they use their jargons.
Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:07pm UTC+08
Of*
Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:06pm UTC+08
Oh.. so the fact that designations do not reference objective object makes it "mere"? Designation is not referring to an object but is designated dependent on parts and conditions and imputing consciousness.. like music is designated on the whole series on notes yet it does not reference anything in particular
John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 10:06pm UTC+08
What u expressed is quite good. Similarly u must understand "seen" dependent on "seeing" and "seer" is nothing seen...to taste emptiness of conceptuality u must see the way of the conventional is different from the non-conceptual mode just like not to look for shapes and colors in sound.
John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 9:59pm UTC+08
So to experience the "interconnectedness" of total exertion is to see the web of designations. There r 2 points u r missing: 1. "Mere" designation of Prasangika is special. It is not a designation that reference an objective object. 2. The other part u r missing is the dream in a dream to make these designations alive.
John TanTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 9:55pm UTC+08
So to experience of the "interconnectedness" of total exertion is to see the web of designation. The part u r missing is the dream in a dream to make these designations alive.
Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 8:44pm UTC+08
To see things as conventions liberates.. since we no longer see it terms of intrinsic existence. So emptiness leads to seeing things as mere conventions
Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 8:10pm UTC+08
And to see the emptiness of the conventions is not to negate the conventions.. its to let you see conventions not from standpoint of intrinsic existence but from their being dependently designated.. the two truths are one..
Soh Wei YuTuesday, December 23, 2014 at 7:04pm UTC+08
Now i see why u told me that seer dependent on seeing and seen is the same thing as no seer.. what is dependently designated is to have no existence of its own


Soh: i think you wrote something even earlier than that but dunno where



John Tan: Yeah