What is the I AM called in Buddhism?
Soh
    André A. Pais
    Admin
    I'm yet to listen to this, but definitely will. And I've asked this before, but don't think I got a straight answer: In Buddhism what would be the equivalent to the I Am realization, since mind ranges from being sixfold to at least eightfold? What could the 'observer' be in such a model? We could say pristine awareness or primordial wisdom could fill that role, but those notions are (or should be) way beyond the dualistic principle of witnessing, which, to my eyes, is indispensable to the I Am "realization."
    In simpler terms, there is never, to my knowledge, any singular 'observer' in Buddhism (and thus no observer at all). So, what could 'I Am' be then?
    1

  • Reply


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    André A. Pais As the AtR guide said, I AM is not dualistic witnessing.
    It is what we can call the luminous mind, as Ajahn Brahmavamso described.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    Also as John Tan said before, I AM is actually unfabricated clarity or pristine awareness
    1


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    Only mistaken later


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    So when people say they experience dualistic witnessing, I would say that is not the I AM realization. The I AM realization is nondual and non conceptual


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    From AtR guide:
    Question: “"So the direct path watches the watcher watch the watching . This is "I am"?"
    Soh: In the I AM, there is no watcher-watched, just pure Presence, Being. In other words, in the moment of authenticating Presence, you are not watching Presence as if a watcher, you are just Presence Being Presence. Self-Aware Beingness/Presence, non-dual. It is pure Awareness, the Witness, etc, but it is not merely a state of witnessing.
    Question: " I'm definitely still fabricating. Subtle fine fabrications. Watching the watcher watch the watcher watch. I feel like I need to go back to. Metta/Bodhi-citta meditation. That was working. Lately meditation is contrived and the relaxation feels like trying to relax in to awareness isn't working."
    Soh: I AM is the unfabricated Presence, without the recursive watching the watcher watching the watcher etc.
    At the moment you pause all concepts, all fabrication, what is left? There is an undeniable naked luminous sheer sense of Existence, Presence-Awareness, without a trace of separation into a watcher and object watched.
    Awareness aware of itself is simply awareness being itself. Self-aware presence.
    The mistake you seem to make is objectifying the watcher or awareness. Awareness is not an object outside of yourself to be sought or watched. There is no duality in it. It is pure naked Presence. It is You, your very essence.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    From AtR guide:
    As John Tan also said in 2011:
    “John: what is "I AM"
    is it a pce? (Soh: PCE = pure consciousness experience, see glossary at the bottom of this document)
    is there emotion
    is there feeling
    is there thought
    is there division or complete stillness?
    in hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound!
    so what is "I AM"?
    Soh Wei Yu: it is the same
    just that pure non conceptual thought
    John: is there 'being'?
    Soh Wei Yu: no, an ultimate identity is created as an afterthought
    John: indeed
    it is the mis-interpretation after that experience that is causing the confusion
    that experience itself is pure conscious experience
    there is nothing that is impure
    that is why it is a sense of pure existence
    it is only mistaken due to the 'wrong view'
    so it is a pure conscious experience in thought.
    not sound, taste, touch...etc
    PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) is about direct and pure experience of whatever we encounter in sight, sound, taste...
    the quality and depth of experience in sound
    in contacts
    in taste
    in scenery
    has he truly experience the immense luminous clarity in the senses?
    if so, what about 'thought'?
    when all senses are shut
    the pure sense of existence as it is when the senses are shut.
    then with senses open
    have a clear understanding
    do not compare irrationally without clear understanding”
    “...There is nothing underneath everything, in the state of I AM, it is just I AM. The rest of the 5 sense doors are shut. Everything else is excluded. It is called I simply because of the koan, nothing else.
    What’s experienced is similar to hearing sound without the sense of hearer. So keep the experience but refine the view.” - John Tan to someone in Awakening to Reality Discussion Group, 2019
    In 2007:
    (9:12 PM) Thusness: you don't think that "I AMness" is low stage of enlightenment leh
    (9:12 PM) Thusness: the experience is the same. it is just the clarity. In terms of insight. Not experience.
    (9:13 PM) AEN: icic..
    (9:13 PM) Thusness: so a person that has experience "I AMness" and non dual is the same. except the insight is different.
    (9:13 PM) AEN: oic
    (9:13 PM) Thusness: non dual is every moment there is the experience of presence. or the insight into the every moment experience of presence. because what that prevent that experience is the illusion of self and "I AM" is that distorted view. the experience is the same leh.
    (9:15 PM) Thusness: didn’t you see i always say there is nothing wrong with that experience to longchen, jonls... i only say it is skewed towards the thought realm. so don't differentiate but know what is the problem. I always say it is misinterpretation of the experience of presence. not the experience itself. but "I AMness" prevents us from seeing.
    1


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    In 2009:
    “(10:49 PM) Thusness: by the way you know about hokai description and "I AM" is the same experience?
    (10:50 PM) AEN: the watcher right
    (10:52 PM) Thusness: nope. i mean the shingon practice of the body, mind, speech into one.
    (10:53 PM) AEN: oh thats i am experience?
    (10:53 PM) Thusness: yes, except that the object of practice is not based on consciousness. what is meant by foreground? it is the disappearance of the background and whats left is it. similarly the "I AM" is the experience of no background and experiencing consciousness directly. that is why it is just simply "I-I" or "I AM"
    (10:57 PM) AEN: i've heard of the way people describe consciousness as the background consciousness becoming the foreground... so there's only consciousness aware of itself and thats still like I AM experience
    (10:57 PM) Thusness: that is why it is described that way, awareness aware of itself and as itself.
    (10:57 PM) AEN: but you also said I AM people sink to a background?
    (10:57 PM) Thusness: yes
    (10:57 PM) AEN: sinking to background = background becoming foreground?
    (10:58 PM) Thusness: that is why i said it is misunderstood. and we treat that as ultimate.
    (10:58 PM) AEN: icic but what hokai described is also nondual experience rite
    (10:58 PM) Thusness: I have told you many times that the experience is right but the understanding is wrong. that is why it is an insight and opening of the wisdom eyes. there is nothing wrong with the experience of I AM". did i say that there is anything wrong with it?
    (10:59 PM) AEN: nope
    (10:59 PM) Thusness: even in stage 4 what did I say?
    (11:00 PM) AEN: its the same experience except in sound, sight, etc
    (11:00 PM) Thusness: sound as the exact same experience as "I AM"... as presence.
    (11:00 PM) AEN: icic
    (11:00 PM) Thusness: yes”
    “"I AM" is a luminous thought in samadhi as I-I. Anatta is a realization of that in extending the insight to the 6 entries and exits.” – John Tan, 2018
    Excerpt from (a must read!) No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../no-awareness-does... :
    “2010:
    (11:15 PM) Thusness: but understanding it wrongly is another matter
    can you deny Witnessing?
    (11:16 PM) Thusness: can you deny that certainty of being?
    (11:16 PM) AEN: no
    (11:16 PM) Thusness: then there is nothing wrong with it
    how could you deny your very own existence?
    (11:17 PM) Thusness: how could you deny existence at all
    (11:17 PM) Thusness: there is nothing wrong experiencing directly without intermediary the pure sense of existence
    (11:18 PM) Thusness: after this direct experience, you should refine your understanding, your view, your insights
    (11:19 PM) Thusness: not after the experience, deviate from the right view, re-enforce your wrong view
    (11:19 PM) Thusness: you do not deny the witness, you refine your insight of it
    what is meant by non-dual
    (11:19 PM) Thusness: what is meant by non-conceptual
    what is being spontaneous
    what is the 'impersonality' aspect
    (11:20 PM) Thusness: what is luminosity.
    (11:20 PM) Thusness: you never experience anything unchanging
    (11:21
    PM) Thusness: in later phase, when you experience non-dual, there is
    still this tendency to focus on a background... and that will prevent ur
    progress into the direct insight into the TATA as described in the tata
    (11:22 PM) Thusness: and there are still different degree of intensity even you realized to that level.
    (11:23 PM) AEN: non dual?
    (11:23 PM) Thusness: tada (an article) is more than non-dual...it is phase 5-7
    (11:24 PM) AEN: oic..
    (11:24 PM) Thusness: it is all about the integration of the insight of anatta and emptiness
    (11:25
    PM) Thusness: vividness into transience, feeling what i called 'the
    texture and fabric' of Awareness as forms is very important
    then come emptiness
    (11:26 PM) Thusness: the integration of luminosity and emptiness
    (10:45 PM) Thusness: do not deny that Witnessing but refine the view, that is very important
    (10:46 PM) Thusness: so far, you have correctly emphasized the importance of witnessing
    (10:46 PM) Thusness: unlike in the past, you gave ppl the impression that you are denying this witnessing presence
    (10:46 PM) Thusness: you merely deny the personification, reification and objectification
    (10:47 PM) Thusness: so that you can progress further and realize our empty nature.
    but don't always post what i told you in msn
    (10:48 PM) Thusness: in no time, i will become sort of cult leader
    (10:48 PM) AEN: oic.. lol
    (10:49 PM) Thusness: anatta is no ordinary insight. When we can reach the
    level of thorough transparency, you will realize the benefits
    (10:50 PM) Thusness: non-conceptuality, clarity, luminosity, transparency,
    openness, spaciousness, thoughtlessness, non-locality...all these
    descriptions become quite meaningless.
    ….
    Session Start: Sunday, October 19, 2008
    (1:01 PM) Thusness: Yes
    (1:01 PM) Thusness: Actually practice is not to deny this 'Jue' (awareness)
    (6:11 PM) Thusness: the way you explained as if 'there is no Awareness'.
    (6:11 PM) Thusness: People at times mistaken what you are trying to convey.but to correctly understand this 'jue' so that it can be experienced from all moments effortlessly.
    (1:01 PM) Thusness: But when a practitioner heard that it is not 'IT', they immediately began to worry because it is their most precious state.
    (1:01 PM) Thusness: All the phases written is about this 'Jue' or Awareness.
    (1:01 PM) Thusness: However what Awareness really is isn't correctly experienced.
    (1:01PM) Thusness: Because it isn't correctly experienced, we say that 'Awareness that you try to keep' does not exist in such a way.
    (1:01 PM) Thusness: It does not mean there is no Awareness.”
    No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
    No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness
    No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 37m

    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    So actually I AM is exactly the same experience as anatta, just whether its nature is realised, as seen in excerpt above:
    (10:53 PM) Thusness: yes, except that the object of practice is not based on consciousness. what is meant by foreground? it is the disappearance of the background and whats left is it. similarly the "I AM" is the experience of no background and experiencing consciousness directly. that is why it is just simply "I-I" or "I AM"
    (10:57 PM) AEN: i've heard of the way people describe consciousness as the background consciousness becoming the foreground... so there's only consciousness aware of itself and thats still like I AM experience
    (10:57 PM) Thusness: that is why it is described that way, awareness aware of itself and as itself.


    • André A. Pais
    Admin
    Isn't that reading deeper insights into a coarser one? If at the stage of I Am one knows that it is unfabricated pristine awareness, then it's not I Am, right? The definition of I Am (and all other stages) rests on what people think it is about, not what it is actually about, right? Otherwise, ordinary people would be at "stage 7," because ordinary perception, too, is nothing other than unfabricated pristine awareness.

  • Reply


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    Different traditions call it differently. Some people call it subtle clear light, some just call it luminous mind, I think Dalai Lama also called it primordial wisdom.
    But as he rightly said, one must later realise its empty nature.
    Dalai Lama: "According to Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā, meditation on the clear and cognizant nature of the mind could lead the coarse winds to dissolve and the subtlest clear light mind to become manifest. When this happens, practitioners who have previously cultivated a correct understanding of emptiness then incorporate that understanding in their meditation and use the innate clear light mind to realize emptiness and abolish afflictions.
    It is important to understand the Sublime Continuum correctly from a Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā point of view. Some people take it literally, leading them to incorrectly believe that primordial wisdom is permanent, inherently existent, independent of any other factors, and does not rely on causes and conditions. They then make statements such as, “If you unravel this secret, you will be liberated.”
    Dodrup Jigme Tenpai Nyima (1865–1926) and his disciple Tsultrim Zangpo (1884–c.1957), who were great Dzogchen scholars and practitioners, said that the mere presence of this primordial wisdom within us alone cannot liberate us. Why not? At the time of death, all other minds have dissolved, and only the primordial mind remains. Even though it has manifested in all the infinite number of deaths we have experienced in saṃsāra, that has not helped us attain buddhahood. These two sages say that in order to attain buddhahood, it is necessary to utilize the primordial wisdom to realize emptiness; only that will liberate us. This is consistent with Tsongkhapa’s view. "

  • Elsewhere and multiple times the Dalai Lama also said things like,
    Dalai Lama - "Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels...." - Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book

    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    Ajahn Brahmavamso has his own long description which is in the AtR guide and I won't quote it here as it's been quoted many times...


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    "Isn't that reading deeper insights into a coarser one? If at the stage of I Am one knows that it is unfabricated pristine awareness, then it's not I Am, right? The definition of I Am (and all other stages) rests on what people think it is about, not what it is actually about, right? Otherwise, ordinary people would be at "stage 7," because ordinary perception, too, is nothing other than unfabricated pristine awareness."
    Even without insight into anatta and emptiness, the experience and actual authentication of I AM is non-dual, non-conceptual, etc... in that moment of realization, just Mind authenticating itself without duality and so on. When a person describe, he will also describe it that way. The only problem is that after that pure experience, when the person contrast the other senses and thoughts and experiences and compares it to the previous moment of non-dual Presence that was the "I AM" authentication, it subtly dualifies and turns the I AM into a background, which is just an image attempting to capture it in a dualistic paradigm. That is not the actual authentication of unfabricated presence-awareness itself, nor its nature, which was actually experienced as a 'foreground nondual presence'. It will capture and reify it in terms of an eternal self because its nature is not understood.
    After anatta, whether you want to call it I AM or luminous mind or subtle clear light or primordial wisdom or primordial mind is up to you. You can still call it self - the Dzogchen texts sometimes call it Maha atman (great self), except this self is now known as inseparable clarity and emptiness rather than a truly existing clarity having its own inherent essence, unchanging and so on.
    The reason I AM is called I AM in the case of John Tan is because of the koan:
    “...There is nothing underneath everything, in the state of I AM, it is just I AM. The rest of the 5 sense doors are shut. Everything else is excluded. It is called I simply because of the koan, nothing else.
    What’s experienced is similar to hearing sound without the sense of hearer. So keep the experience but refine the view.” - John Tan to someone in Awakening to Reality Discussion Group, 2019


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    Because of the confusion of this paradigm of duality and inherency, there will be a hard time trying to re-capture or re-authenticate that unfabricated presence/clarity because ignorance has a tendency to fabricate and project, whether as subject and object, an eternal background, self/Self, or world as solidly existing and truly arising/abiding/ceasing and so on and so forth.

    You can still capture or experience that unfabricated presence or "subtle clear light" or "primordial wisdom" in a state of nirvikalpa samadhi or through samatha. In that state all concepts are suspended including sense of duality and so on, only the pure taste of presence remains. But that alone will not lead to effortless spontaneous and liberating presence.. insight is necessary
    As John Tan commented on a friend's Ayahuasca experience describing a grandiose oceanic nondual presence and experience (spanning from I AMness to state of no mind and oneness with universe but as peak experiences) even though his paradigm and view was still dualistic and based on background and foreground,
    John TanSunday, April 28, 2013 at 2:32am UTC+10
    hm...was reading what u send me about Mr W's ayahuasca.
    John TanSunday, April 28, 2013 at 2:32am UTC+10
    The intensity of experience is there.
    John TanSunday, April 28, 2013 at 2:34am UTC+10
    yes oceanic happening-awareness
    John TanSunday, April 28, 2013 at 2:35am UTC+10
    mine is very much under controlled...lol...the intensity is there
    John TanSunday, April 28, 2013 at 2:36am UTC+10
    it is a very natural and effortless state
    John TanSunday, April 28, 2013 at 2:36am UTC+10
    his is like out of control...lol
    Soh Wei YuSunday, April 28, 2013 at 2:36am UTC+10
    lol..
    John TanSunday, April 28, 2013 at 2:39am UTC+10
    when the mind is so confused about the background and the phenomena, such intense experience will not arise unless probably with the help of such drug
    Soh Wei YuSunday, April 28, 2013 at 2:39am UTC+10
    oic..
    John TanSunday, April 28, 2013 at 2:41am UTC+10
    but [when] one is purified of the deep dualistic/inherent tendencies, the experience will surface and become a natural and effortless state.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    In another post:
    Excerpt:
    [5:24 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What is the most important experience in I M?
    [5:24 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: What must happen in I M?
    [5:25 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: There is not even an M, just I... complete stillness, just I correct?
    [5:26 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Realization, certainty of being.. yes just stillness and doubtless sense of I/Existence
    [5:26 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: And what is the complete stillness just I?
    [5:26 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Just I, just presence itself
    [5:28 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: This stillness absorbs excludes and includes everything into just I. What is that experience called?
    [5:29 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: I am everything?
    [5:29 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: That experience is non-dual.
    [5:30 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: And in that experience actually, there is no external nor internal, there is also no observer or observed.
    [5:30 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Just complete stillness as I.
    [5:31 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. yeah even I AM is nondual
    [5:31 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: That is ur first phase of a non dual experience.
    [5:32 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: We say this is the pure thought experience in stillness
    [5:32 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: Thought realm
    [5:33 PM, 4/24/2020] John Tan: But at that moment we don't know that...we treated that as ultimate reality.
    [5:33 PM, 4/24/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah
    Reality, I AM, nondual, anatta, karmic constructs and mental proliferation: a conversation with John Tan
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
    Reality, I AM, nondual, anatta, karmic constructs and mental proliferation: a conversation with John Tan
    Reality, I AM, nondual, anatta, karmic constructs and mental proliferation: a conversation with John Tan

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 4m

    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    William Lam: So, since I think a lot relies on the anatta experience, can you share with us a little bit more about the anatta experience?
    John Tan: the experience, there are two. One of them is… I separate experience from insight. So, why? Because you can have an experience, you can feel spacious, you can feel free, you can feel oceanic. That's an experience. There is no insight, means you can’t clearly see uh, there isn’t, from the beginning there is no self. Seeing through that, that is the insight. Experience means, you experience something, correct? So anatta means that, to me, that time when I realized… I started from presence, means I experienced presence directly. So presence there's a taste, means it is very clear, transparent, vivid, without concept, and all that kind of experience. That experience itself is actually non dual. But post that experience, you just become dualistic.
    William Lam: It's non conceptual.
    John Tan: It’s non conceptual. Yup. Okay. Presence is not conceptual experience, it has to be direct. And you just feel pure sense of existence. Means people ask you, before birth, who are you? You just authenticate the I, that is yourself, directly. So when you first authenticate that I, you are damn happy, of course. When young, that time, wah… I authenticate this I… so you thought that you’re enlightened, but then the journey continues. So this is the first time you taste something that is different. It is… It is before thoughts, there is no thoughts. Your mind is completely still. You feel still, you feel presence, and you know yourself. Before birth it is Me, after birth, it is also Me, 10,000 years it’s still this Me, 10,000 year before, it’s still this Me. So you authenticate that, your mind is just that and authenticate your own true being, so you don't doubt that. In later phase…
    Kenneth Bok: Presence is this I AM?
    John Tan: Presence is the same as I AM. Presence is the same as… of course, other people may disagree, but actually they're referring to the same thing. The same authentication, the same what... even in Zen is still the same.
    But in later phase, I conceive that as just the thought realm. Means, in the six, I always call the six entries and six exits, so there is the sound and there’s all these… During that time, you always say I’m not sound, I’m not the appearance, I AM the Self that is behind all these appearances, alright? So, sounds, sensations, all these come and go, your thoughts come and go, those are not me, correct? This is the ultimate Me. The Self is the ultimate Me. Correct?
    William Lam: So, is that nondual? The I AM stage. It’s non-conceptual, was it nondual?
    John Tan: It’s nonconceptual. Yes, it is nondual. Why is it nondual? At that moment, there is no duality at all, at that moment when you experience the Self, you cannot have duality, because you are authenticated directly as IT, as this pure sense of Being. So, it’s completely I, there’s nothing else, just I. There’s nothing else, just the Self. I think, many of you have experienced this, the I AM. So, you probably will go and visit all the Hinduism, sing song with them, meditate with them, sleep with them, correct? Those are the young days. I meditate with them, hours after hours, meditate, sit with them, eat with them, sing song with them, drum with them. Because this is what they preach, and you find these group of people, all talking about the same language.
    So this experience is not a normal experience, correct? I mean, within the probably 15 years of my life or 17 years of my life, my first... when I was 17, when you first experienced that, wah, what is that? So, it is something different, it is non conceptual, it is non dual, and all these. But it is very difficult to get back the experience. Very, very difficult, unless you're in when you're in meditation, because you reject the relative, the appearances. So, it is, although they may say no, no, it is always with me, because it's Self, correct? But you don't actually get back the authentication, just pure sense of existence, just me, because you reject the rest of that appearances, but you do not know during that time. Only after anatta, then you realize that this, when you when you hear sound without the background, that experience is exactly the same, the taste is exactly the same as the presence. The I AM Presence. So, only after anatta, when the background is gone, then you realize eh, this has the exact same taste as the I AM experience. When you are not hearing, you are just in the vivid appearances, the obvious appearances now, correct. That experience is also the I AM experience. When you are even now feeling your sensation without the sense of self directly. That experience is exactly the same as I AM taste. It is nondual. Then you realize, I call, actually, everything is Mind. Correct? Everything. So, so before that, there is an ultimate Self, a background, and you reject all those transient appearances. After that, that background is gone, you know? And then you are just all these appearances.
    ATR Meeting 28 October 2020
    DOCS.GOOGLE.COM
    ATR Meeting 28 October 2020
    ATR Meeting 28 October 2020

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1m

    • Soh Wei Yu
    Admin
    William Lam: You are the appearance? You are the sound? You are the…
    John Tan: Yes. So, so, that is an experience. That is an experience. So after that, you realize something. What did you realise? You realise all along it is the what, that is obscuring you. So… in a person, for a person that is in I AM experience, the pure presence experience, they will always have a dream. They will say that I hope I can 24 by 7 always in that state, correct? So when I was young, 17. But then after 10 years you are still thinking. Then after 20 years, you say how come I need to always meditate? You always find time to meditate, maybe I don't study also meditate, you give me a cave last time I will just meditate inside.
    So, the the thing that you always dream that you can one day be pure consciousness, just as pure consciousness, live as pure consciousness, but you never get it. And even if you meditate, occasionally probably you can have that oceanic experience. Only when you after anatta, when that self behind is gone, you are not 24 by 7, maybe most of your day, waking state, not so much of 24 by 7, you dream that time still very karmic depending on what you engage, doing business, all these. (John mimics dreaming) How come ah, the business…
    So, so, in normal waking state, you are effortless. Probably that is the, during I AM phase, what you think you are going to achieve, you achieve after the insight of anatta. So you become clear, you are probably in the right path. But there are further insights you have to go through. When you try to penetrate the… one of them is, I feel that I become very physical. I am just narrating, going through my experience. Maybe that time… because you experience the relative, the appearances directly. So everything becomes very physical. So that is how you come to understand the meaning, how concepts actually affect you. Then what exactly is physical? How does the idea of physical come about, correct? That time I still do not know about emptiness, and all these kind of things, to me it is not so important.
    So, I start going into what exactly is physical, what exactly is being physical? Sensation. But why is sensation known as physical, and what is being physical? How did I get the idea of being physical? So, I began to enquire into this thing. That, eh, actually on top of that, there is still further things to deconstruct, that is the meaning… that, just like self, I’m attached to the meaning of self, and you create a construct, it becomes a reification. Same thing, physicality also. So, you deconstruct the concepts surrounding physicality. Correct? So, when you deconstruct that, then I began to realize that all along, we try to understand, even after the experience of let’s say, anatta and all
    t
    hese… when we analyze, and when we think and try to understand something, we are using existin
    g scientific concepts, logic, common day to day logic and all these to understand something. And it is always excluding consciousness. Even if you experience, you can lead a spiritual path you know, but when you think and analyze something, somehow you always exclude consciousness from the equation of understanding something. Your concept is always very materialistic. We always exclude consciousness from the whole equation.

  • Reply
  • 1m
  •  
  •  



      • André A. Pais
      Admin
      Hi Mr. TJ. You mean consensus here at AtR, or amongst Buddhist schools / teachers? And by mind consciousness do you mean mental consciousness?
      In sutric models, consciousness is just a part of the perceptive apparatus. There is the object, the sense power and a specific type of consciousness. When these interact appropriately, a cognition arises as effect. In this process, I don't think there is a mind knowing itself. There is no knower, only a knowing (a cognition) that arises in dependence on causes and conditions.
      In more non-dual traditions (Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Zen?), mind seems to be referred in less pluralistic terms (like the 6 or 8 consciousnesses), and more in abstract or singular ways (the nature of mind, or simply mind). And since experience is non-dual, somehow the mind must be knowing itself. This is probably what you're referring to.
      I wonder if there's a bridge between the 2 views, because ultimately there is neither singularity nor plurality. So, in the beginning of the Buddhist path, "mind knowing itself" is improper, because there is no mind per se, just a bunch of dependently arising consciousnesses; in advanced stages, "mind knowing itself" seems to fall into reification, because no mind is to be found anywhere, and so such expression can only be pointing to the luminous and self-evident nature of appearances / experience. In both cases, "mind knowing mind" seems inappropriate. So I'm still failing to see where I Am (as in witnessing awareness) fits in the Buddhist scheme.

    • Reply


      • Soh Wei Yu
      Admin
      André A. Pais The I AM is a thought. So there is no problem fitting it in the suttas
      “John: what is "I AM"
      is it a pce? (Soh: PCE = pure consciousness experience, see glossary at the bottom of this document)
      is there emotion
      is there feeling
      is there thought
      is there division or complete stillness?
      in hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound!
      so what is "I AM"?
      Soh Wei Yu: it is the same
      just that pure non conceptual thought
      John: is there 'being'?
      Soh Wei Yu: no, an ultimate identity is created as an afterthought
      John: indeed
      it is the mis-interpretation after that experience that is causing the confusion
      that experience itself is pure conscious experience
      there is nothing that is impure
      that is why it is a sense of pure existence
      it is only mistaken due to the 'wrong view'
      so it is a pure conscious experience in thought.
      not sound, taste, touch...etc
      PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) is about direct and pure experience of whatever we encounter in sight, sound, taste...
      the quality and depth of experience in sound
      in contacts
      in taste
      in scenery
      has he truly experience the immense luminous clarity in the senses?
      if so, what about 'thought'?
      when all senses are shut
      the pure sense of existence as it is when the senses are shut.
      then with senses open
      have a clear understanding
      do not compare irrationally without clear understanding”
      “...There is nothing underneath everything, in the state of I AM, it is just I AM. The rest of the 5 sense doors are shut. Everything else is excluded. It is called I simply because of the koan, nothing else.
      What’s experienced is similar to hearing sound without the sense of hearer. So keep the experience but refine the view.” - John Tan to someone in Awakening to Reality Discussion Group, 2019
      ...
      “"I AM" is a luminous thought in samadhi as I-I. Anatta is a realization of that in extending the insight to the 6 entries and exits.” – John Tan, 2018

      • Reply
      • 1h
      • Edited

      • Soh Wei Yu
      Admin
      Also I wrote recently, quoting from the suttas on luminous mind:
      Soh Wei Yu
      Ng Xin Zhao I would say that the I AM can be mapped to the luminous mind taught in the Pali sutta, and you find Ajahn Brahmavamso and many other teachers also
      related them that way.
      Also, the first four stages of the 7 phases are not restricted to Buddhism. It can be found in other religions. Only the anatta and dependent origination as emphasized in the pali suttas are unique Buddhist insights. Therefore anything before anatta and dependent origination is not considered Buddhist form of enlightenment.
      The Buddha taught different methods to different people. If we look at the first two suttas he taught to his first 5 monks, it was first the four noble truths and this led someone to stream entry, and then the second discourse was on anatta, and this led all five monks to arahantship. So we can see the emphasis of his teachings even in the first two discourses, and the key in liberation is anatta rather than atman, and also the suffering, cause, end and path that ends suffering. It is entirely based on dependent origination and release without recourse to an essence.
      On the other hand, the Buddha learnt meditation under two Samkhya teachers prior to his enlightenment. The Samkhya teachings lead to the realization of Atman. So the Buddha clearly has attained these states under those teachers prior to his awakening, although he abandoned those teachers as he was dissatisfied with those earlier realisations and attainments. I personally think he has gone through atman as infinite consciousness, followed by 'absolute as nothingness and non percipience' which are the last two formless jhanas. Even today you find modern Advaita teachers like Nisargadatta who teaches one to reach atman as infinite consciousness, followed by the atman/absolute as nothingness and non-percipience. I think from Buddha's
      experience with them he has a clear understanding of Samkhya teachings and also refuted such views in suttas like MN 1 https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN1.html later on.
      MN 1 Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
      MN 1 Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
      MN 1 Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
      1
      Reply
      Remove Preview
      1wEdited
      Soh Wei Yu
      But it is the wrong understanding that he rejected, not so much the luminosity that is realized and experienced.
      The Buddha said, "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind.[9] "
      On the fourth jhana, Buddha
      said "Again, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous passing away of joy and dejection, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the fourth jhāna, neither painful nor pleasant, which has purification of mindfulness by equanimity. He sits pervading this body with a pure bright mind, so that there is no part of his whole body that is not pervaded by the pure bright mind. Just as a man might be sitting covered from the head down with a white cloth, so that there would be no part of his whole body that is not pervaded by the white cloth; so too, the bhikkhu sits pervading this body with a pure bright mind, so that there is no part of his whole body that is not pervaded by the pure bright mind. This is the fourth development of noble five-factored right concentration."
      And even after liberation, this is what is to be experienced,
      “‘This question should not be asked in this way: Where do these four great elements—the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property—cease without remainder? Instead, the question should be asked like this:
      “‘Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
      have no footing?
      Where are long & short,
      coarse & fine,
      fair & foul,
      name & form
      brought to an end?
      “‘And the answer to that is:
      “‘Consciousness without surface,2
      without end,
      luminous all around:
      Here water, earth, fire, & wind
      have no footing.
      Here long & short
      coarse & fine
      fair & foul
      name & form
      are all brought to an end.
      With the cessation of (the activity of) consciousness
      each is here brought to an end.’”
      That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevaṭṭa the householder delighted in the Blessed One’s words.
      2
      Reply
      1wEdited
      MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
      DHAMMATALKS.ORG
      MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
      MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
      1

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 1h

      • Soh Wei Yu
      Admin
      Also, Ajahn Brahmavamso:
      “When the Body Disappears.
      Remember "con men," "con women" as well. These con men can sell you anything! There's one living in your mind right now, and you believe every word he says! His name is Thinking. When you let go of that inner talk and get silent, you get happy. Then when you let go of the movement of the mind and stay with the breath, you experience even more delight. Then when you let go of the body ,all these five senses disappear and you're really blissing out. This is original Buddhism. Sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch completely vanish. This is like being in a sensory deprivation chamber but much better. But it's not just silence, you just don't hear anything. It's not just blackness, you just don't see anything. It's not just a feeling of comfort in the body, there is no body at all.
      When the body disappears that really starts to feel great. You know of all those people who have out of the body experiences? When the body dies, every person has that experience, they float out of the body. And one of the things they always say is it's so peaceful, so beautiful, so blissful. It's the same in meditation when the body disappears, it's so peaceful, so beautiful, so blissful when you are free from this body. What's left? Here there's no sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. This is what the Buddha called the mind in deep meditation. When the body disappears what is left is the mind.
      I gave a simile to a monk the other night. Imagine an Emperor who is wearing a long pair of trousers and a big tunic. He's got shoes on his feet, a scarf around the bottom half of his head and a hat on the top half of his head. You can't see him at all because he's completely covered in five garments. It's the same with the mind. It's completely covered with sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. So people don't know it. They just know the garments. When they see the Emperor, they just see the robes and the garments. They don't know who lives inside them. And so it is no wonder they're confused about what is life, what is mind, who is this inside of here, where did I come from? Why? What am I supposed to be doing with this life? When the five senses disappear, it's like unclothing the Emperor and seeing what is actually in here, what's actually running the show, who's listening to these words, who's seeing, who's feeling life, who this is. When the five senses disappear, you're coming close to the answer to those questions.
      What you're seeing in such deep meditation is that which we call "mind," (in Pali it's called Citta). The Buddha used this beautiful simile. When there is a full moon on a cloudy night, even though it's a full moon, you can hardly see it. Sometimes when the clouds are thin, you can see this hazy shape shining though. You know there is something there. This is like the meditation just before you've entered into these profound states. You know there is something there, but you can't quite make it out. There's still some "clothes" left. You're still thinking and doing, feeling the body or hearing sounds. But there does come a time, and this is the Buddha's simile, when the moon is released from the clouds and there in the clear night sky you can see the beautiful full disc of the moon shining brilliantly, and you know that's the moon. The moon is there; the moon is real, and it's not just some sort of side effect of the clouds. This is what happens in meditation when you see the mind. You see clearly that the mind is not some side effect of the brain. You see the mind, and you know the mind. The Buddha said that the mind released is beautiful, is brilliant, is radiant. So not only are these blissful experiences, they're meaningful experiences as well.
      How many people may have heard about rebirth but still don't really believe it? How can rebirth happen? Certainly the body doesn't get reborn. That's why when people ask me where do you go when you die, "one of two places" I say "Fremantle or Karrakatta" that's where the body goes! [3] But is that where the mind goes? Sometimes people are so stupid in this world, they think the body is all there is, that there is no mind. So when you get cremated or buried that's it, that's done with, all has ended. The only way you can argue with this view is by developing the meditation that the Buddha achieved under the Bodhi tree. Then you can see the mind for yourself in clear awareness - not in some hypnotic trance, not in dullness - but in the clear awareness. This is knowing the mind
      Knowing the Mind.
      When you know that mind, when you see it for yourself, one of the results will be an insight that the mind is independent of this body. Independence means that when this body breaks up and dies, when it's cremated or when it's buried, or however it's destroyed after death, it will not affect the mind. You know this because you see the nature of the mind. That mind which you see will transcend bodily death. The first thing which you will see for yourself, the insight which is as clear as the nose on your face, is that there is something more to life than this physical body that we take to be me. Secondly you can recognise that that mind, essentially, is no different than that process of consciousness which is in all beings. Whether it's human beings or animals or even insects, of any gender, age or race, you see that that which is in common to all life is this mind, this consciousness, the source of doing.
      Once you see that, you have much more respect for your fellow beings. Not just respect for your own race, your own tribe or your own religion, not just for human beings, but for all beings. It's a wonderfully high-minded idea. "May all beings be happy and well and may we respect all nations, all peoples, even all beings." However this is how you achieve that! You truly get compassion only when we see that others are fundamentally just as ourselves. If you think that a cow is completely different from you, that cows don't think like human beings, then it's easy to eat one. But can you eat your grandmother? She's too much like you. Can you eat an ant? Maybe you'd kill an ant because you think that ants aren't like you. But if you look carefully at ants, they are no different. In a forest monastery living out in the bush, close to nature, one of the things you become so convinced of is that animals have emotions and , especially, feel pain. You begin to recognise the personality of the animals, of the Kookaburras,(Australian bird) of the mice, the ants, and the spiders. Each one of those spiders has a mind just like you have. Once you see that you can understand the Buddha's compassion for all beings. You can also understand how rebirth can occur between all species - not just human beings to human beings, but animals to humans, humans to animals. You can understand also how the mind is the source of all this.”
      WEBCACHE.GOOGLEUSERCONTENT.COM
      Ajahn Brahm - Meditation: The Heart of Buddhism
      Ajahn Brahm - Meditation: The Heart of Buddhism
      1

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 1h

      • Soh Wei Yu
      Admin
      "In more non-dual traditions (Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Zen?), mind seems to be referred in less pluralistic terms (like the 6 or 8 consciousnesses), and more in abstract or singular ways (the nature of mind, or simply mind). And since experience is non-dual, somehow the mind must be knowing itself. This is probably what you're referring to. "
      But also, even in Mahamudra and Dzogchen, mind is not singular like brahman but also understood as a mindstream - it is momentary. And ultimately non-arising.
      Malcolm:
      Also, the Buddha was quite clear that phenomena, including minds, were momentary. The Buddha may not have elaborated in detail upon what a "moment" was, but in the end, the basic unit of time in Buddhism is number of moments it takes to form a thought. In reality, moments are partless. Partless moments that perish as soon as they arise have no observable duration and are immune from Madhyamaka critique.
      The notion that the mind is permanent (i.e. not momentary) is just a Hindu idea, Vedantic.
      Consciousness is Momentary
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Consciousness is Momentary
      Consciousness is Momentary

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 1h

      • Soh Wei Yu
      Admin
      Malcolm wrote:
      Yes, I understand. All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause.
      PadmaVonSamba wrote:
      isn't this cause, too, an object of awareness? Isn't there awareness of this cause? If awareness of this cause is awareness itself, then isn't this awareness of awareness? What causes awareness of awareness, if not awareness?
      If awareness is the cause of awareness, isn't it its own cause?
      Malcolm wrote:
      Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.
      Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,
      Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."
      PadmaVonSamba wrote:
      I am not referring to cognition, rather, the causes of that cognition.
      Malcolm wrote:
      Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all.
      If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land.
      Malcolm wrote:
      There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma.
      Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
      Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 1h

      • Soh Wei Yu
      Admin
      Malcolm, 2016: " In order for one thing to depend on another thing, one thing must arise upon which another must depend. But this does not solve anything. Why? Since the arising of even one thing cannot be established, there is no arising. Everything which appears is merely a unconditioned self-apparent display nondual with an unconditioned self-originated pristine consciousness."

    • Reply
    • 1h
     
Labels: 0 comments | | edit post