Awakening to Reality

Soh

Yin Ling

This is me- still holding a slight attachment

Crucial advice

69 Comments

I don't want to say too much here, but it is interesting how your perception of Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche seems to differ from that of Soh regarding what he is pointing out in his books!

Yin Ling

Aditya Prasad hmm I don’t think I get what u are saying ?

U want to say more? Lol

- Reply
- 1d

Soh Wei Yu

Aditya Prasad Doesn't mean there are tendencies towards one mind that his books are not worth reading. They are still good and worth reading and I even have some Tulku Urgyen excerpts in the AtR guide.

[23/11/19, 6:56:49 PM] John Tan: Urgyen vajra songs is quite good. But I thought he used to sound very I Mness?

[23/11/19, 6:57:29 PM] John Tan: Remember the 2 words I told u if one is free from inherency? Know I know what it meant in dzogchen...

[23/11/19, 7:02:52 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

[23/11/19, 7:03:01 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Vajra? Space? Lol

[23/11/19, 7:05:44 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Got some parts sound like one mind

‎[23/11/19, 7:05:48 PM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎image omitted

‎[23/11/19, 7:08:00 PM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎image omitted

‎[23/11/19, 7:12:54 PM] Soh Wei Yu: urgyen_vajra-speech.pdf • ‎196 pages ‎document omitted

[23/11/19, 7:13:42 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Do u think he is anatta and emptiness?

[23/11/19, 7:16:19 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Also elsewhere outside the book he said

[super long post snipped]

[23/11/19, 9:41:59 PM] John Tan: No

[23/11/19, 9:42:03 PM] John Tan:

[23/11/19, 9:43:51 PM] John Tan: Think but it is not easy to know...free from inherency, how will happen? Actually in the early phase u always like to talk about it I told u don't anyhow say until later part of ur journey

[23/11/19, 10:04:02 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Spontaneous presence?

[23/11/19, 10:04:14 PM] John Tan: LOL

[23/11/19, 10:04:22 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Lol

[23/11/19, 10:15:44 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Self liberating?

[23/11/19, 10:37:06 PM] John Tan: Spontaneous is correct

[23/11/19, 10:38:34 PM] John Tan: When u see through inherency, u must become natural and spontaneous, fully present and alive.

[23/11/19, 10:39:44 PM] John Tan: In the vajra songs I think, it is called togal

[23/11/19, 10:39:54 PM] John Tan: Spontaneous present

[23/11/19, 10:41:29 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

[23/11/19, 10:41:33 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Togal is the practice

[23/11/19, 10:41:45 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Where u see visions and go through four stages

[23/11/19, 10:41:57 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Final stage is exhaustion of phenomena and attain rainbow bodt

[23/11/19, 10:41:59 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Body

[23/11/19, 10:42:07 PM] John Tan: U read the vajra songs

[23/11/19, 10:42:24 PM] John Tan: I think it is quite good and can be understood to anatta

[23/11/19, 10:43:01 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

[23/11/19, 10:43:10 PM] Soh Wei Yu: But how about his other books some sound like one mind

[23/11/19, 10:43:18 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Like the ones i quote

[23/11/19, 10:43:40 PM] John Tan: Yeah

[23/11/19, 10:44:29 PM] John Tan: This base, ground, basis is a problem. The seeing through is important for experiential insight to arise.

[23/11/19, 10:45:15 PM] John Tan: I wonder y dzogchen like to emphasis these "conventional ground" as if they r real.

[23/11/19, 10:45:52 PM] John Tan: Dzogchen masters I mean.

[23/11/19, 10:46:09 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

[23/11/19, 10:47:28 PM] John Tan: Anyway enough have been said and emphasized, no point keep talking. Just read and see resonates with ur insights.

...

[24/11/19, 12:31:38 PM] Soh Wei Yu: I see everything as apparent absence.. actually the eight examples of illusions are a perfect illustration so i dunno why tulku urgyen de emphasize that while also mentioning it in the book

[24/11/19, 12:34:33 PM] John Tan: Because his emphasis is one mind

[24/11/19, 12:35:06 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

[24/11/19, 12:43:30 PM] John Tan: Absence implies "something" that was "there" but was realized to b "not there", that to me is along the path. So ultimate realization must b what? If it wasn't there but was thought to b there, then what is it?

- Reply
- 1d

Soh Wei Yu

Same for Tenzin Wangyal's dream yoga book. John Tan told me to re read it back in 2018 even if its not exactly anatta sort of understanding because there are many other important points in it.

- Reply
- 1d
- Edited

Yin Ling

It’s this book. Andre recommended so I downloaded.

So far so good.

Actually I think it’s vv good. A lot of advice and confidence I got from this book.

Haven’t find anything that doesn’t fit my insight or understanding

May be an image of text that says 'RAINBOW PAINTING A Collection of Miscellancous Aspects of Development and Completion TULKU URGYEN RINPOCHE Foreword by Chökyi yima Rinpoche'

- Reply
- 1d

Soh Wei Yu

Yin Ling I also like that book.

Maybe this part I may not express it this way --

Session Start: Friday, 2 October, 2009

(Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, Rainbow Painting: "All our thoughts come out of the buddha nature as its expression, like rays of sunlight emanate from the sun. It is not that the sun comes out of the rays.")

(7:53 PM) Thusness: Tulku Urgyen makes a good statement but that is before understanding stage 5 and 6.

(7:53 PM) Thusness: that is without the source, nothing happens

(7:55 PM) Thusness: However in Buddhism, insight is to see, penetrate and investigate and become thoroughly clear that the idea of a source, an essence is unnecessary. Once you experience and arise the insight of anatta, u begin open to happening without source, without the need of an essence.

(7:56 PM) Thusness: This is then the beginning of Buddhism.

(11:51 PM) AEN: http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/index.php...

still there

(11:52 PM) AEN: i go update the link

(12:01 AM) AEN: http://now-for-you.com/viewtopic.php?t=5593

(12:04 AM) AEN: oh ya btw vajrahridaya and some others think tulku urgyen writings is prone to advaita

u read the 'as it is' right? what u tink

(12:04 AM) Thusness: yeah

i commented

(12:04 AM) AEN: oic where

(12:05 AM) Thusness: to u...i said that is only true when one after non-dual experience still rest in a subject-object view.

(12:07 AM) AEN: oic...

(12:08 AM) Thusness: however if one thoroughly eliminates the agent through the insight of anatta, then the practitioner will not make such a remark. He will gradually move into the dependent origination and no-self. To know the breadth and depth of no-self, be willing to drop also the view and replace it with DO. Rest on a view that requires no source and essence.

(12:09 AM) AEN: icic..

(1:03 AM) AEN: i read that tulku urgyen rinpoche has a literal take of the shentong view.. his view is inclined to shentong

(1:03 AM) AEN: btw it's fine to talk about source right? i mean The Supreme Source talks about it.... but i think its different from other non-buddhist views?

(1:04 AM) Thusness: talking about the source is okie but ur understanding of how things are interdependent without a source.

(1:04 AM) Thusness: when u hear sound

do u say awareness is the source?

(1:05 AM) Thusness: or when u hit a bell, the bell is the source of the sound?

or the stick?

(1:05 AM) AEN: the supreme source seems to state that consciousness is the source of everything but at the same time it says all manifestations are the display of me (consciousness)... so it doesnt dualify source/manifestation i think

(1:06 AM) Thusness: there is no duality and there is no effort in the supreme source

(1:06 AM) AEN: icic..

(1:06 AM) Thusness: what i want u to know is to eliminate the entire idea of a source

(1:07 AM) Thusness: but that comes after non-dual and u really feel like awareness is the source of everything even after non-dual realization, u felt that awareness is the source

(1:07 AM) Thusness: experience is non-dual, even after realization, there is still an idea of a source

why is this so?

(1:08 AM) Thusness: why can't we eliminate the idea of a source even after the experience of anatta?

(1:08 AM) Thusness: clearly there is no agent

thought after thought without an agent

a thinker

(1:09 AM) Thusness: in complete clarity we see this

yet the idea of a source still persist

(1:09 AM) Thusness: this is why i meant desync of view and experience

therefore replace the view

(1:10 AM) AEN: oic..

(1:12 AM) Thusness: kok ur head...since when did i say dharma dan is an arhant

(1:12 AM) Thusness: i said his insight is deep and profound

(1:13 AM) AEN: icic..

(1:13 AM) Thusness: and many practitioners are not his level

(1:13 AM) AEN: oic..

(1:13 AM) Thusness: i believe I nv said he is an arahat

(1:14 AM) Thusness: even ajahn chah, i never said i think he is an arahat

(1:14 AM) Thusness: i nv said anyone is an arhat.

(1:14 AM) AEN: lol

icic..

(1:16 AM) Thusness: i am never interested in others attainment

i merely tell u, the depth of his insight

(1:16 AM) Thusness: how will that help u in a practical sense

(1:17 AM) AEN: oic..

(3:36 AM) AEN: Come to think of it now, why didn't I become like a blind and deaf person right away? "Blind and deaf" here means a state of mind where there is nothing to see and nothing to hear. When you see, there's only the seeing, and the subject

that sees doesn't exist. When you hear, there's only the hearing, and the subject that hears doesn't exist. The objects which are seen or heard are, just as they are, without substance. But understanding the logic of this will not do. When this is realized as a fact, you become like a "blind and deaf" person.

...The point is why the person inside the hermitage (subject) cannot see the things "in front of the hermitage" (object). That's because there isn't anything in front of the hermitage. You may say that there is only the subject, there being no object at all. Yet, in actual truth, that "subject" doesn't exist either.

(3:36 AM) AEN:

The water flows of itself and the flowers are naturally red.

The water runs smoothly, the flowers are colored scarlet. This line seems to imply that there are only the objects and there's no subject at all. However, as a matter of fact, those objects do not exist at all.

It's simply that the water is running smoothly, and flowers are scarlet. Everything is just as it is [tada korekore], and everything is void as it is

now [arugamama no aritsubure]. The fact that there is no distinction between self and others simply continues without end - "The water flows of itself and the flowers are naturally red.".

(3:47 AM) AEN: http://www.terebess.hu/english/oxherding.html

Session Start: Saturday, 3 October, 2009

(3:03 PM) AEN: i asked namdrol "Just to clarify: in your understanding, all Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras/tantras come from realized masters other than Buddha?" he replied "Yup."

(10:32 PM) Thusness: That is zen enlightenment.

BUDDHISMWITHOUTBOUNDARIES.COM

Buddhism Without Boundaries - Buddhist Forum

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1d

Yin Ling

Soh Wei Yu oh I get what u mean now.

When I read this sun and Sun ray description I didn’t see it this way, I see it as 2 truths like the sun is the emptienss while the ray is DO

And eventually he always go back to “there’s no rays without the sun”, no heat without fire, as in the unity of 2 truths as one.

Maybe thats my understanding so it doesn’t create any dissonance

- Reply
- 1d

Yin Ling

Soh Wei Yu coz experientially if we feel “sun” we never feel “2”.. it’s just this one whole manifestation hence

Everything is also like that

But I can see if someone doesn’t have insight this way they can reify background

- Reply
- 1d

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu have you thought about that even though dzogchen teachers doesnt have clearly exemplified anatta, that doesnt put them in substantialist view? Its different practice using pointing put instructions vs how other mahayana schools practice, lik…

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA

I have seen many clearly substantialist dzogchen teachers but this is not a problem restricted to Dzogchen.

Privately I have ranted to people including but not limited to John Tan about how disappointed I am at the degenerate state of Buddhism today. I will leave out the unpleasant details.

But know that this is not limited to Dzogchen. Mahamudra, Zen, Theravada teachers (see http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../seven-stages-and... ), at least in modern times most only got as far as Awareness teachings (I AM and one mind)

This is also the case in ancient times.

See how Dogen criticise his contemporary Zen masters here: see second half of http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../my-opinion-on...

Also, i wrote in the AtR guide: “Dogen is really a difficult person with whom to practice. In a sense, he’s so stubborn and picky. Many Zen texts agree with this theory in these sutras and Zongmi’s. Dogen is a very unusual and unique Zen master. To be his student is a difficult thing." - Shohaku Okumura

“And it is not just I that would openly criticise the views of these teachers and practitioners. Zen Master Dogen was very open about criticizing his contemporary Zen masters that fall into such views. It was very common for Zen masters to get stuck at I AM and One Mind back then, as it is today. Zen Master Dogen was a rare beacon of clarity, although of course there are some other Zen masters that were also clear. Zen Master Dogen would not mince a word at critiquing his contemporaries or those who hold erroneous views, and would even use words that I would not use, like 'madmen' to describe holders of such view.

To point out how rare anatta and emptiness realisation is, I would also like to quote a passage from 'Introduction to the Middle Way: Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara with Commentary by Jamgon Mipham',

"There is a story that once when Atisha was in Tibet, he received news of the death of the master Maitripa. He was deeply grieved, and on being questioned about the reasons for his sorrow, he replied that Buddhism was in decline in India and that everywhere there was syncretism and confusion. Until then, Atisha continued, there had been only two masters in the whole of India, Maitripa and himself, capable of discerning the correct teaching from the doctrines and practices of the reviving Hindu schools. The time is sure to come, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche commented, and perhaps it is already here, when there will be an analogous situation in the West. Only the correct establishment of the view will enable one to find one's way through the religious confusion of the modern West and to distinguish authentic Buddhism from the New Age "self-help" versions that are already taking hold.”

Just like it is rare today to find someone who is able to penetrate wrong views and distinguish between the views of I AM/One Mind and anatta & emptiness, it was rare even in ancient times.

- Reply
- 1d
- Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Personally, I just find myself so fortunate to have come to know John Tan, otherwise I will 100% be stuck at I AM like so many other practitioners and teachers. It is rare now, just like it was rare back in the days to have someone with such clarity, to be able to distinguish clearly and have such deep comprehension.” - Soh, About whether XYZ teacher realised anatta, etc

If you find it is strange that there were only two masters in the whole of India that had realized anatta back then in the 11th century, a similar analogous situation is present today – I can only find two dharma teachers in the whole of India (a sub-continent with over 1 billion+ population) that is currently teaching from the experiential insight of anatman – the Dzogchen practitioners/teachers Prabodha Jnana Yogi* and Abhaya Devi Yogini. You’ll probably say, well, that’s to be expected because Buddhism largely died out in India, Hinduism being its current predominant religion, so of course the Atman view must be prevalent. However, I would also add that throughout China and Taiwan (where roughly 20% and 35% respectively are Buddhists), another subcontinent with currently over 1+ billion people, I can only find two dharma teachers that teaches with the experiential insight into anatman – Zen Master Hong Wen Liang （洪文亮禅师）and Zen Master Hui Lu （慧律法师）(update: September 2020, found the third one: 继程法师. Upate 2021: sorry, 继程法师 doesn’t live in China but in Malaysia.). The others, as I found, mostly teach from the realization of I AM and one mind. I believe this is largely due to the gradual evolution of doctrinal influences over hundreds/thousands of years that made the Chinese Mahayana teaching gradually deviate from the original doctrine of No-Mind/Anatman taught by the first Ch’an Patriarch Bodhidharma, as I discussed in Problem with Many Zen Teachings, and perhaps elucidated more clearly in scholastic books like How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the Way to China (which I never read, but the synposis seems interesting). Interestingly, insight into anatman is somewhat more common in the west at the moment. Realization of anatman is seemingly more common in Soto Zen (a Japanese Zen sect that was derived from the Chinese Cao Dong school of Ch’an Buddhism) perhaps due to the emphasis on the study of its founder Zen Master Dogen’s teachings, but I have known people who realize anatman in all the three main Buddhist traditions – Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, and within Vajrayana I know of and can name people [currently alive] who realized anatta in basically all the subsects of Vajrayana, so I know that this insight is fundamental to all Buddhist traditions without exception, although not always commonly attained.

Arcaya Malcolm said in 2020, “While there are problems with Sino-Japanese concepts of self, as eloquently illustrated by the late Jungnok Park in his How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the Way to China, the idea of all phenomena possessing buddhanature that we see frequently mentioned in Sino-Japanese Buddhism is not a problematic at all, if understood as Nāgārjuna states it in the MMK, "Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world. As the Tathāgata has no nature, the world has no nature."”

For Dzogchen, Dzogchen teachers Acarya Malcolm Smith and his student Kyle Dixon are very clear: https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../clarification...

Prabodha Yogi and Abhaya Devi Yogini are also very clear: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/04/way-of-bodhi.html

When I was in California in 2019 I asked Kyle Dixon if he attended Dzogchen talks in San Francisco. He turned and looked and me, and told me, not really. I asked why? He said well.. like you, I wasn’t really impressed with the understanding of the Dzogchen teachers flying in and out of his town. He also mentioned previously that he was disappointed by some Dzogchen teachers talks he attended which taught substantialist view.

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1d

Soh Wei Yu

* [8:44 AM, 11/15/2020] John Tan: Yogi Prabodha Jnana is very good and clear

[11:58 AM, 11/15/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. you just read something in it?

[12:20 PM, 11/15/2020] John Tan: I think he visited atr also

[12:20 PM, 11/15/2020] John Tan: Lol

[12:43 PM, 11/15/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah from the start he already told me.. years ago

[12:43 PM, 11/15/2020] Soh Wei Yu: He said the things i post are interesting, am i a teacher?

[12:43 PM, 11/15/2020] Soh Wei Yu: I said no im not a dharma teacher lol

[12:43 PM, 11/15/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Then he liked the post i posted by Yasutani Roshi on no mirror

[12:52 PM, 11/15/2020] John Tan: you communicated with Yogi Prabodha Jnana years ago?

[12:54 PM, 11/15/2020] Soh Wei Yu: He said your stages are in line with the essence of buddhism

[12:54 PM, 11/15/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Haha

[1:01 PM, 11/15/2020] John Tan: Yes I find his teachings very interesting also.

[1:02 PM, 11/15/2020] John Tan: His emphasis on anatta and no mirror especially.

[1:05 PM, 11/15/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. yeah

[1:11 PM, 11/15/2020] Soh Wei Yu: his partner Abhaya Devi Yogini is also clear about it

- Reply
- 1d

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA

But i must add that despite whatever level of insight each teacher has, they will have valuable things to share.

So on one hand one can be discerning but on the other hand it is not right to be dismissive and judgemental

- Reply
- 1d

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu l dont have a problem with rant about the state of dharma. You mention Dogen, but also many other teachers have done this.

What l meant is that there are many paths, and in dzogchen l dont know if anatta as you see it is exemplified in the same way by all teachers and linages (maybe you can say something about this?).

Also, pointing out rigpa isnt synonym with l AM, l had the I Am long after pointing put, l can tell them appart now and they simply are not identical.

So Basically what l am saying is it is implicit if you have mastered these practices they use, if to make clear statements about them and their paths.

Another point l thought of is language used (like l saw you write about Longchenpa at one point, and here l think it was a language problem?).

Basically l think one are prone to misdiagnose few things taking everyone under the same scope of analysis(in your case the 7 atr steps). Its like confirmation bias. Does that make sense? If you master dzogchen then you are the person to comment on it, right? Hope it helps, would love to hear your thoughts on it

- Reply
- 1d

Yin Ling

Mr. OMA

Imo the phases of insights are just aspects of realizations that is innate in awakening and should be paid attention to, it’s just somehow a lot of ppl will go through it in that sequence like a map but not all, of course

In Dzogchen even with my superficial understanding, Anatta and second fold emptiness is implicit . Perceiver and perceived both empty which is minds nature. So I don’t see much dissonance any where in the teaching be in ATR or Dzogchen or even zen. I can see they are pointing at the same moon.

Though I am not too sure where u see a huge difference , this is just imo

- Reply
- 1d

Soh Wei Yu

"Also, pointing out rigpa isnt synonym with l AM, l had the I Am long after pointing put, l can tell them appart now and they simply are not identical."

It's the same.

Is there doubtless certainty? It is very important.

Dzogchen teacher Sogyal Rinpoche taught, “Sometimes when I meditate, I don't use any particular method. I just allow my mind to rest, and find, especially when I am inspired, that I can bring my mind home and relax very quickly. I sit quietly and rest in the nature of mind; I don't question or doubt whether I am in the "cor-rect" state or not. There is no effort, only rich understanding, wakefulness, and unshakable certainty. When I am in the nature of mind, the ordinary mind is no longer there. There is no need to sustain or confirm a sense of being: I simply am. A fundamental trust is present. There is nothing in par-ticular to do… …If meditation is simply to continue the flow of Rigpa after the introduction, how do we know when it is Rigpa and when it is not? I asked Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche this ques-tion, and he replied with his characteristic simplicity: "If you are in an unaltered state, it is Rigpa." If we are not contriving or manipulating the mind in any way, but simply resting in an unaltered state of pure and pristine awareness, then that is Rigpa. If there is any contriving on our part or any kind of manipulating or grasping, it is not. Rigpa is a state in which there is no longer any doubt; there is not really a mind to doubt: You see directly. If you are in this state, a complete, natural certainty and confidence surge up with the Rigpa itself, and that is how you know.”

- Reply
- 23h

Soh Wei Yu

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

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../reality-i-am...

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

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.

……

“It is not the contemplations that are important, it is the view brought to contemplation that makes the difference. For example, there is no actual difference between the Hindu Nirvikalpa samadhi and Vajropama samadhi in terms of its content, but the fact that one is accompanied by insight and the other is not makes the difference between whether it is mundane or liberative.” – Dzogchen Teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith, 2014

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

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Awakening to Reality

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 23h

Soh Wei Yu

“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.

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 these… when we analyze, and when we think and try to understand something, we are using existing 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.

” - https://docs.google.com/.../16QGwYIP.../edit...

DOCS.GOOGLE.COM

ATR Meeting 28 October 2020

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 23h

Soh Wei Yu

“What l meant is that there are many paths, and in dzogchen l dont know if anatta as you see it is exemplified in the same way by all teachers and linages (maybe you can say something about this?).”

There is no doubt that Dzogchen as original taught by the original Dzogchen masters, Garab Dorje, Padmasambhava ( e.g. http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../establishing-inner... , http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../self-liberation... ), Longchenpa ( e.g. http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../a-letter-to-almaas... ), and so on, have clearly realised anatta and emptiness and in fact matured in actualization to its peak. Some other more recent time masters like Mipham are also very clear.

The same way there is no doubt that the founder of Zen Buddhism, Bodhidharma, has realized the same insights. (See: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/04/way-of-bodhi.html , http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-doctrine-of-no... , etc )

That doesn't mean all the Dzogchen or Zen teachers of today have realised it. Many have not. The realisation of anatta and emptiness proper is quite rare.

But what John Tan, I, Kyle Dixon and many others I discussed with will agree is this: you need to realise anatta to get into the core essence of each of these Buddhist traditions.

How does it relate to Rigpa? In Dzogchen, the initial rigpa is the recognition of unfabricated clarity. In AtR terms it is the I AM realization. That initial rigpa is not the same as the full maturation of rigpa but rather is the unripened rigpa. Full maturation of rigpa happens later on in the path when you realize emptiness at the third vision if you are practicing thodgal (but you can also realize it through other means like trekchod and other practices, in which case the four visions label may not apply).

Do read this article in full to have an understanding on the nuances and degrees of rigpa: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-degrees-of...

As John Tan told me in 2008, Dzogchen also goes through his 6 stages (later he expanded to 7 stages for clarification), starting with 1 then progress into 6. Much later after reading Malcolm and conversing with Kyle Dixon I can agree that this is indeed the case.

- Reply
- 23h
- Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Do read this article to understand Dzogchen basis and view: https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../clarification...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 23h

Soh Wei Yu

[17/6/18, 6:53:49 PM] John Tan: Chariot analogy is next step of anatta

[17/6/18, 6:54:32 PM] John Tan: It is THE view for practitioners that has arisen insight of anatta

[17/6/18, 6:54:40 PM] John Tan: But there is a catch

[17/6/18, 6:54:48 PM] John Tan: It is in the way it is presented

[17/6/18, 6:56:00 PM] John Tan: In fact anatta is the most key and base insight after knowing dzogchen, mahamudra, madhyamaka, zen

[17/6/18, 6:56:46 PM] John Tan: U need anatta to beam through dzogchen and mahamudra but to hv a stable base u need some further insight into mmk.

[17/6/18, 6:57:01 PM] John Tan: But don't go post it ard...lol

[17/6/18, 6:58:34 PM] John Tan: I m thinking how to write

[17/6/18, 6:58:39 PM] John Tan: Lol

[17/6/18, 6:59:03 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

[17/6/18, 8:10:23 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Pam sent me this

[17/6/18, 8:10:27 PM] Soh Wei Yu: http://www.robinacourtin.com/.../Wisdom-Understanding...

[17/6/18, 8:11:46 PM] John Tan: Yeah I read b4

[17/6/18, 8:12:18 PM] John Tan: Not suitable for ppl with anatta insights

[17/6/18, 8:14:10 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic

[17/6/18, 8:14:31 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Any article suitable for anatta? lol

[17/6/18, 8:14:31 PM] John Tan: And the points r not so imp

[17/6/18, 8:14:56 PM] John Tan: Mipham insights r imp

[17/6/18, 8:15:06 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

[17/6/18, 8:15:50 PM] John Tan: But there is a point that he made though valid concerns r not important from the perspective of one that sees through

- Reply
- 23h
- Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Btw I am really furthest from an expert on Dzogchen, but Kyle Dixon (who Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith told me over dinner in 2019 was his first student that fully understood his teachings) somehow made me an admin of the Dzogchen subreddit in reddit.com lol

But I am not the go to person for Dzogchen questions, for that should discuss with Malcolm (although he might be busy as he has hundreds of students) and Kyle Dixon. The most I can do is to refer you to existing writings, articles or compilations of what Malcolm and Kyle wrote that I posted in my blog.

- Reply
- 23h
- Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Anyway those quotes on I AM I have pasted from AtR guide so you can refer to it for more information as well as on other phases of insights.

https://app.box.com/s/157eqgiosuw6xqvs00ibdkmc0r3mu8jg

APP.BOX.COM

Box

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 23h

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu l cant keep track on all your quotes, will take all day sorry

Is it doubtless? I had this insight that awarness had always been there, before birth and death l Am, or before Abraham l am. No doubt whatsoever its the same thing. I remember even thinking this is the I Am thing l have read about (and talked to you about at one point) and feeling slightly dissapointed as l thought l was past that point lol..

l used other ways to strengthen deepen this confidence later, f.ex buddhahood without meditation as l mentioned on another thread.

In reg to stillness and other points l cant say, as mentioned it happened long after many other insights.

Reg what Sogyal write l have to say l dont trust that guy, and l dont think its the same either. He doesnt mention vipashyana, or uprooting afflictions. There are few common things but not very impressed to be honest, and doesnt sound like emptiness.

Pointers in Dzogchen is the mind of a buddha, litterarily, they are meant to take you all the way, so you intergrate them according to how the teacher instruct you. In this way you gradually see the true nature of all phenomena and uproot afflictions untill there is no difference between you and the buddha.

- Reply
- 23h

Soh Wei Yu

Whether Dzogchen, Zen or Mahamudra, the direct introduction to Mind is important, the I AM, the preliminary rigpa. So that is an important insight. Just that later must be matured with nondual anatta insight and emptiness

Then it is mature rigpa.

Sogyal's description is just the preliminary unripened rigpa.

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-degrees-of...

John Tan's reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:

“This is like what I tell you and essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing [its] Nature. First apprehend Mind, later realise [its] Nature).

First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like zen sudden enlightenment of one's original mind or mahamudra or dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa or even self enquiry of advaita -- the direct, immediate, perception of "consciousness" without intermediaries. They are the same.

However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) yet. If you go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, you will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots are.

Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between buddhist's anatta and selflessness of other religions -- whether it is anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness.

The former focused on selflessness and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self whereas the latter is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.

As for emptiness there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness of Tsongkhapa and there is the emptiness free from extremes by Gorampa. Both are equally profound so do not talk nonsense and engaged in profane speech as in terms of result, ultimately they are the same (imo).”

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

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

The Degrees of Rigpa

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22h
- Edited

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu l would love to see where dzogchen goes through the 7 stages, or what are the common traits. To me its clear that sometimes you see the same thing, but not always, simple as that (see different lineages etc.. what is alike and what is not).. Again point is that of taking everyone under the same scope that l react to, and also language barrier.

- Reply
- 22h

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA For example this one: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-degrees-of...

Likewise in Mahamudra it is the same.

Based on Dakpo Tashi Namgyal scheme, the yoga of one pointedness contains a similar realization to I AM. Anatta and emptiness is yoga of one taste and above.

Khamtrul Rinpoche calls the initial rigpa 'baby vipashyana' （or was it beginner vipashyana or something I forgot) and then later the fruitional vipashyana is the anatta and emptiness insight.

I have some nice excerpts from him on anatta etc here: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../self-liberation-by...

- Reply
- 22h
- Edited

Mr. OMA

Yin Ling l agree that its implicit. But due to the practice, pointers etc it might be different language, experiences and so forth, thats my point.

I still like the stages you refer to, just giving my point of view.

- Reply
- 22h

Soh Wei Yu

"dzogchen goes through the 7 stages, "

If you read Malcolm's explanation of Dzogchen basis you will also see it is totally in line with anatta, emptiness, spontaneous perfection insight.

Likewise the books of Dzogchen tantras he translated goes in depth in explaining the view. Too long to elaborate

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../clarification...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22h

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu will read later

thx

- Reply
- 22h

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA

Besides Sogyal Rinpoche, here are a bunch of other Dzogchen masters describing I AM insight, the preliminary rigpa:

Tenzin Wangyal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNK7g5xZu7w

Lopon Tenzin Namdak: "To clarify the Dzogchen view: "We are just what we are, the Natural State which is like a mirror. It is clear and empty, and yet it reflects everything, all possible existences and all possible lifetimes. But it never changes and it does not depend on anything else."

Dzogchen teacher James Low: "I am a non-entity English

I am a non-entity French

I am a non-entity German

I am a non-entity Spanish

The basic ground of my presence is undefinable, never constrained, restricted or contaminated. I am open, ungraspable, naked, ever fresh – the always already integrated empty presence.

Without change or effort this state is also the infinite richness of all possible appearances. Open and empty is not other than rich and full. This is the open field within which gestures arise: gestures of identity, of connection, of control, of limitation, of welcome, of conflict. All of samsara and nirvana is just the play of possibilities of this field of becoming.

When fear, attachment and self-cherishing arise, they are the empty radiance of the ungraspable nature. Relax and see that they go free by themselves. Identity, intention, hope, fear, lostness, despair, all are moments devoid of enduring essence. Without trying to change the experience be present as the experiencer, the source; presence inseparable from space.

I am open, I am everything, I am just this, I am nothing. Whatever is said or thought is mere play; nothing is nothing, everything is nothing, nothing is everything.

I am a non-entity. Our presence, this amazing, ungraspable facticity of awareness is also an illusion. Nothing, something, everything, anything, just this thing, nothing – these moments are not separate and other, they are the non-dual ungraspable richness of the open ground.

I am, a non-entity. I am a non-entity. I, am a non-entity. Problems are mere parsing and punctuation. Start with ‘I am’, awaken to ‘I am’, relax as ‘I am’."

Soh Wei Yu

badge icon

Chris Pedersen

I wasn't having ChNN particularly in mind, but really, all Dzogchen teachers I've seen and come across lead students to I AM. (not necessarily as a final stage)

But yes, ChNN is included. It isn't even controversial. Kyle Dixon would agree with me, in fact, he told me himself that Malcolm Smith points to I AM as initial rigpa and is the said instant presence.

There's an important aspect to the guru yoga taught by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu which brings out the aspect of I AMness or Pure Presence.

I wrote previously, quoting a text from ChNN:

"...We sound another A and from that moment we are no longer working with visualization, thinking, or judging, but are only being in that presence. In particular, we notice who is doing this visualization, who is being in this white A at the center of the gakhyil. We are not looking at something in a dualistic way; we are being in that state, and that is instant presence and our real condition."

-- this is a self-enquiry instruction pointing to the same realization, exactly the same, even if you do not want to call it by those name.

ChNN pointing out the I AM (note that I am not suggesting that I AM is the limit of his insight):

5/12/2012 6:29 AM: Soh Wei Yu: "If you are in the state of instant presence, and compare this sensation with the experience of emptiness, or clarity, or in a different way you compare one with another, you discover that presence is unique, that it always remains the same. But before we are able to be in the state of presence, experiences are all different. So that is the meaning of tsed la pheb:

5/12/2012 6:30 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Maturing: you discover really that the state of instant presence or rigpa is unique. In our lives everything is an experience, and there are not only three experiences."

5/12/2012 8:54 AM: John: What does he meant by not only three experiences

5/12/2012 9:43 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Emptiness (in the gap between thoughts that is emptiness but there is nonetheless someone noticing that, a presence, sounds like I AM), clarity (like movement, manifestation) and sensation (sensation of pleasure incl sexual contact)

5/12/2012 9:45 AM: Soh Wei Yu: He said

5/12/2012 9:47 AM: Soh Wei Yu: "...when we are dissolving everything into emptiness, in that moment we are discovering instant presence because we are not only lost in emptiness, there is also someone noticing that, there is a presence. So this is called instant presence. And you can also have this instant presence with the experience of clarity and with the experience of sensation, even with a strong sensation like sexual contact. Of course, at this moment you can feel a very strong sensation of pleasure and maybe you are generally distracted by it, but

?5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: If you are a good practitioner you also notice the instant presence. That is, you are not only enjoying the strong sensation but at the same time

5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: you are in instant presence.

5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Then followed by the ""If you are in the state of instant presence, and compare this sensation with the experience of emptiness... Etc

.....

ChNN also said before,

"Ranxin minis means one does not simply remain in the condition of the experience, but uses the experience as a method to find oneself in the state of contemplation. In these experiences there is a presence. It is not as if one has fainted or lost consciousness. There is somebody who remains in it. There is no difference whatsoever whether this presence is found in the experience of the person who is smiling or in the experience of the person who is frightened, even though the experiences are completely different. Minis does not mean that two things are united, or that we think that they are the same. If we just say that the nature of those things is not real, thus they are the same, then it will remain as a mental construction. But if one goes through the diverse experiences and hence finds that the true state of presence has no difference, then the real state of nacog is one, and the presence is called rigba (rig.pa.) If we say different experiences are not equal, this is what we mean.

"Whether it is calm, movement, or any one of hundreds of experiences, the important thing is to know the difference between experience and presence. When we know what is meant by rigba, we ought to know how to integrate with all these aspects in our presence."

"So, ugly or beautiful, positive or negative conditions, heavens or hells or transmigration do not in any way affect the underlying nature of the consciousness that is the state of the mirror itself." "that which is noticing thoughts and that which is noticing no thoughts, that which notices both conditions is Rigpa"

· 3d

YOUTUBE.COM

Being the Mirror, Not the Reflection

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22h

Soh Wei Yu

- http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../dzogchen-and-phases...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Dzogchen and the Phases of Insights, Actual Freedom, Rigpa, Transparency, etc etc

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22h

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA

Based on something I said before, ""Another interesting 'technical' point since this is DhO. There was a point in his retreat where Arcaya Malcolm Smith described how at the mature phase of Dzogchen practice, the 'vidya'/'rigpa' (the knowing/knowledge) is exhausted where the vidya and dhatu (something like knowing and field of experience) totally collapsed in a 1:1 synchrony (and he gestured two circles coming together), whereas before that point [the exhaustion of vidya] there is a sort of out of phase issue between vidya and dhatu. That's said to happen in the fourth vision. Somehow it really reminded me of one of Daniel's descriptions in MCTB on fourth path. His student Kyle did inform me that it is the same as what I call anatta realization [which I realised almost 10 years ago, it is the same as MCTB's fourth path]. Also, Malcolm mentioned many people have the wrong idea that Vidya/Rigpa is some eternal thing that just goes on forever, but it too is exhausted later along with all other phenomena [although this is not annihilation as appearances/pure vision still manifest] (elaboration: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../acarya-malcolm... )."

Likewise, Kyle Dixon, that Malcolm told me over dinner was the first student of his that totally understood his teaching, also said in 2014, "'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness." - Kyle

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Awakening to Reality

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22h
- Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Just yesterday, also I was pasting something Dalai Lama wrote to someone else:

Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā

According to Sūtra, meditation on the clear and cognizant nature of the mind or on the transforming buddha nature alone will not eradicate afflictions. However, it does lead us to have more confidence that afflictions are not an inherent part of the mind and therefore that becoming a buddha is possible. This, in turn, leads us to question: What defiles the mind and what can eliminate these defilements completely? Seeking the method to purify the transforming buddha nature, we will cultivate the wisdom realizing the emptiness of inherent existence and eradicate ignorance.

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.

Some commentaries on Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā say: This wisdom that abides in the afflictions is the true wisdom, and on this basis every sentient being is already a buddha. Although we have been buddhas from beginningless time, we have to be awakened again. The wisdom that we have now is the omniscient mind of a buddha, and the three bodies of a buddha exist innately in each sentient being. Sentient beings have a basis of essential purity that is not merely emptiness but is endowed with three aspects. Its entity is the dharmakāya — the mode of abiding of pristine wisdom; its nature is the enjoyment body — the appearance aspect of that mind; and compassion is the emanation bodies — its radiance or expression. In short, they say that all three buddha bodies are present, fully formed in our ordinary state, but since they are obscured we are not aware of their presence. Such statements taken literally are fraught with problems.

- Reply
- 22h

Soh Wei Yu

While some people are partial and unfair in their criticism and refute misconceptions in only some traditions, Changkya Rolpai Dorje (1717–86) was unbiased and pointed out incorrect interpretations in all four Tibetan traditions, including his own Geluk tradition. In his Song of the Experience of the View, he says, “I say this not out of disrespect to these masters, but perhaps they have had less exposure to rigorous philosophical investigation of the great treatises and were unable to use certain terminology appropriately.” That is, the difficulty in their assertions lies in a broad use of terminology that is not grounded in the authority of the great treatises. Of course, Changkya’s comments do not apply to Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā masters such as Dodrup Jigme Tenpai Nyima and his teacher Awa Pangchu, who have done serious philosophical study and examination of the great treatises and who ground their understanding of Dzogchen in them. Their interpretations and writings are excellent. All four Tibetan traditions teach practices that search for the mind — where it came from, where it goes, what its shape and color are, and so forth. Speaking of this shared practice, Changkya said that after searching in this manner, we find that the mind is not tangible, lacks color and shape, and does not come from one place or go to another. Discovering this, meditators experience a sensation of voidness. However, this voidness is not the emptiness of inherent existence that is the ultimate reality of the mind; it is the mere absence of the mind being a tangible object.

Although someone may think this voidness is ultimate reality and meditate in that state for a long time, this is not meditation on the ultimate nature of the mind. There are two ways to meditate on the mind. The first is as above, examining whether the mind has color, shape, location, tangibility, and so forth. This leads to the sense that the conventional nature of the mind lacks these qualities. The second is meditation on the ultimate nature of the mind, in which we examine the mind’s ultimate mode of existence and discover its emptiness of inherent existence. People who confuse these two ways of meditating on the mind and think that the mind’s absence of tangibility, color, and so forth is the mind’s ultimate nature may criticize masters such as Dignāga and Dharmakīrti for their precise expositions on debate, logic, and reasoning, saying these only increase preconceptions. Gungtang Konchog Tenpai Dronme (1762–1823), another master who was impartial in his critical analysis of Tibetan Buddhist traditions, said he found this amazing.

Some people believe there is no need for reasoning or investigation on the path, that simply by having faith and receiving the blessing of a guru primordial wisdom will arise. In this light, I have been very happy to see the establishment of more shedras — academic institutes — that teach the classical philosophical texts from India and Tibet. Some Westerners similarly do not value Dharma study and investigation, perhaps because Buddhadharma is relatively new in the West. Without a comprehensive understanding of the Buddhadharma, people tend to seek the easiest and shortest path to awakening, a path that does not require giving up their attachments. Such an attitude exists among Tibetans as well. Tsongkhapa said that many people think that the Buddha’s qualities are wonderful, but when a spiritual mentor explains through reasoning and scriptural citations how to attain them, they become discouraged and say, “Who can actually achieve such realizations?”

- Reply
- 22h

Soh Wei Yu

- http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../dalai-lama-on...

In other words, the same thing. Dalai Lama is saying first recognise the unfabricated clarity aspect (which he also said elsewhere is found in Hindu teachings as well), but that is not the end, but further proceed into emptiness realization. He said that in the context of Dzogchen and Mahamudra, so he understood that this should also be the progression for all these paths.

Similar to the Thusness 7 stages.

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22h

Soh Wei Yu

ok i pasted too much.. you can slowly read and digest over the coming days lol

- Reply
- 22h

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

"Out of phase" reminded me of an aspect of a realization and experience some years ago, where among other things I wrote:

> With the reversion of the nuclei of ignorance—the nexus of thinking—the contradiction discovered—what is our mind in the absence of a mind-independent, objective realm?

> With the ceasing of slicing which divides and twists into polarity, Dogen declares: "I came to realize clearly that my mind is nothing other than rivers and mountains and trees, the sun and the moon and the stars."

> It straightens out. Broadens, flattens. Not one, not two. Simple. Straight. Thus! Tada!

> How come we don't have a word for

not-one-&-not-two?

Not-one-&-not-many?

Not-singular-&-not-multiple/plural?

Not-empty-&-not-full?

Not-part-&-not-whole?

Not-hidden-&-not-disclosed?

- Reply
- 22h

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu l will, bussy now but try conming back to this later

- Reply
- 22h

Mr. TJ

Soh Wei Yu there is an interesting connection between something in your early and late posts in this subthread. You mentioned the Surangama Sutra not being translated into Tibetan, but actually it was translated from Chinese to Tibetan by the very same Changkya Rolpai Dorje the Dalai Lama quotes, who doubtlessly had emptiness realization. For a Gelug master to translate a sutra from Chinese to Tibetan can only mean he greatly venerated it. As it does indeed seem to point to pure consciousness rather than anatta and emptiness, why would this be? Likely because it deals with so many other aspects of the path in detail. For instance I have even heard Theravada teachers praise the quality and detail of it's meditation instructions.

- Reply
- 20h

Mr. TJ

Also, perhaps he found value in the pointing to pure consciousness. After all, so many who get anatta do so by first touching the non-conceptual experience of pure consciousness, and then refining that. His Gelug training would have prevented him from mistaking pure consciousness for emptiness realization.

I am of the opinion that if it because taboo in all Buddhist groups to point to pure consciousness because it is "un-Buddhist", the frequency of anatta realization would not go up, but down, because anatta pointers, not to mentioned emptiness and total exertion pointers, would just become something conceptual and/or nihilisitic for people if they were not clearly pointed through the non-conceptual pure consciousness gate first.

- Reply
- 20h
- Edited

Aditya Prasad

Mr. OMA Royal Seal of Mahamudra:

"The essence of one’s mind is an unidentifiable void; it is the primordial cognizance that has not been fabricated. In the mind that is aware of itself and lucid by itself, these two, void and cognizance, are inseparable. To gain the experience that the mind has ascertained that it is so is a beginner’s vipashyana."

This is I AM. Some Dzogchen teachers call it "baby rigpa":

"The moment we recognize undivided empty cognizance, that is rigpa itself. But it is not fully grown -- it is not an adult state of rigpa -- it's baby rigpa. The level of recognition we are at now is called baby rigpa."

Then there is unmistaken vipashyana / rangjung rigpa:

"By sustaining just that much at the beginning, we are confident that unmistaken vipashyana will gradually arise. ... All phenomena of subject and object are unoriginated, nonabiding, and unceasing. To know this crucial point and to have the experience and conviction born from deep within that they are devoid of true essence or nature is what, at this point, should be defined as vipashyana."

- Reply
- 20h

Richard Cooper

Ling Yin you are posting so much cool stuff at the moment. And it's really helpful that it is in easily access-able and digest-able chunks. Thank you

- Reply
- 1d
- Edited

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

Ah, we definitely did this on Idappaccayatā; this attachment to continuing in the taste.

- Reply
- 22h

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu I am trying to read all this stuff, I just have to say its too much, I am sorry I am not that technical or have time. Read some of it before, and certainly will check out Prabodha Jnana Yogi and Abhaya Devi Yogini, they are new to me.

Will focus here on I AM, to just clear that out and see if we can agree or not (can do anatta another time lol

)

What I realized was the unchanging quality, making it clear that birth and death isn’t “real” from rigpa point of view. It happened after other shifts and insights. If I am being technical, it doesn’t longer make sense to talk of “I” or “AM”, so not sure where that puts me by your standards

If you are talking only about the doutbless aspect if being etc.. this to me is much more prone to as you say, fall into substantialist view. I would not call this dzogchen as all kinds of people happens to notice this. Maybe some dzogchen teacher emphasise it as a preliminars, I dunno but think its good to differentiate still.

How I see it. Being Dzogchen pointed to this doubltess "ground" have the quality of cognizant (without a perciever), this is the empty cognizant of dharmakaya, meaning the emptiness that is already inherent in all phenomena. Non-buddhist doesnt point to this I think (maybe using a “witness” instead), and thus would get stuck in beingness etc.. so this is the main difference as I see it between I AM and rigpa pointers. If you see Delson Armstrong interview he talks about all kinds of states, and rigpa was quite close to some other states he had experienced, but still different. That really underlines my point here, it is some similarities, but also not.

This also refers to Aditya’s point, quote said void (empty) and cognizant. If it had just the aspect of being or certainty, I think it would be close to impossible to get to “all phenomena of subject and object are unoriginated, nonabiding, and unceasing”, right? This is how everything initially is inherent in the view, but needs to be realized properly too.

So that’s what I have to say about I AM and rigpa, maybe you have other thoughts (and pls dont post five articles I have to read, sorry!).

Oskar

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA

" Being Dzogchen pointed to this doubltess "ground" have the quality of cognizant (without a perciever), this is the empty cognizant of dharmakaya, meaning the emptiness that is already inherent in all phenomena. Non-buddhist doesnt point to this I think "

This is precisely and exactly what we call I AMness and all religions point to it.

Do read this: https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../mistaken...

Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?

Being freed from individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even in the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going. This "AMness" is God.

Practitioners should never mistake this as the true Buddha Mind! "I AMness" is the pristine awareness. That is why it is so overwhelming. Just that there is no 'insight' into its emptiness nature. Nothing stays and nothing to hold on to. What is real, is pristine and flows, what stays is illusion. The sinking back to a background or Source is due to being blinded by strong karmic propensities of a 'Self'. It is a layer of ‘bond’ that prevents us from ‘seeing’ something…it is very subtle, very thin, very fine…it goes almost undetected. What this ‘bond’ does is it prevents us from ‘seeing’ what “WITNESS” really is and makes us constantly fall back to the Witness, to the Source, to the Center. Every moment we want to sink back to Witness, to the Center, to this Beingness, this is an illusion. It is habitual and almost hypnotic.

But what exactly is this “witness” we are talking about? It is the manifestation itself! It is the appearance itself! There is no Source to fall back, the Appearance is the Source! Including the moment to moment of thoughts. The problem is we choose, but all is really it. There is nothing to choose.

There is no mirror reflecting

All along manifestation alone is.

The one hand claps

Everything IS!

[continued in link]

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am"

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 2h

Soh Wei Yu

It must be emphasized that the term we use doesn't matter, it is what you characterize it as. Based on what you said -- an unchanging ground of being, that is precisely and no different from I AMness.

Session Time: Thu May 18 00:00:00 2006

<John> Consciousness or Self, it is just a label. If we treat Consciousness as Self-like,

<John> it doesn't make a difference.

....

And likewise if you have truly realized anatta and you wish to call it 'Self' due to catering for a specific audience, that is also ok. Because the 'Self' will be merely conventional to you and not referring to an inherent existence.

John Tan, 2007: “No-self does not need observation. No-self is a form of realisation. To observe is to track the 'self': where is it, what is it - that 'sense of self', who, where and what... till we thoroughly understood it is an illusion, till we know there is awareness, but there never was a 'Self/self'. Isn't awareness 'self'? Well, you can say so if you insist...ehehhe

(1:59 PM) Thusness: if there is non-dual, no background, no mine and 'I', impermanence, not a form of entity and yet we still want to call it 'Self', so be it.

(1:59 PM) Thusness: its okie...

(1:59 PM) Thusness: lol”

John Tan, 2020: “Brahman or not doesn't matter as long Brahman is not any transpersonal being in a wonderland, but is the very relative phenomena that we misunderstood.”

- Reply
- 2h

Soh Wei Yu

Then as for Dzogchen, Acarya Malcolm Smith has emphasized how in the teachings of Dzogchen, there is no such thing as a "ground of being". This is just a mistranslation of many Dzogchen translators, a bad one.

That is why I highly recommend you spend some time to go through this article because it clarifies a lot of misconception about Dzogchen view:

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../clarification...

Ok, well, you have to understand that everything in Crystal came from an early period in ChNN's career, when he was not teaching in English. At this time, he used various English translators such as John Shane, Barry Simmons, and so on, before ChNN switched over to teaching in English directly around 1988, the same year Crystal came out. So we cannot regard it as a definitive representation of ChNN's intent, since it is an edited transcript of translation from his original Italian. It broadly served as a introduction to his teachings, but was never intended to be a definitive statement of them. But more importantly, there is no such term in Dzogchen as "the fundamental ground of existence." The term "gzhi" refers to your own nature which you have failed to recognize. That's it. It is not a "ground of being" as in Paul Tillich's theology, where the term originates:

For Tillich, God is being-itself, not a being among other beings. To describe the relationship between being-itself and finite beings, Tillich takes the word, "ground." For Tillich, God is the ground of being, the ground of the structure of being. God as being itself is the ground of the ontological structure of being. In other words, every ontological being has its power to be in being itself, participate in the ground of being. All accounts of God are expressed through what we comprehend. Can we know God? For Tilich, the answer is clear: we can. Adopting the theory of analogia entis (analogy of being), that is, "that which is infinite is being itself and because everything participates in being itself" (239), The theory of analogia entis explains the possibility of knowing and saying anything about God. However, for Tillich, the analogia entis justifies our ways of saying about God only under a fact that "God must be understood as being itself" (240). Thus, existential approach to God through the category of finitude must be described symbolically. God is the ground of being, being-itself; who concerns us ultimately. Thus, God is our ultimate concern.

https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/tillich.htm

There is no such ground of being in the whole length and breadth of buddhadharma, including Dzogchen teachings.

......

gad rgyangs wrote:

I dunno Malcolm, the basis is more like the backdrop against which any appearances appear, including any consciousness. Also, what sense would it make to say "rigpa is one's knowledge of the basis" if that basis was one's own continuum? the basis is pure no-thing as abgrund of all phenomena. Consciousness is always a phenomenon.

Malcolm wrote:

I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing.And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others.

The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.

[Quoting gad rgyangs: Consciousness is always a phenomenon.] So is the basis. They are both dharmas.

Or as the Great Garuda has it when refuting Madhyamaka:

Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,

there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.

An 12th century commentary on this text states (but not this passage):

Amazing bodhicitta (the identity of everything that becomes the basis of pursuing the meaning that cannot be seen nor realized elsewhere than one’s vidyā) is wholly the wisdom of the mind distinct as the nine consciousnesses that lack a nature.

In the end, Dzogchen is really just another Buddhist meditative phenomenology of the mind and person and that is all.

gad rgyangs wrote:

Then why speak of a basis at all? just speak of skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, and be done with it.

Malcolm wrote:

Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.

gad rgyangs wrote:

There is no question of the basis being an entity, thats not the point. Rigpa is precisely what it says in the yeshe sangthal: instant presence experienced against/within the "backdrop" (metaphor) of a "vast dimension of emptiness" (metaphor).

Malcolm wrote:

It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty.

gad rgyangs wrote:

When all appearances cease, what are you left with?

Malcolm wrote:

They never cease....

gad rgyangs wrote:

In the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.

rigpa is ontological not epistemic: its not about some state of consciousness before dualism vision, it is about the basis/abgrund of all possible appearances, including our consciousness in whatever state its in or could ever be in.

Malcolm wrote:

Sorry, I just don't agree with you and think you are just falling in the Hindu brahman trap.

Sherlock wrote:

Isn't the difference between transpersonal and personal also a form of dualism?

Malcolm wrote:

The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta.

....

And this so-called "god" aka basis [gzhi] is just a nonexistent mere appearance, that is, our primordial potentiality also has no real existence, which is stated over and over again in countless Dzogchen tantras.

For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.

For those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.

-- Nāgārjuna.

....

Malcolm:

"One, whoever told you rig pa is not part of the five aggregates? Rig pa is knowledge of your own state. In its impure form one's own state manifests as the five aggregates; in its pure form, it manifests as the five buddha families.

....

“The relative is not "reliant" on the ultimate, since they are just different cognitions of the same entity, one false, the other veridical.

There is no separate entity called "buddhanature" that can be established to exist in a sentient being composed of the five aggregates. If one should assert this is so, this position will be no different than the atman of the nonbuddhists.”

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 2h

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu Ok.

Longchenpa and Dudjom Lingpa talk about ground of being, so does Eckhart tolle if I remember correctly. These are still completely different things.

- Reply
- 2h

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA

It is a bad translation issue. Many translations have this issue.

Longchenpa did not talk about ground of being, ground of being is a Christian term.

Longchenpa did talk about gzhi which is correctly translated as basis, but this basis is also taught by him to be empty and unestablished, in the manner as Malcolm explained:

"And this so-called "god" aka basis [gzhi] is just a nonexistent mere appearance, that is, our primordial potentiality also has no real existence, which is stated over and over again in countless Dzogchen tantras.

For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.

For those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.

-- Nāgārjuna."

In my next post I will be posting quotes from Longchenpa to clarify my point:

- Reply
- 2h

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu I get you point, basis vs ground, still though..?

- Reply
- 2h

Soh Wei Yu

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-philosophical...

To longchenpa self-awareness "is simply a vivid auto-manifestation, a process lacking any reality whatsoever".

...

According to the viewpoint of this system, he says, all phenomena

are self-luminous in the state of great primordial knowing like light in the sky, having

always been the very essence of this self-occuring primorial knowing which remains

naturally free from causes and conditions .263

...

"It

is possible, Klong chen pa suggests, to simply recognize this nondual

selfoccuring primordial knowing in its pristine nakedness (rjen pa sang

nge ba) - both as it

abides

in its naked clarity and as it continuously manifests as myriad objects

- without hypostatizing it.273 For so long as "one thinks of the

abiding and manifesting of cognition as two different things and talks

about [the experience of] 'settling in the nonconceptual essence' [but

also of] 'preserving the expressive energy as being free in its arising'

, one's practice goes in two directions and one fails to understand the

key point."

...

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../a-letter-to-almaas...

The Practice Of Dzogchen: Longchen Rabjam's Writings on the Great Perfection https://www.amazon.com/Practi.../dp/155939434X/ref=sr_1_1...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

The Philosophical Foundations of Classical rDzogs chen in Tibet: Investigating the Distinction Between Dualistic Mind (sems) and Primordial knowing (ye shes)

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 2h

Soh Wei Yu

John Tan: " https://www.shambhala.com/sno.../the-practice-of-dzogchen-2/

Exactly what I am searching"

IDENTIFICATION (OF THE BASIS) THROUGH (UNDERSTANDING THE) VIEW The External Apprehended Objects Are Non-Existent Emptiness

(i) The appearances are unreal reflections like the eight examples of illusion.

Every

aspect of the five objects, such as form, included in the phenomena of

the world and beings, are mere appearances with no true existence. All

the appearances which have appeared to both the pure perceptions of the

Buddhas and the impure perceptions of deluded beings are the percepts of

wisdom and the mind. While the appearances are appearing to both

perceptions, they are appearing with no inherent existence (Rang-bZhin),

like a reflection in a mirror and rainbow rays in the sky. To the pure

perception of wisdom the (appearances) transcend the extremes of

existing and non-existing as there are no stains of apprehender and

apprehended. As there is no creating, ceasing, and changing, all are

free from the characteristics of compounded phenomena, the appearances

of uncompounded emptiness-form, and are totally free from

conceptualizations. To the perception of the deluded mind, (the

appearances) merely appear as the object of apprehension of self

(bDag-'Dzin), which have fallen into the extreme (concepts) of existing

or non-existing, are detached from the characteristics of uncompounded

(nature), and have strengthened the habituations of adventitious and

circumstantial self-perceptions. So, here, one will understand that the

objects, the delusory appearances of the mind, are unreal. Various

external appearances, such as white and red, are merely the percepts of

rigid habits, like a dream created by the drunkenness of ignorant sleep.

There is not the slightest existence (in them) as the object in the

(true) meaning. Also, those appearances are not mind from the very point

of their arising, because their substantial characteristics, such as

color, size, and distinctions, negate the character of the mind. At the

same time, they are not other than the mind, because, in addition to

their being merely the delusory perceptions (of the mind), no other

object has ever been established as such. The appearances to the mind

are just types of experience of rigid habits continuing from

beginningless time. It is like dreaming last night about a magic show

one has seen yesterday. Therefore, one should think that whatever

appears are appearances of non existence, and are without foundation,

abiding place, natural existence, and recognizable (entity). They are

merely a clear appearance of the empty nature like a dream, magical

display, mirage, echo, shadowy view (Mig-Yor), water-moon (reflection),

miracle, and the city of smell-eaters (a spirit world). Whatever

appears, self or others, enemies or friends, countries or towns, places

or houses, food or drink or wealth, and whatever one does, eating or

sleeping, walking or sitting, one should train in seeing them as unreal.

One should devote oneself to this training in all its aspects: the

preliminary, actual, and concluding practices. (ii) The objects, if

analyzed, are emptiness. If the appearances are examined from gross to

subtle down to atoms, they are partless and non-existent. So form is

emptiness. (Likewise,) by examining color and recognition of sound, it

(will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the form and essence of

smell, it (will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the aspects of

taste, they (will be found to be) emptiness. Especially, by examining

the sources (sense-objects), the emptiness of touch will be reached.

Although they are different in appearance, they are the same in their

nature in being emptiness, so the emptiness of various objects are not

separate categories. Their nature, like pure space, transcends being

either separate or the same. So the nature of objective appearances is

emptiness in its essence.

The Apprehender Has No Foundation and No Root

(i) The consciousnesses are self-clarity without foundation.

(There

are eight consciousnesses.) The five sense-consciousnesses; arise as

the five objects such as form, the mind-consciousness cognizes the

general impression (of the appearing objects) and designates them as the

objects, the defiled mind-consciousness is the sense of negating,

accepting, hating and disliking (etc.), the mind-consciousness arises

after the six consciousnesses (five senses and universal ground

consciousness), ...and the consciousness of universal ground is

self-clarity (Rang-gSal) and no thought and is unrelated to the objects:

these are the eight or six consciousnesses. At the (very) time of

(functioning of any of) those consciousnesses themselves, whatever

consciousness it is, it is clear, vivid, and self-clarity with no

foundations. Although they appear clear, there is no substantial entity.

They are appearing without existence, like clear space and a breeze

with no dust. Their clarity is present naturally like the sky without

clouds. Their movements are like wind, not in distinguishable

substances. From the (very) time of appearing, (the consciousnesses) as

the apprehenders are self-clarity and unrecognizable. Watch them when

they are arising and when they are abiding. Relax naturally and watch

the manner of appearing of the apprehender. Thereby one will realize the

apprehenders as having the nature of merely an appearance of clarity

with no existence, emptiness with no bias, and self-clarity with no

foundation. (ii) (The subject), if analyzed, is emptiness without root.

By analyzing (whether) the self-clear, baseless mind (exists) in the

external appearances, inner physical body, or intermediate movements, or

if the entity of the self-dwelling mind itself (can be) recognized in

(its) design, color, birth, cessation, and abiding, one will realize

that its nature is non-existence, baseless and free from the extremes of

either existence or non-existence. In this training the devotion to the

Lama is the only important thing.

SHAMBHALA.COM

404 Not Found

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 2h

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA If you truly have realised I AMness, it is better to focus on breaking through to anatta.

The general advise in AtR is the four aspects of I AM and the two nondual contemplations and two stanzas of anatta:

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../four-aspects...

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../two-types-of...

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../on-anatta...

And it will not help to get confused by faulty translations of Dzogchen texts. I have to say Acarya Malcolm Smith's translations are much trustworthy... not that other translations are without merit, but just be careful and don't get confused.

I rather you read this Mahamudra book because it clearly pointed to anatta:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-royal-seal-of...

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../self-liberation-by...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Four Aspects of I AM

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 2h

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA

Basis is not ground of being, as Malcolm said, it is just your nature that has been unrecognised. Malcolm: "there is no such term in Dzogchen as "the fundamental ground of existence." The term "gzhi" refers to your own nature which you have failed to recognize. That's it. It is not a "ground of being" as in Paul Tillich's theology, where the term originates"

I also like Mahamudra's explanation here by Karmapa, notice the word 'basis' is also used here but clearly it is pointing to the anatta and emptiness insight like Malcolm rather than a substantial ground of being:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../wishing-prayer-for...

....

All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.

Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind

Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,

manifesting as everything whatsoever.

Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut.

Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self.

By the power of this dualistic fixation, beings wander in the realms of samsaric existence.

May ignorance, the root of confusion, he discovered and cut.

It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it.

It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.

This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.

May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, he realised.

If one says, "This is it," there is nothing to show.

If one says, "This is not it," there is nothing to deny.

The true nature of phenomena,

which transcends conceptual understanding, is unconditioned.

May conviction he gained in the ultimate, perfect truth.

Not realising it, one circles in the ocean of samsara.

If it is realised, buddha is not anything other.

It is completely devoid of any "This is it," or "This is not it."

May this simple secret, this ultimate essence of phenomena,

which is the basis of everything, be realised.

Appearance is mind and emptiness is mind.

Realisation is mind and confusion is mind.

Arising is mind and cessation is mind.

May all doubts about mind be resolved.

....

Looking at objects, the mind devoid of objects is seen;

Looking at mind, its empty nature devoid of mind is seen;

Looking at both of these, dualistic clinging is self-liberated.

May the nature of mind, the clear light nature of what is, be realised.

Free from mental fabrication, it is the great seal, mahamudra.

Free from extremes, it is the great middle way, madhyamika.

....

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Wishing Prayer for the Attainment of the Ultimate Mahamudra

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 2h

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu Again, I dont read all of this, sorry. And you have not read what I have sendt you so it makes it hard to converse really.

If someone use the word "ground of being" that doesnt authomatically put him/her in substantialist cathegory, like this is a good example of how you can get astray simply relying on words. Its not a Good word, but it isnt automatically wrong either.

- Reply
- 2h

Mr. OMA

what I have written* not sendt you, they are not so long so I expect you to!

- Reply
- 1h

Mr. OMA

Doesnt mean I dont support proper translation

- Reply
- 1h

Soh Wei Yu

Once you establish an unchanging ground of being that serves as a ground of all appearances to arise and sink back to like an unchanging ocean giving rise to waves, that is automatically I AMness.

Anatta is the realization that there is no unchanging ground of being, just the five aggregates, which is spontaneous presence in its pure state. There is no background underlying the appearances / aggregates. Just the aggregates in its purity is buddha-nature.

It is this realization that is crucial:

There is only sound

Geovani Geo wrote:

We hear a sound. The immediate deeply inbuilt conditioning says, "hearing ". But there is a fallacy there. There is only sound. Ultimately, no hearer and no hearing. The same with all other senses. A centralized, or expanded, or zero-dimensional inherent perceiver or aware-er is an illusion.

Thusness/John Tan:

Very good.

Means both stanza is clear.

In hearing, no hearer.

In hearing, only sound. No hearing.

Labels: Anatta, Geovani Geo 0 comments | |

- Reply
- 1h
- Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA

Good writings from John Tan from 2007 that will be helpful for you:

The Transience

The arising and ceasing is called the Transience,

Is self luminous and self perfected from beginning.

However due to the karmic propensity that divides,

The mind separates the ‘brilliance’ from the ever arising and ceasing.

This karmic illusion constructs ‘the brilliance’,

Into an object that is permanent and unchanging.

The ‘unchanging’ which appears unimaginably real,

Only exists in subtle thinking and recalling.

In essence the luminosity is itself empty,

Is already unborn, unconditioned and ever pervading.

Therefore fear not the arising and ceasing.

-------------

There is no this that is more this than that.

Although thought arises and ceases vividly,

Every arising and ceasing remains as entire as it can be.

The emptiness nature that is ever manifesting presently

Has not in anyway denied its own luminosity.

Although non-dual is seen with clarity,

The urge to remain can still blind subtly.

Like a passerby that passes, is gone completely.

Die utterly

And bear witness of this pure presence, its non-locality.

~ Thusness/Passerby

And hence... "Awareness" is not anymore "special" or "ultimate" than the transient mind.

Labels: All is Mind, Anatta, Non Dual |

- Reply
- 1h

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA

“I came to realize clearly that the mind is not other than mountains, rivers, the great wide earth, sun, moon, stars”

- Dogen

“Mind as mountains, rivers, and the earth is nothing other than mountains, rivers, and the earth. There are no additional waves or surf, no wind or smoke. Mind as the sun, the moon, and the stars is nothing other than the sun, the moon, and the stars.”

- Dogen

“For Dōgen, Buddha-nature or Busshō (佛性) is the nature of reality and all Being. In the Shōbōgenzō, Dōgen writes that “whole-being (Existence itself) is the Buddha-nature” and that even inanimate things (grass, trees, etc.) are an expression of Buddha-nature. He rejected any view that saw Buddha-nature as a permanent, substantial inner self or ground. Dōgen held that Buddha-nature was “vast emptiness”, “the world of becoming” and that “impermanence is in itself Buddha-nature”.[23] According to Dōgen:

Therefore, the very impermanency of grass and tree, thicket and forest is the Buddha nature. The very impermanency of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature. Nature and lands, mountains and rivers, are impermanent because they are the Buddha nature. Supreme and complete enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature.[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dōgen#Buddha-nature“

As John Tan said in 2007 about Dogen, “Dogen is a great Zen master that has penetrated deeply into a very deep level of anatman.”, “Read about Dogen… he is truly a great Zen master… ...[Dogen is] one of the very few Zen Masters that truly knows.”, “Whenever we read the most basic teachings of Buddha, it is most profound. Don't ever say we understand it. Especially when it comes to Dependent Origination, which is the most profound truth in Buddhism*. Never say that we understand it or have experienced it. Even after a few years of experience in non-duality, we can't understand it. The one great Zen master that came closest to it is Dogen, that sees temporality as buddha nature, that see transients as living truth of dharma and the full manifestation of buddha nature.”

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Dōgen - Wikipedia

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1h

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu Thx, might reply later.

- Reply
- 58m

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA Take your time. Would just like to add that after the I AM realization, one tends to take pure consciousness as unchanging. This is one of the false views refuted by Buddha in the Brahmajala sutta, belonging to partial eternalism: all observed phenomena comes and goes, but mind or consciousness is unchanging, unalterable and eternal. That is no different from Advaita or Samkhya or Hinduism. Without eradicating this false view of eternalism through realization of anatman, there is no way to attain stream entry or 1st bhumi as per standard Buddhist traditional criterias, which includes the realization of anatman / emptiness and the eradication of all forms of self-view including the 84 wrong views set out in the Brahmajala Sutta.

So those who talk of attaining stream entry when they have only realized I AMness, or not even that but lower levels of no-self like impersonality, are just misleading themselves and others. (On this topic, also see https://www.reddit.com/.../insight_buddhism_a... and http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../different... )

Then how can we take into account some teachers who teach dharmata or the nature of mind as permanent? We have to understand what they mean by that. Do they mean that consciousness is unchanging and eternal and permanent? Then they are holding eternalist wrong views, which is very common even among Buddhist masters, teachers and practitioners. Or do they mean the empty [no self-nature] nature of mind is always already so? Then that is correct view. It is the natureless nature, which is the absence of any nature. Since it is simply an absence or negation, it is not some hidden or unchanging essence of everything. So that is the context we should also consider. Yes, we are not denying clarity or presence, but its nature is empty of self-nature must be understood, instead of reifying consciousness into an unchanging substratum. Inseparable clarity and emptiness is the definitive understanding of Buddha-Nature. Otherwise we fall into faulty views like non-Buddhist view of eternalism / atman.

Malcolm also clarified in the Basis article on the momentary nature of consciousness:

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.

...

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../consciousness-is...

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.

- Reply
- 12m
- Edited

Mr. OMASoh Wei Yu
 Reg article on I AM. What I realized was that there is no birth or 
death from point of view of rigpa, this yelded I AM, or before Abraham I
 am. It made complete sense, and still does, and I used as mention other
 contemplation (and also other insight happened), to grind that 
"deathlessness" of dharmas (and still in the process of such). Though as
 I said, it doesnt make sense to talk of either "I" or "AM" these days, 
no arising or passing into awarness (and no awarness either) no 
background etc.. the ocean metaphore you mentioned doesnt fit how it is 
for me.
Reg
 the four qualificaiton mentioned is not what I noticed at the time, 
though they certainly have happen here and there, so maybe I have not 
realized  I AM  
That
 being said, they are not rigpa that dzogchen teachers point to even 
though it seems similar. Probably it is used as you mentioned and then 
get into further realizations, but again my point from earlier, its not 
identical how everyone goes about this. 
Hope that clearifies it  Have a nice day.

Reply
1h

Soh Wei YuWhen you said there is no awareness, what is left? Is it just nothing, nihilism? If not, what is experienced?

Reply
1h

Soh Wei YuThe
 I AMness is indeed preliminary rigpa and described by all the Dzogchen 
masters I've seen, I've given you plenty of examples yesterday and there
 are much more I haven't quoted from other teachers, but you get the 
idea.
But yes it is not the final rigpa.

Reply
1h

Mr. OMASoh Wei Yu 
Ok,
 if I AMness is a prelimiary, I have not noticed it as such because 
there is no empty cognizant in I AMness, while this is the point with 
rigpa. But I guess Daniel Browns way of doing it is I AM in the 
beginning, and then maturing it into further realization and different 
pointers, so maybe you are right. 
(notice his dzogchen pointers doesnt come before the very end of his path map)
Reg
 no awarness.. I can answer to best of my abilities, but getting AtR 
diagnostics while trying to make some points about what I find hard with
 it makes me a bit uncomfortable, my point is that I dont necessary 
agree, though I do like it Also its not all sealed for me.
There is still knowing, though its not a separate thing knowing. Its not nothing, its alive and natural  
I
 mean not awarness, in that there is not that flipping into awaken mind 
anymore, awarness has always been there. When you almost dont have that 
dichotomy of rigpa and no rigpa, there is nothing to compare to anymore 
if that makes sense, no non-awarness to make awarness a seperate thing.

Reply
40m

Soh Wei YuI
 AMness is indeed "empty cognizance", and haven't you heard all the 
Hindus describe their atman-brahman as nigurna, without attributes, 
formless, odourless, and so on? 
But this emptiness is not the same as the emptiness or anatman realized by aryas in Buddhadharma. 
As Kyle Dixon explained here http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-degrees-of...
krodha
2 points ·
7 days ago
"We
 had some confusion over the words recognition and realization but I'm 
not talking about a full realization of emptiness in the first vision. 
I'm talking about initial recognition and then familiarizing with empty 
cognizance. I made plenty of citations by now."
You
 still are not understanding what chos nyid means in chos nyid mgon sum 
it has nothing to do with emptiness. But I’ve explained this and you 
aren’t interested in listening, and that is okay for you, but your lack 
of clarity on this topic is concerning for others you may teach.
"I'm talking about initial recognition and then familiarizing with empty cognizance. I made plenty of citations by now."
Initial
 recognition of emptiness, unless the practitioner is very ripe, occurs 
at the third vision and then the third and fourth visions are the 
spectrum of integration with emptiness, hence the process of exhausting 
phenomena. Up until that time “emptiness” is rhetorical, indicating the 
clear and spacious nature of our knowing clarity [gsal rig].
Your
 Tulku Urgyen citations are not talking about the first vision. They are
 discussing the ma bcos pa'i shes pa skad cig ma or “moment of 
unfabricated consciousness” that is pointed out, which is the initial 
form of rig pa we use for practice, and specifically the practice of 
trekchö.
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
The Degrees of Rigpa
The Degrees of Rigpa

Reply
Remove Preview
18m

Soh Wei YuEmphasis:
 "Initial recognition of emptiness, unless the practitioner is very 
ripe, occurs at the third vision and then the third and fourth visions 
are the spectrum of integration with emptiness, hence the process of 
exhausting phenomena. Up until that time “emptiness” is rhetorical, 
indicating the clear and spacious nature of our knowing clarity [gsal 
rig]."
All the non Buddhists also describe that -- the clear and spacious nature of our knowing clarity [gsal rig]
The Dalai Lama likewise said, 
"Although
 someone may think this voidness is ultimate reality and meditate in 
that state for a long time, this is not meditation on the ultimate 
nature of the mind. There are two ways to meditate on the mind. The 
first is as above, examining whether the mind has color, shape, 
location, tangibility, and so forth. This leads to the sense that the 
conventional nature of the mind lacks these qualities. The second is 
meditation on the ultimate nature of the mind, in which we examine the 
mind’s ultimate mode of existence and discover its emptiness of inherent
 existence. People who confuse these two ways of meditating on the mind 
and think that the mind’s absence of tangibility, color, and so forth is
 the mind’s ultimate nature may criticize masters such as Dignāga and 
Dharmakīrti for their precise expositions on debate, logic, and 
reasoning, saying these only increase preconceptions. Gungtang Konchog 
Tenpai Dronme (1762–1823), another master who was impartial in his 
critical analysis of Tibetan Buddhist traditions, said he found this 
amazing. " - http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../primordial-purity...
As
 I have said earlier, the Hindu atman is also lacking in color, shape, 
location, tangibility and so forth. It is nirguna, without attributes or
 forms. But it is not the realization of anatman or emptiness of 
inherent existence.

Reply
15m
Edited

Soh Wei YuElsewhere the Dalai Lama also said, 
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

Reply
14m

Soh Wei Yu"There is still knowing, though its not a separate thing knowing."
The
 pure experience of I AM is also nondual and not a separate thing 
knowing something else. In fact if someone describes it as a separate 
thing knowing something else, I have to say that is not at all what I 
mean by the I AM realization.
I also wrote more than ten years ago during my I AM phase back in May 2010:
"The
 notion that there is an Observer on one hand, and an object of 
observation on the other hand, is purely the product of conceptual 
thinking/dualizing.
In
 actual experience, once you touch that 'certainty of being' that I 
mentioned, there is no observer and observed distinction. There is just a
 non-dual sense of Existence, Being, Presence, Knowing, without a sense 
of 'me' being separated from 'that'. You Are That Knowing which is 
certain that You Are! The distinction between knower, knowing, and known
 dissolve into That. You Are That!"

Reply
6m
Edited

Mr. OMASoh Wei Yu ok, thx.

Reply
9m

Soh Wei YuAlso have you read this before:
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
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../reality-i-am...
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
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.
……
“It
 is not the contemplations that are important, it is the view brought to
 contemplation that makes the difference. For example, there is no 
actual difference between the Hindu Nirvikalpa samadhi and Vajropama 
samadhi in terms of its content, but the fact that one is accompanied by
 insight and the other is not makes the difference between whether it is
 mundane or liberative.” – Dzogchen Teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith, 2014
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
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Awakening to Reality
Awakening to Reality

Reply
Remove Preview
4m

Soh Wei YuI know you don't like to read much but this is also a good read: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../beyond-awareness.html
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Beyond Awareness: reflections on identity and awareness
Beyond Awareness: reflections on identity and awareness

Reply
Remove Preview
3m
 
Mr. OMASoh Wei Yu
 you posted this already (and l read it :)) I appreciate all of this, 
but my point initally has been that l dont think you can take everyone 
under one scope, though its valuabe and good for sure, l think there are
 miss interpretations at times.. thats all. 
I think l need to throw in the towel now, but thank you 

Reply
19m

Soh Wei YuMr. OMA
And
 my point is that all the initial breakthrough in all these traditions, 
from Dzogchen to Zen to Thai Forest Tradition, and also Mahamudra and so
 on, they always start from I AM :）It's just how deep they go into the 
nature, the nondual and empty nature of that pristine clarity after the 
initial breakthrough.

Reply
16m

Soh Wei YuAnd
 also all the Buddhist traditions, at least the founders (except maybe 
some like Dolpopa?) like Bodhidharma, Padmasambhava, Longchenpa and so 
on have realised twofold emptiness. 
But most students and teachers nowadays have not.

Reply
15m
Edited

Soh Wei YuSo it is indeed not wrong at all when John Tan said:
"Though
 buddha nature is plainness and most direct, these are still the steps. 
If one does not know the process and said ‘yes this is it’… then it is 
extremely misleading. For 99 percent [of ‘realized’/’enlightened’ 
persons] what one is talking about is "I AMness", and has not gone 
beyond permanence, still thinking [of] permanence, formless… ...all and 
almost all will think of it along the line of "I AMness", all are like 
the grandchildren of "AMness", and that is the root cause of duality.” -
 John Tan, 2007

Reply
15m

Mr. OMASoh Wei Yu twofold emptiness, what do you mean by that? Self and phenomena? 
I dont say it is wrong, l just say argh, what l have said 

Reply
13m

Soh Wei YuMr. OMA Have you read this before? http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../on-anatta... - I consider this a v impt article so I placed it second next to the 7 stages in the AtR blog.
For a summary, Kyle Dixon wrote:
"Kyle
 Dixon: Selflessness means there is ultimately no actual subject, which 
means there is no actual internal reference point that is apprehending 
sensory phenomena.
In 
describing this simply it means through your practice you will 
hopefully, eventually, awaken to recognize that there is no actual seer 
of sights, no hearer of sounds, and so on. The feeling of an internal 
seer or hearer, etc., is a useful but false construct that is created 
and fortified by various causes and conditions.
We
 suffer when we cling to this construct and think it is actually real. 
Recognition of the actual nature of that construct is liberating and 
freeing.” – Kyle Dixon, 2021
Additional to the above, emptiness of phenomena is when the anatman insight is applied to all phenomena:
“The absence of characteristics [alakṣaṇa] is a synonym for emptiness [śūnyatā].
In
 short, we believe we are a self that possesses characteristics, or that
 objects are discrete entities that possess characteristics. In 
realizing emptiness however, it is recognized non-conceptually and 
experientially that there is no object or self that possesses 
characteristics, and without the inherent object to possess 
characteristics, characteristics cease to be characteristics.” – Kyle 
Dixon, 2021
Emptiness of self and phenomena constitutes the twotold emptiness.
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection
On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection

Reply
Remove Preview
5m

Soh Wei YuYes self and phenomena

Reply
5m

Mr. OMA

Reg anatta and I AM in dzogchen practitioners.

I know you have loads of stuff on anatta vs I AM, but I think if you differentiate I AM from Rigpa, then its less likely to state that Tulku Urgyen etc.. might be stuck at I AM.

My point originally was that due to practices, lineage etc.. its simply might be different how people express their state of realization, and if you always put the bar at anatta realization you can end up in confusion, like Tulku Urgyen being a substantialist (I dont know if you think that, but its an example of where it can stray).

I still like that one measure stages, etc.. its good. Maybe one should check out other ways of measuring too?

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA

The point isn’t to judge people. However as for measuring stages, I have to say, there can be no compromise for liberation. There can be no liberation without realizing anatta.

2007:

(9:02 PM) Thusness: except there need to be some refinements of the 5th stage.

(9:03 PM) AEN: oic how come?

(9:03 PM) Thusness: I think that is an important stage.

(9:04 PM) Thusness: that truly determine whether a person has realised the meaning of what is meant by liberation or not.

(9:05 PM) Thusness: and exactly at which level of non-dual can a person be considered stabilized in non-duality.

(9:05 PM) Thusness: This I think i will write something about it.

(9:05 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:05 PM) Thusness: later.

(9:05 PM) AEN: oic

(9:05 PM) Thusness: because many masters really bullshit a lot.

(9:05 PM) Thusness: and dunno what they are toking about.

(9:05 PM) Thusness: especially some zen masters.

(9:06 PM) AEN: huh how come

(9:06 PM) AEN: regarding what

(9:06 PM) Thusness: regarding what liberation is about.

(9:06 PM) Thusness: sometimes I think there is a need to say something.

(9:07 PM) Thusness: coz it can be very misleading.

(9:07 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:27 PM) Thusness: what are the most important factor determining whether a person is enlightened or not?

(9:28 PM) AEN: his insights? lol

(9:28 PM) Thusness: what sort of insights?

(9:29 PM) AEN: like 3 dharma seals, non dual, etc?

(9:29 PM) Thusness: precisely!

(9:29 PM) AEN: icic

(9:29 PM) Thusness: experiencing the Self and say that all is Self does not lead us anywhere.

(9:30 PM) AEN: but tats an expression of non duality isnt it

(9:30 PM) Thusness: worst still, such experience may led us into further enhancing our dualistic mode of thought.

(9:30 PM) AEN: oic

(9:30 PM) Thusness: so how liberation take place?

(9:31 PM) AEN: its always taking place but the insight may or may not be there?

(9:31 PM) AEN: and the qualities of enlightenment, self-liberation, etc must also be there

(9:32 PM) Thusness: what sort of intuitive experience will lead us towards liberation?

(9:32 PM) AEN: erm like the 7 qualities?

(9:33 PM) Thusness: no...

(9:33 PM) AEN: or u said the 3 qualities of self liberation?

(9:33 PM) Thusness: no...

(9:34 PM) AEN: then non-dual insights?

(9:34 PM) Thusness: yes...

(9:34 PM) AEN: oic

(9:34 PM) Thusness: there is no self

(9:34 PM) Thusness: this is the insight that must arise.

(9:34 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:34 PM) Thusness: for true enlightenment to take place.

(9:35 PM) Thusness: and this insight must be stabilized. Stability is measured in terms of the extent it sank into our consciousness.

(9:36 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:36 PM) Thusness: why do i keep stressing no-self

(9:36 PM) Thusness: because this is the determining factor.

Soh Wei Yu

(9:37 PM) Thusness: why not "I AMness", samadhi...etc

(9:37 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:37 PM) Thusness: these have nothing to do with liberation.

(9:38 PM) Thusness: u cannot tok about liberation yet remain dualistic.

(9:38 PM) AEN: icic

(9:38 PM) Thusness: because any form of division is suffering and bonded.

(9:38 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:39 PM) Thusness: So saying I am the Self. I am the ultimate reality... I am the formless, identityless, changeless Self. All these are useless.

(9:39 PM) AEN: oic

(9:40 PM) AEN: yea but 'all is self' is different already rite hehehe

(9:40 PM) Thusness: the experience though transcendental is not liberating.

(9:40 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:40 PM) Thusness: all is self is a subtle propensity...

(9:40 PM) Thusness: though it may sound it is the same.

(9:41 PM) Thusness: as what david loy said.

(9:41 PM) AEN: oic

(9:41 PM) Thusness: if your non-dual is thorough, u will know that non-dual and impermanence are identical.

(9:41 PM) AEN: icic...

(9:42 PM) Thusness: buddha nature are all the conditions

(9:42 PM) Thusness: buddha nature are all these phenomenon

(9:42 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:42 PM) Thusness: this should be the realisation.

(9:42 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:43 PM) Thusness: It is not why must there be this experience...it is awareness is always so!

(9:43 PM) Thusness: its nature is non-dual.

(9:43 PM) AEN: oic..

(9:46 PM) Thusness: u mentioned that toni packer spoke about dogen?

(9:46 PM) Thusness: the summer is not winter..etc?

(9:46 PM) AEN: oh ya hehe

(9:46 PM) Thusness: what about it?

(9:49 PM) AEN: she describe how she once didnt understand the verse then later the time quality fell away and she realise that just being there there is no change from fire to ashes; it was just what was: fire, then sometimes it collapses, and there are some sparks, and it seems to turn black. but when u're really there, timlessly, it is not a process of time that is observed but presence: eternal, everlasting, without time. then she say something like our response will become spontaneous and intelligent.. if there is a timeless quality in one's perception, then it's not that one sees something is changing from this to that. one simply sees what is and responds.. etc etc

(9:51 PM) Thusness: not bad.

(9:51 PM) Thusness: but not good enough.

(9:51 PM) Thusness: heehehe

(9:51 PM) AEN: oic how come

(9:51 PM) Thusness: but that is a major break through.

(9:51 PM) AEN: icic y

(9:51 PM) Thusness: how many pages?

(9:52 PM) AEN: that chapter has 4 pages

(9:53 PM) Thusness: ic.

(9:54 PM) Thusness: i think this is an important chapter. For even toni packer said she din understand it initially. For a person thorough in non-duality and yet not understand this...tells us how important it is. This is closely linked to the self-liberating aspect of our nature.

(9:55 PM) AEN: oic

(9:55 PM) AEN: maybe that time she havent understand non dual?

(9:55 PM) AEN: lol

(9:55 PM) Thusness: so don't think that u can understand it.

(9:55 PM) AEN: hahahaha

(9:55 PM) Thusness: no lah...

(9:56 PM) Thusness: to deepen the experience of non-duality, one has to break the more subtle bonds...

(9:56 PM) Thusness: sometimes these bonds are so subtle that they are difficult to detect.

(9:56 PM) Thusness: i have told u several factors

(9:56 PM) Thusness: one is the background

(9:56 PM) Thusness: one is the body

(9:57 PM) Thusness: that is why u hear dogen said the dropping of mind and body

(9:57 PM) AEN: back

(9:57 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:00 PM) Thusness: u will hear sankara (founder of advaita) said there is no body...so no need to drop.

(10:00 PM) Thusness: this is what i called transcendental-blindness

(10:01 PM) AEN: lol

(10:01 PM) Thusness: means being too attached to the liberating aspect of our nature that blinded him to see other aspects of consciousness.

Mr. OMA

Soh Wei Yu I dont have a problem with "judging" or making analysis of peoples realization, I think it is good and even necessary at times. Question is if your premise is correct, right?

So first point was to clearify rigpa from I AM. I think this is really important for starters. Maybe some teachers use it along the way, and because they know what they are doing they get you to progress into further insights, but initially they are not the same.

Second point reg anatta is necessary for liberation. I agree, it is. But not all verbal descriptions are identical to how it was for you, that is my point.

Some might have reached liberation, but they dont use same terminology, references etc.. this might be one of the reasons you only have found two dzoghcen people in india continent who have reached this realization.

That is what I meant.

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. OMA

It is not a matter of expression but whether the view is correct or not and whether there is direct realization of it. If they do, I will know. Even if they have different style of writing.

[23/3/19, 8:08:42 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic yeah I made clear in a post this morning that all the Buddhist traditions are in line with anatta and emptiness even though most of the modern Teachers are not... lol

[23/3/19, 8:09:30 PM] John Tan: Yeah I read

[24/3/19, 11:17:05 PM] John Tan: From the perspective of clarity, it is true that Buddhism anatta and emptiness is more profound and deep… lol. But still good to caution about respecting all religions and practice. Why empty clarity is only pointed out in buddhism. So although it is true about all points to pure consciousness, it is realizing the emptiness that is the prajna eye to allow us to clearly see the empty nature of clarity. Otherwise we will most likely land in alaya or [be] required to still in deep stillness of samadhi.

(On this point, I was reminded of something John Tan said back in I think 2012:

"Every religion is talking about consciousness. It is the nature of consciousness that is important. It is like talking about “Soh'' from different people. Of course all is pointing to "Soh" but when someone say he is an American, has 10 sisters and is now studying in India… we cannot say that he is correct and it is the same because ultimately we are talking about "Soh".")”

“Yes sahaja samadhi but that remain as "experience". Just like in taoism, it is all about naturalness 自然 and non-action (action without agent) though there are overlaps but they are different in praxis and view essentially. There is no need to forcefully integrate the various religions into one, that is just more attachment.

Although there is no monopoly over truth as ultimately all is/are talking about one's primordial nature but there are those that much clearer and precise in their system of practice. If the views and philosophies are 90% inherent and dualistic, the result from such a system will at best be a stage to be achieved abiet the emphasis of" natural state.

As I said before, if someone were to say "Soh is a malay, a speckie, used to be a c# programmer, 1.9m tall and has a sister", obviously some informations are correct and some are misleading. Even if you were to stand right in front of him, he will not be able to recognize you. Therefore although all are talking about the natural condition of pristine consciousness, some are exceptionally clearer than others.” – John Tan, 2020

Labels: Anatta, Dzogchen, I AMness 0 comments | |

物物皆自己，心心绝诸缘

Soh

物物皆自己，心心绝诸缘

洪文亮禅师口述

二〇〇一年四月马来西亚，“蛙鼓楼”

天童山觉和尚宏智禅师语录选析

　　只是诸人妙净明心，在一切尘一切刹，与法界等，清净如满月，妙明常照烛。于诸缘中，出一头地。古人道，即此见闻非见闻，更无声色可呈君。个中若了浑无事，体用何妨分不分。若能恁去，闻声便悟道，见色便明心。到恁时，不被一切法碍。物物皆自己，心心绝诸缘，何处不成等正觉？何处不转大法轮？何处不度脱众生？何处不入涅槃？若论此事，不论僧俗，不在久近。若尔一念相应，照体独立，物我皆如，在一切时，圆陀陀，明了了，净裸裸，赤洒洒，堂堂地现前。在一切时，成佛作祖。只为尔放不下，自筑界墙便见有自它。是尔自碍三界，三界岂碍尔？若自不作障碍，便是普遍底身，普遍底心，是大自在汉。所以古人道，一法若有，毗卢堕在凡夫；万法若无，普贤失其境界。且道，作么生得恰好相应去？还会么？虚空谁肯挂一物，大海自然归百川。

宏智禅师广录卷第五

1.这一段我想介绍给各位的是，主要是看到最后这一句：『若论此事，不论僧俗，不在久近』。很多人都反对禅宗的顿悟法门，以为这是假的，是你们乱讲，或说一定要出家才成，你们在家的怎修都是还是在家。为了这个我才提出这一段。

宏智禅师是宋朝真正开悟的大禅师。最后那一段的意思是，假如论此事，明心见性最重要。佛得点头给迦叶，就是这个事。假如你真的要跟佛一样，得到这个正觉。那个正觉是什么？就是不神经病，很正常的样子就是等正觉。这是佛讲的。我们讲佛，佛就是没有精神病。精神病好了就是等正觉。我们都是多多少少，深深浅浅，深浅之分，但都是精神有毛病、心病。所以，他说『若论此事』，真的是佛要传给迦叶，不是佛传给他的呀。“啊，你跟我一样”，只是一个同意认可而已，不是他给的。那一代代，迦叶传给阿难，一代代传了下来，到了六祖，一直传“这个事”。真的有那一“着”的人，看到一个人跟他一样，跟佛祖一见明星一样，或者是迦叶看到佛在手里拈花，是不是？

2.那很多人不知道阿难是怎么开悟的。我们介绍过，可是很多外面的人解释错了。阿难是释迦牟尼佛过去之后才开悟的。释迦牟尼佛在世时，阿难虽然永远在他身边，但是他就是没有办法指出一大事因缘“平等心”是什么，不知道。知道是知道，但不是见性，不是真正得到这个。所以呢，阿难很苦恼啊。那释迦牟尼过世后，他们开会，要编辑编辑佛留下的话。阿难也要参加，但迦叶说你不能参加。阿难问何故，说我参与这么久，记性好，什么大小论辩，外道来找佛，我在旁边都听到佛怎么教，佛教的什么密咒呀，什么修行的法门，都在旁边听过呀，我通通记得，记得清楚。我不参加你们收集不来、编辑不成的。迦叶说，在这里呢，只有真正证到佛性的，证到此事的，才能进入参加。阿难没办法参加，却哭哭啼啼地求说，师兄啊，让我参加好不好，我都记得那么多，这一次网开一面，让我进来吧。他就等迦叶许可。迦叶不讲话，他转身就走，不准就是不准。才走了两步，迦叶就在后面叫：“阿难！”，“啊！”，开悟了！是这样开悟的了。不是说把门前的旗杆上的旗升起来了。佛在世时要把旗升起来表示佛开始讲法。所以，阿难在失望之余，只好走出去，才走了两步，迦叶在后面叫了一声。他已经是很失望，所以这个很重要，不准就不准，这个没办法了，伤心失望，几乎涕零了，多丢脸、难堪。佛的弟子，一辈子在他身边，又记得那多，什么都知道，就是不让他参加，面子都没有了，好难过。这时候，后面却来了一声“阿难！”，“啊”，他本来就钻在极度难堪、丢脸的这个情绪里头，什念头都没有，忽然这个时候听到这一声叫唤，而他还懂得回音，耳根根本不跟着你的意识分别情绪状态的，有了声音就是有了，那个六根本来样子一动，“啊！原来我根本没有迷糊，本来就是法身所现。”，法身所现，他知道啊，他听过那么多，怎不知是法身所现？可是那“我是法身所现”是头脑所想的呀。在十分伤心失落丢脸时，忽然来个“阿难”的叫声，这时候的震动， “啊！”，头脑动，他这一转身，迦叶知道，阿难也知道，同时嘛。迦叶即说：哈，课已经讲完了。你的境界跟我的境界，我看佛在拈花，那一下，跟你此刻听到 “阿难！”那一下，和释迦牟尼看到明星那“啊呀”一下一样。好了，好了，门前那个旗可以降下了，等于法会完了嘛。“倒却门前刹杆着”，很多人说，阿难到外面去，把旗杆摸到了（用触根）才悟到的。因为阿难跟迦叶已经见面谈话，已经为了可以不可以参加编辑论辩，论了又不准，即何必再叫阿难呢？你已经跟我谈了半天，我还要叫你某某吗？神经病。我已经跟大家在一起了嘛。阿难很失望，他以为迦叶不理他了，他根本不期待迦叶会叫他，走了两步，忽然来了叫唤。这个时候没有一个念头，除了伤心之外，没有其他念头。这个时候一个自己，那个声音的一个自己动到那个，那个声音在那里显现。声音在你那里显现不是他听到、迦叶听到。普通的境界是，我听到迦叶在叫，马上就说“迦叶师兄在后”，那个时候不叫师兄，现在动不动叫“师兄师妹”的一大堆。他那时候“嘿，Mahagashia在叫我”这个念头先起，那就没有了，就擦身而过。就是偏偏那个失望到伤心脸红的时候，就听到人家叫我阿难，这个时候力量才大，这个时候还没有那个意识动啊。迦叶在我背后叫的这个concept，这个概念兴起以前，那个法身本身显现在那里的东西，同时“碰！”了出来，跟普通显现的境界不一样的那个境界同时显现了，这就是“虚明自照，明寂自现”，明明白白寂寂。很寂就是不动思想，寂就是非思量；这个明呢，是非思量，不是昏沉啊，不是石头、木头吗？不是。有了声音，咦，青蛙叫了，根本没有想到它要叫，啊，自然就有了，明寂自现。那一下子“啊！嘿？”，就高兴了。“好了好了，你把旗杆放下，降旗了”。这即是“倒却门前刹杆着”，并不是你去摸了刹杆才开悟。他叫一声阿难那个时候，梦已醒。所以说，『若论此事』，要谈释尊的一见明星那一下，迦叶的一见释尊手中拿着花玩，阿难的听到迦叶叫了一声“阿难”，灵云看到桃花，他本来那仓惶了二三十年，回到家，一直在感叹，什么都是一样，没有见性，找了许多师父，什么仪轨、灌顶啦，灵云很失望，还不是一样呀。“我知道这个不是，但是没有办法，“一夜落花雨”，不来就是不来，满城还是臭臭的，流水香都没有，没有就是没有，所以他就失望地回到家。抬头往窗外一看，看到桃花，一见桃花，啊，踏破铁鞋无觅处，就在这里！跟一见明星的景致，“一大事”一样。『若论此事』，就是讲的这个。

3.你要注意看，他们真正的学了那么久，读了那么久，苦修了那么久，念佛、念咒、打坐，辛苦得很呐！不像我们这轻松啊！但是还是不行，还都是需要那么一下，那么一下，一定还是要“一夜落花雨”。没有办法，那无根树，根本没有等到春风，它就“哎”地花自开了。奇怪了，那春天要来，要大自然界叫春风来吗？没有呀，那怎么一下子就春天了呢？春天在哪里？把春找不出来，找不到，但是大家都知道春天。那奇怪呢，明明是春天，不会误会是冬天，但是春是什么？找不到，但就是春。这个象不会错掉，奇怪呢。『若论此事』，他就讲这个。『不论僧俗』，大家注意，这个事情，这一着，这一下，真正的佛法的真正东西，根本不论是出家人、在家人。『不论久近』，不是你修了很久很久的『久参的』，在佛法里打滚了十年二十年的，你才有机会，不是，『近』，新近，刚修半年的，从来都没有学过佛法的，不论这个，根本都没有听过佛的一个什么，什么佛字心字都没有，什么都不知道，『不在久近』！不在这个上头。为什么？个个都是他嘛。这个跟你学了很久和刚刚学有关系吗？没有嘛。跟出家不出家有关系吗？那是人类在那里分的。释迦牟尼那个时候是为了应付环境的那个样子，所以一定要有organisation。不是说，organised这个group才能开悟，没有。维摩诘居士不是居士吗？所以要请各位特别注意，『若论此事』，真正的修证佛法的人，不要担心你出家，不要担心你不出家，也不要担心我是刚修的，“我没办法啦，你们学了那久，都不行，我怎能够？”，这是你的思想在动，你在找借口。所以这个提出来就是这样。

4.【只是诸人妙净明心】　　

『只是诸人妙净明心』，我们不知道『只是诸人妙净明心』是什么。千万不要以为我有一个心，修行念佛了以后，变成了妙，变成了明，变成干净，还有殊胜的、神通的力量，有很好的修养，可以表现，不是这样。你本来就是妙净明心的显现。所以，诸人，你们各位通通都是妙净明心呀。不修有吗？跟修不修有什么关系？所以说『不论僧俗，不在久近』，修久才会明净，那就不叫『不在久近』啦。修久了才比较占便宜嘛，对不对？刚刚洗了烦恼才不会掉嘛，对不对？『不在久近，不论僧俗』，所以，我们本来就是妙净明心，不要把这个心当做我们动念的那个心，千万不要把这个心误会是修行成就了，就变成非常妙明干净的心，不是这样。这个心，怎么动？

5.【在一切尘一切刹，与法界等．】

下面解说，『在一切尘，一切刹，与法界等』。法界是什么？所有接触到的，可以想到的、看到的，包括想到的，都是整个，所以一切的一切，都是法界。跟法界一样，什么意思？『在一切尘，一切刹』，他说跟『法界等』，等同法界，所以说是『一切尘，一切刹』，为什么我们的『妙净明心』跟它一样？你们大家各位都担心死了，我的『妙净明心』跑到哪里去了？假如这个青山，这个森罗万象是我的『妙净明心』，当我死掉了，那个山是山呀！阿里山也是阿里山呀！喜马拉雅山也是喜马拉雅山呀！它还在，我死掉，那我的『妙净明心』留在世上，我自己却死掉了。误会，误会在哪里？你把这个攀缘的、动的那个、能思想的那个、好像精神作用当做我的心，所以好像我这个心的离开了，如果山是我的心，当我死掉，那个山也应该消失掉。它是不会消失的，那怎么山就是我呢？大家很容易犯这个毛病，对不对？那是因为你在思想上想这个事，就有这个误会产生。如果青蛙在外面叫，那个声音大家是不是听到？听到。听到的意思是那个声音在你的心发生变化。这个变化叫做青蛙的声音。你说在外面，你听咯咯咯叫，你的身心上没有变化，没有相应，没有动，你就听不到它。是你自己身心这个工具在动。这个工具动就好，那母的声音是母的动，公的声音是公的动，不是你有一个身心，它接受电波，知道公的，知道母的，这个就错了。很多人都是这样读经，这就错了。不是你有一个叫做什么心一样的东西，有公的青蛙叫，我就接受公的那个青蛙声波，知道公，母的叫，就接受母的声波，就知道。这是一般的概念，想出来的境界。实际上呢，你听到公的青蛙叫，你的『妙净明心』，它以公的青蛙的叫声显现，它以那个姿态显现，以那个姿态动，整个就是，不是我能够知道这个是公，这个是母，不是分开的。公的青蛙的声音在你的『妙净明心』以公的青蛙的声音显现，以那个声音显现。母的叫的时候，你的『妙净明心』以母的声音的形态显现，都是它在显现。它在哪里？找不到。但是随缘就变那个，不是变那个，是以那个姿态出现。不是变，变就不对，是以那个形态，那个本身就是你的moving的样子。这样懂吗？色相也是，我看到你的时候，我的『妙净明心』，以你的色相，以你的色相就是我的动，不是我这里catch，我知道，不是这样。你的色相就是我的『妙净明心』那样子动，所以有那个色相。色相就是我的『妙净明心』那样才有你的色相。所以，『在一切尘、一切刹』，你到美国，美国的样子就是你的『妙净明心』以美国的样子动，看到苏联人哦哦哦地叫，那个声音就是我的妙净明心以那个声音的姿态动。知道或不知道是意识，但是耳朵照样显现那个声音。所以，『在一切尘、一切刹』，你想到五千年前，思想上即会想到五千年前。“五千年前”的这个思想本身就是我的『妙净明心』那动， “啊，五千年前”，否则，你怎知道五千年前？你的『妙净明心』都是它去想，那个思想本身就是它的动呀。所以，『在一切尘、一切刹』，都是去到哪里，听到哪里，想到哪里，就是显现嘛。所以，『与法界等』，不是另外有一个法界在，你的『妙净明心』在去等到，去认知，那就根本不是佛法了。这样你的我相怎抛开呢？这个非常非常重要，你好好地自己亲证到、确认的时候，就是enlightened。确认之前都有我，好像我有一个『妙净明心』在这里照、照、照。听的、看的，到哪里就看到哪里，到哪里就听哪里，那是外道说法，说有一个在转世。你整个法界变，好坏、声音、色相、感觉、思想，就是你的妙净明心那样子动。那你的本性不是『与法界等』嘛？否则怎『等』呢？所以『与法界等』就是这“赤裸裸”的事情。

但是，它的本性是什么？『净裸裸，赤洒洒，勿可把』，没有办法去看它是红色、白色、大、小，躲在我的哪里。但是，遇缘就变，那个缘本身就是它的样子。哎，这个就没办法讲了，能够讲吗？“言语断处”。人在玩弄概念时就描写那个本体。本体是你思想的内涵，你把它当做那本体，那是无极，那是太极，你的太极在哪里？在你思想里头？但是这个思想也是『妙净明心』变的呀！『妙净明心』不曾变，不是它变的。『妙净明心』以这样的姿态动，但是它本身没有相，无住相，“应无所住而生其心”。不是吗？心就是见闻觉知，色声香味触法就是心。不要把“无所住而生其心”当做攀缘心，那就完全把金刚经解释错了。所以说经藏也好，都没有将这种东西分析得详细，因为讲的人自己都弄不清楚，宏智禅师清清楚楚地跟我们讲。

6.【清净如满月，妙明常照烛】　

你看，我们的妙净明心『清净如满月，妙明常照烛』。不管你神经错乱，神经错乱的境界本身就是你的『妙净明心』，因为这个缘，它以神经错乱的那个样子动。它本身根本没有变，所以，碰到别的缘，有好的缘来了，我们认为错乱的境界消失了，治病治好了，正常的境界呈现。因为『妙净明心』根本不住在固定的相，所以它清净呀。青蛙叫，叫声就是它；狗叫，哎，我的『妙净明心』变成狗叫。『妙净明心』到底是青蛙叫，还是狗叫才对？两个都对。但是，它本身呢？它本身无相无住。因应了狗叫声，它的『妙净明心』以狗叫的姿态显现；碰到青蛙声，它没办法以青蛙叫的样子动，那就不叫『清净』，那就被染污掉了，被狗叫声染污掉了。所以青蛙叫的缘来了，它就是那个缘本身，缘本身呀，它马上是缘本身。被染污了还会不会变成青蛙叫？狗叫？不会，你看，任运随缘，它自己变，它自己就是那个样子。所以它本身没有本体，所以它无住，没有住在哪个色相、哪个声音、哪个思想，所以思想肯定也可以，否定也可以。思想本身属于肯定，属于否定吗？不是。能够思想的力量不住在肯定，所以，你一下想要否定，你就可以否定。所以它『清净』，不被哪个缘占据了，不会变掉，不然就被染污掉了。红色就是红色，遇到白就白，遇到蓝就蓝。它自己没有本色。在哪里变？不知道。缘就是它吗？不是。离开它有吗？没有。“非即非离”。不就是声音本身，但是非离，不能离那个本体有这些。 “非即非离，无是无非”，就是描写那个本体，『清净如满月，妙明常照烛』，睡觉的时候，昏沉得不知道这是你的法身，你的『妙净明心』呈现为意识都不动的那个状态显现。梦的时候，梦境本身就是『妙净明心』以梦境的姿态这样动，梦过了它就没有。它是梦吗？不是。离开它能有梦吗？不能。它是什么东西？

四大六根，我们的四大，眼耳鼻舌身意六根，我自己的四大跟外面的四大，即地水火风，一样不一样？一样。六根是四大构成的，外面的东西是四大构成的，四大六根，内外，跟外头，远在美国、天界、银河系，都是四大构成的。『内外虚幻』，没有本体。因为是『妙净明心』显的，『彻底空寂』。『彻底空寂』是什么？看到北斗星，就是我的『妙净明心』以北斗七星的那个相在那里动，you get it？那我本身是什么？法身是什么？没有相呀，住在哪里？没有呀。『四大六根，内外虚幻』，虚幻就是没有本体。虚幻不是有一个『虚』的东西，不是，它告诉你，没有自性。没有那个固定的样子，固定的地方，固定的一个点从那里发出来，不是。『内外虚幻』，彻彻底底的空寂。空寂就是无住相，无住。下面要紧。那，你们各位面前看到、面前听到、面前想到，面前『明明了了』吗？风扇，罗医师，啤酒禅师，胡先生，小姐，都分得很清楚呀！四大和六根，都是没有本体啊！梦一样的东西构成的。内外呀，要注意内外啊。外也是，内也是，『彻底的空寂』，没有本体的那个东西。没有本体的那个东西，内外都是没有本体，没有真正的东西，但是怎又这样明白，面前『明明了了』，这个『明明了了』的，不管你“能照，所照”，非常明了，复是何物？什么东西呀，这个？亲证到了就是见性。你告诉我四大六根都是虚幻，都是空寂，既然虚幻空寂，怎么这般明白？怎么这般『明明了了』？『妙净明心』的妙用，所以叫做『妙』。你以为我在这里看，我在这里听，我在这里思想，那你永远是佛法的外道。佛法没有讲这样。

所以当你成佛的时候，原来『与法界等』，只是缘生。生的缘到了就显现这生的样子，死的缘到了就显现死的样子，没有离开你的『妙净明心』呀！这样，『妙明常照烛』，生的时候，死的时候，睡的时候，醒的时候，糊涂的时候，见性的时候，统统照那样子显现。还要迷悟吗？你要假定有一个我要开悟，就有迷悟了。要是， “啊呀，那是什么都没有迷悟......”谁讲？什么都没有迷悟是你的一个概念，你想你提出这个概念：“本来都没有迷悟”，你属于迷悟还是不迷悟啊？你站在迷悟之外才讲什么都没有迷、没有悟，那你是属于迷，还是属于悟？所以很小心很小心！除非你真正地跑到悬崖那边，咚的一声，我相断掉以外都不能够抛开这个妄想。

7.【于诸缘中，出一头地】

　　『于诸缘中，出一头地』，诸缘是什么？看到的，听到的，想到的，摸到的，所以能够知，“不触事而知”也好，一切都是诸缘。这个『妙净明心』，『出一头地』，它在里头，但却不是它。那奇怪哩，『于诸缘中，出一头地』就是它，不就是它，但不能离开它。它以声音显现，它以颜色显现，它以各种缘显现，但是不住在缘，所以『出一头地』。『出一头地』就是这个意思：你不要假设一个法身，一个『妙净明心』在这个诸缘、见闻觉知以外有一个法性、法身，那你又自己在那里乱想。

8.【古人道，即此见闻非见闻，更无声色可呈君】

　　『古人道，即此见闻非见闻』，修行很高的古人说，『妙净明心』本身以声音色相在动。你要立一个我，我看到，我想到，我认为你这个对，你那个不对，那你就根本没有听懂我的话，所以『见闻即非见闻』，啊，实际上是你的『妙净明心』以见以闻在那里动，没有能见所见，你还有什么见闻吗？所以当然，见闻不是见闻，有声色可以告诉你吗？『更无声色可呈君』。

9.【个中若了浑无事，体用何妨分不分】

　　『个中』就是你真正见性了。一见明星就是亲自证到诸缘，统统都是以你的『妙净明心』，以那个诸缘的样子在那里functioning，这个叫做『个中』，很多时候，他们说“个中里许”，其中加个“里许”，也是这个意思。『个中』，啊，你清楚啦，这『妙净明心』你不是真正用思想去指那个法性法身，那是你思想在指法性。你因为日常生活中知道这个事，时常时常稍微不要那神经病，有时候就那“啪”一下，“啊......”，就是这样。阿难就是这样。『若了』，了啦，没有疑问了，不是知道，不是了解，就是no doubt，已经根本不是问题了。『妙净明心』自己那样动，还是问题吗？『浑无事』，什么事都没有，还有什么事？还有迷，还有悟？还有生，还有死？死有死的位置，生有生的位置，都是你的『妙净明心』，你的佛的命。死也是佛的命，生也是佛的命。死生离不开你佛的命，也就是你的『妙净明心』。所以『体用何妨分不分』，你说，本啦、末啦、性啦、相啦，你分出来给人家讲，人家就啊啊啊，太极分两仪，两仪分四象，这样比较容易接受，『分不分何妨，随便你啦，但其中一个条件：『个中若了』。『个中里许』就是一见明心，一见佛在手中拈花，灵云一见桃花，香严一闻击竹声。一定要这一着。跳进水里，“啊，好舒服！”那个感觉，一定要这个『个中若了』。『浑』，就是通通没有事。

10。【能恁去，闻声便悟道，见色便明心】

『若能恁去』，如果你能这样去，这个要紧，他告诉你，你一定要这一着，『恁去』，『闻声便悟道』，声音，你清楚自己的『妙净明心』在那里动，那不是悟道吗？没有迷糊就是悟道，迷糊才叫做奇奇怪怪，没有弄错，哪有什么对不对？闻声也可以，看到什么粪便、脏的东西，『见色』也可以，不一定见到佛像才见性呀！不一定听到佛号，拼命念佛号。『闻声』，香严听到石头的声音。有的人，过去的禅师，日本的一个禅师，忘了名字，在仪轨、佛事的时候，一个人在旁边放了一个屁，开悟了。屁声，因为这个缘，开悟了。声音里头有脏的，还是圣的吗？『见色便明心』，这个叫做为什么香严、灵云、佛祖本身、迦叶、阿难，通通都是，看到了、听到了，『便明心』。我们都有机会，因为它不在久近，不是久修的人才有机会，刚刚听佛法的人没有机会。这是你已经在那里乱想，不要借口，随时都有机会。因为，只要你不在发神经病，你马上知道，不是你的心听到。因为你认为有“我”的那个毛病舍不掉，所以，一定要“我”的那个精神作用捉到这个，“啊，我听到，我看到”，是不是？

11.【到恁时，不被一切法碍】

　　『到恁时，不被一切法碍』，死都不会有妨碍，死就是死，冬天到了，就是冬天嘛！也不是秋天变冬天，也不是生的我变成死的我呀！死有死的位置，生有生的位置，变生变死。你们讲生死，但是『妙净明心』上有没有生死？没有呀！随缘就是显现那个。

12.【物物皆自己，心心绝诸缘，何处不成等正觉？何处不转大法轮？何处不度脱众生？何处不入涅槃？】

　　『物物皆自己』，听到“咯啷咯啷(青蛙叫声)”，是不是你自己呢？不是你自己怎知道那个声音？是你自己那样动，才知道青蛙叫。我们自己的神经病状态是“啊，我听到青蛙叫”，你根本佛法都没入门，听错了！不是没有入门，是拉你入门，你硬不要，一定要找那豪华的，好多土地的。『物物皆自己』，知道了吗？看到一头牛，牛的相在你这里，所以你知道牛。你这里不变牛的相，你怎看到？是你的『妙净明心』变的。说变已经不对，说变就好像是一个『妙净明心』它变成那样的相，容易误会。所以我很不喜欢用“变”，其实不是这样，它以牛的那个形象这样显现，在那样working，在这样动。它本体呢？看不见、摸不到，在哪里？不知道，遇缘就那个样子动。所以，叫做『妙净明心』，所以叫做『妙』、『真如』、『物物皆自己』，很简单，我看各位在这里，这样一下子，咯，每一个是我自己。我的『妙净明心』没有动，没有你们的相在这里。那个声音，我的『妙净明心』没有动，就以那个声音动才有声音。没有动的声音管它会不会动，但是你可看到、摸到、听到，一定跟你的，如果你要分心何物的话，一定是心物一起动，觉得不会分开动，分开怎么知道，对不对？我们认为物是物，心是心，物到我的前面来，心认到了才有，哪里是这样呀！没有心物一起动，怎么动？动不了呀！　

『心心绝诸缘』，还有缘可以攀吗？整个都是『妙净明心』，还有谁攀谁？『何处』，哪个地方不是『等正觉』？现在整个六根正在正觉，看的、摸的、想的，都是那个样子，说那个样子又是八十分了。你用一个念头想那个样子，你没有跳下去把我执断掉。所以修行真的要那小心，不要动不动就以“我”的思想加进去，当作我做到。『何处不成等正觉』，那里，什么地方都是等正觉啊！是你自己想歪了。『何处不转大法轮』，“啪！”法轮转拉，哎！看到你啤酒禅师的那个样子显现，法轮转了，没有转我怎不把你当成石头啊？一直会在戒定慧中这样这样显现，一直这样变，它不会毫无规则地乱变呀。六根在根源那样子动不是转吗？什么到师父那里听法，才是师父转法轮转得好。啊，十轮金刚，你的十轮金刚，你的六根都统统在转十轮金刚。

『何处不度脱众生』，看到那个青蛙咯咯咯在叫，我在这里显现度脱它啦，我的『妙净明心』跟它离开了，好像很特别。『何处不如般涅槃』，整个不是六根的大安乐境界？它没有苦恼，没有烦恼，没有挂碍，有了就有，没有了就没有，不管你想要不想要，不管你准备听不听，它有了就显现，你想要吗？那个念头来了，“啊，我想到这个！”，你想了那个念头才来吗？想死了那个念头不来呀！有时候，想它停也停不住呀。它不是很安乐吗？自己在那里“哎呀，我想他想得要死”，你就抱着那个幻想的那个东西不放，那个意根老早都很安乐了，想到的时候想到，没有来的时候它没有，它自己都没有烦恼，那个假我跟在屁股后面烦恼，假的我造出了一个假的毛病，然后在假的生气。

13.【若论此事，不论僧俗，不在久近。】

　　『若论此事』，讲了大半天，真正的你自己在那里显现，你的『妙净明心』，他的『妙净明心』，我的『妙净明心』，一样不一样？又来了，又分你的我的，你想把虚空隔开一样，你去隔开，哪里到哪里虚空是你的？这里的虚空和那里的虚空一样不一样？你又把定点定了。谁定了？你的我执定的，这是言语断的地方。心行处的没有。言语的道理没有，这叫做“言语道断处”，那个道路断了，言语之道断了。心行处，心可以想到，思想可以及的地方，灭了。不是心行处灭，不是言语道断，这是念错了。是言语道，“断”，心行处，“灭”。这个是搞文字，没有意思。你在你的那个六根动用都是你的『妙净明心』分成那个样子，是我们将它分类了。其实，它的动哪里有分眼根耳根，没有呀。所以，你如果真正谈到跟佛一样，变成不是神经病、精神病，这不过是我们六根本来是『妙净明心』的动用在那里。我们假设一个，因为动用里头有一个意根的作用，思想作用。思想作用太妙，太活泼了，把那个东西，哎，那个套思想的力量才能骗思想呀，否则，思想用什么骗它？用石头、馒头骗它吗？用钻石骗你的思想？思想也是利用思想的力量才能骗它呀。思想给自己的思想骗了，我有我能思想，这个有“我”就来啦，“我”来了就高兴、不高兴，因为有一个“我”做标准呀。有一个我有生有死，有一个我转世啦，大家喜欢听这些啊。真正的佛法到哪里去了？这一个也是『妙净明心』显现的境界。所以，假如真正谈佛法，这种一大事因缘，这种平常心、『妙净明心』就是南泉讲的平常心，那不是平常吗？非常平常呀，平等心。“契入平等，平等契入”，还说出家不出家，你们去谈，根本风马牛不相干。学久的，新修的，这个世上有区别吗？没有。所以，出家也好，不出家也好，出家，然后后悔，不出家也后悔，你那个假我在那里，一天到晚在那里吵，不知道这个吵的家伙是你认错的一个虚幻的影子。为什么有虚幻的影子把它认为我呢？我们有法身，『妙净明心』有个思量的作用，这个思量的作用骗自己的思量。哎…我在思，我在思是什么？是在思想呀。你没有这样想，你怎有我？这想的力量是法身的用。所以，不是分别不好，只是叫你息意，意是什么？意是有我，然后以这个为中心，用凡情，那就变成意。　　『若论此事，不论僧俗，不在久近』。这个上面最要紧的一点是什么？就是说『闻声便悟道』，听到声音便悟道了，听到什么声音都没有关系，现在椅子搬动的声音，椅子搬动的声音也可以悟道嘛，不一定是念佛号、念咒子才可以悟道。所以石头也可以给你开悟，就是这个道理。所以悟的这种机会到处都有。

14.『见色便明心』

见色便是看到东西，不一定是看到佛像，看到一头牛，那一下子。看到清澈的溪流，也可以悟道，『见色便明心』。昨天我们说的『闻声便悟道』，这个例子是香严禅师，是不是？『见色便明心』，谁呀？代表是释迦牟尼佛。早上的星星便是色，那，灵云见到桃花，就是见到。真正到了这时候，有了正见，这个叫做有了正见，不是用头脑去理解一个道理，然后说“嗯，这个对”，这不是正见，不是point of view，不是你的正确见解。这个正见不是见解。正见就是『闻声』，悟道了，『见色』，悟道了。那个就是正见，那一下。所以呢，『到恁时，不被一切法碍』。各位觉得一个法在那里，你碰到了，给它碍住了，不是的。听到不高兴的话，人家侮辱你的，或者倒霉倒霉，股票跌得好惨，明天开始没有饭吃，便是法碍。什么事情让你不顾，通通是法碍。如果你真的有这一下，正见有了，『不被一切法碍』，好的也好，坏的也好，顺境也不会高兴得离谱，失去了自己。倒霉，当然也不用讲了，也不是哭丧着脸，要死要活，他不会这样。就是当下有一只老虎跳下要将你咬死了，还是一样那，咬死就是咬死嘛。不是不逃，逃不掉就这样，逃得掉当然要逃。你以为可以逃不逃，不是这样。真的逃不掉就是这个样子。这不是叫你别逃，not tell that you don't run away。别弄错了。为什么能够做到这样？正见。现在描述，describe the state of 正见，有了正见的样子，『物物皆自己』。Every thing is I myself，这个就怪了。茶杯是我吗？一草一木是我吗？他说是。蓝天是我吗？白云是我吗？是。如果那朵朵白云是我的话，由别人看来，那朵白云是你，那朵白云也是我，到底那朵白云是谁的？两人共分？马上动念头。听到这个用理推呀，奇怪了。一朵云，你看是你的，他看是他的，我看是我的，那这朵云是几个人的一朵云？怎会这样？『多言多虑，转不相应』。对你来讲，那云是真实的嘛。你没有那个显现的能力，它对你毫无意义呀。Meaningless，是不是？我们将它分成你的我的他的，奇怪了，一个东西，十个人看了，就变成十个人的东西。

15.所以，楞严经有句话，我那时参了半天不晓得。不管楞严经有没有动过手脚，可是理是对的。释迦牟尼佛说：“吾不见吾，吾不见时，何不见吾不见之处。”他问那个学生，我呢，不见，不见什么？假定这个引擎(话筒)，当我不见，not seeing，when I am not looking at this thing，何不见，何不见就是不明自，你怎也做不到跟我一样的我不见之处呢？这个意思懂吗？释迦牟尼见这个引擎，明明有色相呀。但是真正的他的境界已经『物物皆自己』，东西都是我嘛。我怎看我呢？ Everything is I myself，how can you see you yourself？所以，他都在这个境界的时候，当然，在讲话的时侯，他会说，我看到引擎在那里，你拿过来。这是他方便说。但是，他的境界是方便用，用它，用分别意识，但不是给这个迷掉。所以他说，我看这个，其实，我知道这是我的的本身。所以，当“吾不见时”，当我那正觉之时，我一直在这个境界，你们怎没有做到这样呢？“何不见吾不见之处”？怎做不到跟我一样“见而不见”？因为我们做不到物物都是我自己。你去看看所有楞严经的解说，白话的，不管是哪个大师，在文字上转来转去。我那时在奇怪，我不见的时侯，我就那么想，现在我在看这件东西，当它转过去了，那个我的“见”不在这个上头。它一直在讲那个“见”，我能见的那个“见性”。所以，我一看到这件东西，是我的“见性”跑到这里。一直在推衍推衍到那个楞严经，我的“见性”跑到物体上，所以我能够看到。My ability to see is on that object。我能够见的那个能见的力量跑到这里所以我看到。当我的ability to See没有在On this or on that，那就nothing to do with me。他是一直讲，一直讲那个能见之性，所以，当碰到这个句子“当吾不见之时”，我就认为，哦，他把头转掉了。我能够看到的“见性”不在这里了。好象如果这个是我的“见性”，这里，让我见到引擎，因为这个东西在上头。当我不见之时，转过去，我的“见性”跑到这里来了。这里没有我的见性，你怎么看不到我的“见性” 不在这里。在这个上头想想想，想了半天。现在我的“见性”不在这里，转过去了，我的“见性”跑到这里，我的“见性”离开了这个，那你为什不知道我的“见性”不在这里呢？所以表示这个“见性”是看不到的，invisible。如果“见性”是visible的，我把“见性”拿掉了，那你就应该知道“啊，你的见性不在这里，所以你不再看”这样解说呀。其实，这样解说还是五十分。一般这样解说还算高明。根本不是这回事。『物物皆自己』，我这样看，看而不看，见面不见，你怎还不懂这个意思？就是这个意恩。释迦牟尼骂我们，我讲了半天，你还在那里，我的“见性”是看得见，看不见。顺便想到这个告诉各位。

我跟一位大师讨论过。我说，这里的翻译我越看越糊涂，但是，我的想法是我刚刚解说过的：把我的“见性”移过去，你怎看不到我“见性”拿掉了呢？“何不见吾不见之处”？你看到我不见之处，不见的原因在哪里？你看到了就知道我不再看，然后下面推衍，其实不是。佛的意思不是这个样子。我看你，万物都是我啊。我的妙净明心这样显现，我自己怎看自己呢？所以是『物物皆自己』，Every thing is I myself。『心心绝诸缘』，不是有一个我能看的事物。现在你知道这都是你自己的显现，那还有什么心？心要攀缘什么？『心心绝诸缘』。我们的妄想境界，错误的状况就是，以为有缘可以攀到，能攀到的叫做我，就是我们一直在这里。

16.所以这个，读的时侯很清楚，我们下了课，谈天，讲什么天上天下世间事的时侯，通通是你那个在攀缘。听到的道理，你不同意，你的脸色就有一点变了，因为你有能缘呀。所以，这个东西讲起来这简单。这个迷糊啊。除非，“一失足成千古恨”地跳下去以外〔坐断意根〕，就没有办法。但是，当你跳下去，不成恨，才是真的跳。跳下去，还是“哎哟…可以不跳吗？”那已经来不及了，还在中间说：“不跳多好”。那个是因为还有你在。真正跳是那个以为有“我”的东西跳掉，不是将身心跳掉。这个身心砍断，磨成都没有了，还有我执在，那个我执不属于看得见的东西。你意根断掉的话，『何处不是等正觉？』哪里都可以，什么时候都是佛啊。因为你显现的是佛的境界，哪里不是成正觉？到处，每一位都是佛，只是大家都不肯相信，大家很客气，非常modest。 “啊，我不是，我是在家，佛是释迦牟尼佛呀！或是阿弥陀佛呀！我是凡夫。”那释迦牟尼佛为什么讲一句，他说：“当我成佛时，众生跟我同时成佛。”这是什么意思？他难道乱讲吗？我成佛的时侯，一切众生，蚂蚁也是，一草一木也是，一颗星也是，风也是，同时成佛。那奇怪了，那你这样叫我们不要修了，你成佛，我也成佛。是啊，你本来成佛，跟佛一样呀。你用眼睛，跟佛用眼睛一样不一样？一样呀。你用耳朵怎听，佛也是那听，没有两样呀！但是我们就死认为那个能听的就是我。外面的声音是外面，我去听到啊！就这样不同而已。但是没有办法相信，信不过。所以《信心铭》就是信心，你没有信心的。《信心铭》就是“信心不二，不二信心”。要很快地跟佛的那样不迷糊就是“唯言不二”，直讲不二。不二是什么？没有能所，讲能所就是用思想去想，没有能所就是Everything is I myself，哪里是dualistic？相信吗？理论上可能是同意了，不好意思，佛在这样一直讲，一直讲。僧璨大师一直讲，达摩一直讲，不好意思，“是是是”，相信了。头脑同意啊！头脑脖子痛痛一下就不同意了！

17.所以你看『何处不入般涅槃』，处处时时，every where，every moment，you are totally liberated。入涅槃。没有所谓是你没有解脱啊！是你把那个没有解脱的假影子当作我，希望这个赶快解脱。所以当然修行和证果有一段距离。一定要修修修，慢慢修到把烦恼解脱， “见惑”、“思惑”一个个除，一个个除到最后通通干净了，成佛了。佛没有这样讲呀，他开始是不能这样讲，因为没有人会相信，可是等后来在法华会上讲，还是有人不相信。所以，你看，『何处不度脱众生？何处不转大法轮？』每一位，“啪！”听到了，你的法轮转了，所以你听到了。你这样看我，看到了，你的法轮在眼睛上转，所以看到了。你有没有想怎样看我？眼睛都不要你思想，这正在转大法轮。眼睛自己本身解脱自在。眼睛没有说我是胡某某的眼睛。当我看不见的时侯“啊，我很伤心。”它会不会这样讲？眼睛不会呀。看不见的缘到了，它就看不见呀。现在是白天，等一下变成晚上，就是晚上呀。白天不会哭，白天也不会变成晚上，就是这一回事。

18.我们下面是昨天的概要。这个重点，不要把当作一个思想在那里记了。当你站起来，走两步，就没有了，听的通通等于没有听那样，永远在那里搞概念。所以，最好的修行方法是，不要记这些道理。这些道理你了解了解可以，用动你的脑筋去了解，有没有骗我们。我们总希望不给人家骗。如果你稍微跟这个相应，觉得好象有一点道理，那，做人做事的时侯，不是在想这个道理，在脑子上天天在动一步，举一次手，哎，『物物皆自己』、『心心绝诸缘』地背起来，然后“哎，绝诸缘了吗”？物物都是我啊！那杯子是我呀！这就糟糕了。这杯子的水变成思想上的我去了，那本来没有这多余的知识，喝水就喝水，看到那个杯子有水就拿，现在，学了佛学以后，嘿…这个东西是我自己，然后才拿，那就麻烦了，久了就会神经病！见银行的钱就拿过来，『物物皆自己』。所以说，思想会害人就是这样，银行的钱也是自己，被关进监牢，那时侯，就不是自己了。“阿呀，佛学害死我了，它说什么都是我的，结果我被关了进来！”那时侯，不是『物物皆自己』了。

19.下面一段，昨晚说的，主要是这个，把这种当着思想吸收，那，日常生活里，想以思想去对应的话，你一定会矛盾。最好的方法是，做什么、听到了、看到了、感觉了、生气了、高兴了，不管做什么，吃饭了，哎，有没有那个“我”，自已认为自己的“我”在？我们自己最清楚，啊…那个就是我，稍微一照到，你都处处发现那个我在动。奇怪，那个东西不要动，总是回首一看，总是那个家伙在动。生气了，等一下一看，哼，总是你认为那个我在不高兴，生气的时侯最明显，给人家侮辱的时候最明显。你活起来了，是不是那个老兄活起来了。耳朵听到，耳朵不会生气呀，你问你的耳朵，听到高兴会不会这样，听到不高兴会不会这样？它高兴不高兴都是如实的听。大声就大声，小声就小声，对不对？我们好听的时侯，希望把那个声音放大一点听。这个声音有没有好坏？耳朵听进来就是声音而已。我在讲法，跟你那个椅子垮下的声音，在耳朵里有什么分别？有呀，我的声音跟那个椅子的声音有明显的分别。它有没有在上头说这个好，这个坏？这个我喜欢听，这个我不喜欢听？耳朵有没有这样分别？没有。我们的心一直“哎......椅子怎怎”的在那里转，声音老早就过去了，没有了嘛。不是清净，解脱，自在吗？还要你去解脱吗？而我们那个假我带来的思想就麻烦了。“阿呀，你为什么那么不小心呀？”的什么一大堆道理在那里。各人在心里想的却不同。那个不同的就是假我在那里闹。耳朵根本没有闹呀！但实际上就是这一点要注意注意注意，久了久了久了，你就比较很自然自然的，啊，原来那个真的动的和我假想的那个我动的不一样。然后，最后最后连注意它都不要。不要注意它，就是那样动嘛！不是你注意才那样动呀！六根本来清净，解脱，自在，对不对？大安乐园。这个叫转法轮，这个叫『何处不入般若涅槃』。不是修行了，哪个大师死了，啊，他涅槃了，因为他是大师父。我们死了，不是涅槃？还要请人家颂经超度啊！这是活到的时侯，随时都在涅槃中。刚刚你耳朵听到椅子倒了，耳朵有什么般若涅槃？有了声音就有，没有声音就没有。它没有这上头有好坏、善恶，都没有。那心里头，各位怎想就随便。因为那个假我在出来演戏。你要演什么戏，随便你。就是这样。我们下面一段，因为刚好有椅子倒了所以，所以才顺便讲这些，各位问起你的耳朵，它一点都不被妨碍，所以叫作『不被一切法碍』，死了就死了。

20.【若尔一念相应，照体独立，物我皆如】

　　下面『若尔一念相应』，这些事，不是慢慢修了才这样。我反复在讲，六根本来就是这样，只是你糊涂。你不知道你真正的你就是六裉的作用本身，是你的 true self。『一念相应』，“啊”，原来这样是一个念头呵！你要慢慢学吗？『一念相应』，你说“顿”还是“渐”？没有再三捞拢，你就没有办法正确的“啊，原来我……我把自己认错了！”那一下子，『一念相应』。但是要达到这个一念相应、正见起，有时候非二十年，三十年不可。到底是“渐”还是“顿”呢？

　　『照体独立，物我皆如』，照体独立是能照所照独立，没有分开。『物我皆如』就是，我对到声音，对到色相，那个就是用『物』代表，是净，心净，『物我』都一样。更抽象一点讲，就是dualistic，二元、主观、客观，心跟境界，物跟我，或者照跟体，体跟照，都一样。『皆如』，就是没有分开嘛，就那个样子。

21.【在一切时，圆陀陀，明了了，净裸裸，赤洒洒，堂堂地现前。】

　　『在一切时』，就是没有断掉。『在一切时』怎样？『圆陀陀，明了了，净裸裸，赤洒洒』。『圆陀陀』就是圆满，无欠无余，是指什么？指我们的『妙净明心』，什么时侯都圆满如太虚，也没有缺少一点。啊，现在我的耳朵在动，燃料不够，给我补充一些，它才听到，要不要？没有缺少，不会欠燃料，不会闹油荒，太多了，就剩一点给人家用，没有啊！这个太虚有没有缺一角，或多一点虚空来。这个是讲本体，现在应用文字讲的时侯，那个本体，就是『妙见明心』本来是无欠无余。无欠无余就是以『圆陀陀』表示，指那个本。『明了了』，它显示作用，不会错。狗叫是狗叫，青蛙叫是青蛙叫，非常明『明了了』，它分得很清楚，红色是红色，蓝色是蓝色，因为它自己动起来了，『明了了』。『净裸裸』，这是圆陀陀，那个本身在哪里，什么颜色，用了是不是要把它清除才能用？有了声音马上动，马上用，它变掉了吗？没有，『净裸裸』。『赤洒洒』就是『明了了』。什么缘它就是那个缘。那个缘本身就是它的动的样子。『明了了』是『赤洒洒』，『净裸裸』是『圆陀陀』，知道吗？这是用几个字描写它的体用。

因为我们分体用比较了解，其实，体用就是放在我们的概念里，说明了，让你好吸收而已，哪有分体用？这样一个东西，『堂堂地现前』，什么时侯，什么地方都这样，万古以来，你死后还是这样。你死的时侯是你的妙见明心在死的位置。狗叫，狗声就是它，它那样动，青蛙叫，它是那样动，能知所知是一样动，这是『堂堂地现前』，根本没有躲避。它哪里是躲避，打了痛，就痛，推了一下，“啊，好痛！”你本身『堂堂地现前』，痛就痛，所以叫没有关系呀，舒服就舒服啊，“堂堂地现前』。

22【在一切时，成佛作祖。】

你看，『在一切时，成佛作祖』，出家人啊，他们一天到晚都在追求希望一天成佛作祖。我跟这位上师念密咒，苦修啦，一天会成佛作祖。哎，奇怪，天童山的宏智禅师告诉你，『一切时』，还没有出家，在还没投胎出来作婴儿以前就是『一切时』嘛，你还没有出生以前就成佛作祖了。为什么？有那个缘就显现成一个受精卵出来，也是它，它在成佛作祖嘛，该蛇就蛇，该猫就猫，成佛作祖，所以是无情说法。没生命的东西都在说法。风来了，草就这样摇摇摇。它不是在说法吗？谁在说法？因为草本身就是佛，为什么草本身就是佛？你看那株草，风吹来就低头，是你『妙见明心』那样动。

23. 【只为尔放不下，自筑界墙便见有自它。】

　　『只为尔放不下』，为什么我们都做不到这样呢？只因为，only because，我们为什么跟他讲的两回事？我们自己难道不是吗？跟他讲的两回事呀，完全不一样。你同意是你的脑子同意，但是，你根本不是这样。如果是真正的跟他一样，你就是真正的大彻大悟的人。根本是无学问人，跟永嘉禅师一样，是无学闲道人。不用学，学什么？你本来就是这样，可是为什么我们和宏智禅师，或佛呀，迦叶，阿难不一样，听了半天还是跟他不一样呀！

『只为』，原因在哪里？只有一个原因，你放不下。放不下什么？放不下那个“自以为是我”的那个念头。只这样。这个念头造了一道墙，所有的分成你我他，无情有情，这个不是有界墙的话，还有你我他之分吗？篱笆围起来，就篱笆内，篱笆外，篱笆围起来以前有内外吗？篱笆是你的思想以为“这个是我”，这个篱笆好厉害。自已造了一道界墙，自己便莫名其妙的以为有我这个，『便见有自它』，便有了自己和不是自已的分了。到了银行，便“你的钱是我的钱，我的钱不是你的钱”，会这祥的糊涂呀！听了佛的道理，有益的时侯，利用一下，“你的钱是我的钱”。没有利的时侯，佛法慢一点，“我的钱是我的钱”。对自己有益，即断章取义就把佛的道理拿过来用。你的钱没有“自它”嘛，所以是我的。等到人家说，那好，你的钱拿过来，你讲不是不是，这个时侯，是我的钱就是我的钱了。我们很多利用佛法就是这样利用。对自己有益，就拿过来用一下，一句两句，对自己好象不大好，就装作不知道。笑话归笑话。

24【是尔自碍三界，三界岂碍尔？】

　　他说『是尔自碍三界』，你自己妨碍了。三界即色界、欲界、无色界，都是整个存在的，包括那个地狱道，天道，畜生道也是。你自己给三界碍到了。『三界岂曾碍尔？』三界的存在，难道会妨碍你吗？因为上面已提到『不被一切法碍』，管它是什么三界四界，不被它碍住了，还有三界来碍住你吗？因为，上面一段提过，因为『闻声』就是听到自己，『见色』就是见自己，见色便见心，那个心是整个，不是我的攀缘心，这样的话，三界怎样，那是你自己变。自己在那里变。假如你自己不作障碍，这个障碍统统由于你有妄想的我引起很多障碍。所以你把妄想的我彻底的放下，就自己不作障碍了，是自己的事呀。佛也没有办法。大师父也没办法。你那个假的，叫你放下你不放啊！只好照着赵州说的，“那就提着去吧”。赵州禅师给人问到这个：“‘一物不将来’是何如？”你叫我放下，我现在什么都没有，还放下什么？“阿呀，连这个也放下，你还在那里闹!”。学生说，“我没有东西可以放下，还叫我放？”都是思想呵，听了道理就头脑想，我都没有东西你还叫我放下。那赵州禅师就打一捧，“那你就拿去吧!” 你一直说没有东西，你叫我放，那赵州禅师就认为，你既然跟我辩，你就不要客气，“担起来去吧，就拿起来去就是了嘛”。妄想的我放掉就放掉，还在那里讨论我已经没有了还叫我放。谁在闹呀？你那个东西在闹，你还不知道。我告诉你，放下就是你这个妄想。你还有妄想在那里。有修法的你在，那个“我”都放不下，修什么法？。他很傲慢，“我已经修到没有我了，还叫我放下。”那好了，你跟我论了半天，那放不下的你就再拿去吧。就是这样。

25【若自不作障碍，便是普遍底身，普遍底心，是大自在汉。】

　　假如你自己不作障碍，那一下，自已没有糊里糊涂乱想，只要不作这个妄想，便是『普遍底身，普遍底心』。普遍不是Common，不是普通。在在处处，何处何地都是你，一草一木都是我。“别人的钱也是我的”。这个时候错在哪里？你的钱是我的，还有没有我的？万物都是我嘛。你的钱是我的，这个时候你拿过来，是不是你的钱？你还是“我的嘛！我的嘛！”。哈，好用的时候用一下，还要“我的钱”，“你的钱就是我的。”还有没有“我的”？有啊。所以，道理很害人。道理不透彻，喜欢用道理去诡辩，什么都可以做。这样的话，你是『普遍底身，普遍底心』，这个心有时候很迷糊，有时候昏昏沉沉，有时候颠倒妄想呀。颠倒妄想就是你的整个妙净明心这样显现的真实。只是你不懂，你想要赶快醒过来，赶快要悟，所以等于是“放不下担着去”一样。这个时候才是『大自在汉』，能够这样做，确是大自在，为什么不是大自在？没有我可以死呀。因为没有我在活到，那谁在活到？整个法界的现成。因此，『在一切尘一切刹，与法界等』。一切尘是空间，一切刹是时间；没有分时空，万劫以来都是自己在那里显现，『与法界等』，还有出入吗？

26【所以古人道，一法若有，毗卢堕在凡夫；万法若无，普贤失其境界。】

　　『所以古人道，一法若有』。假如你认为这里有个茶杯，这里有位朋友，『一法若有』，有是什么？一定有个我，才承认对方。当你承认对方，object，当你承认这是什么，那是什么，这个时候一定有你了。没有你，没有办法承认对方的一个东西，客观的一个存在。当你承认客观有的时候，你已经有我了。是不是？所以，『一法若有，毗卢堕在凡夫』，连毗卢佛也是跟我们一样。啊，你认为有这个那个，毗卢佛的境界我们有了。有是什么？有是一个概念。东西在眼前“看到”，跟你说“啊，有了”是两回事。不是两回事吗？这样，就这样，你还说有。这个有不是根据这个显现加一个有的概念？所以，这时候，你认为“啊有了一法”，概念动了，毗卢佛也变成凡夫。

『万法若无』，啊呀！佛法完全讲空，这个茶杯有但是它没有。我问你；眼睛有这相现前，你怎么讲它等于没有？不是用你的概念，你的想法把它否定掉吗？是你的概念否定它没有，其实它在嘛！眼睛如实的照到嘛！怎么你说它本来性空的？你的性空真大，脑子里满是性空。这个存在本身就是性空呀！不是你用头脑去“这个空的，这个没有”，你加一个“啊，这个都没有”。“这个没有”，这是你那个假我强挤出的一个念头说“无，无”。所以说『万法若无，普贤菩萨失其境界』，普贤菩萨是，所有愿力，愿行都是他在做，做佛事，慈悲度众生，一切显化的普贤。普贤就是没有他的境界去了，一切都空，一切都没有，你干嘛在那里做佛事？我问你：听看的境界都没有，不是断灭空了吗？你修成佛，连声音也听不到，那你修成什么？你说，一切看见听见的都没有，那个没有不是我的思想的没有啊！『历历有声音，明明有东西』，那个明明历历本就是空，但是你这样用道理去划等号，又是在玩呀！你不要玩弄，就是这样嘛！打破了就没有啦。你造了一个就有啊。所以，佛只好讲，“啊呀，一切缘生啦！”变成茶杯的缘没有，有一个人摔破了，缘没有就没有了。缘生缘灭，没有一个真正的东西可能永远这样存在。你认为真正有一个东西永远存在，那就是灵魂哪，犯了这个毛病，所以，这个东西会转世啊。禅宗祖师听了这个会说“你怎么啦？”『在一切尘一切刹与法界等』，还有什么转世不转世？『万法若无，普贤失其境界』。

27【且道，作生得恰好相应去？还会？】

　　『且道』，我问你，那讲有也不对，讲没有也不对；叫我怎么办？『作生得恰好相应去？』叫我如何才好？叫我如何不想它？叫我如何想它？到后来，你说有，错：那这个没有，也错！我该怎么办？你跟我说吧！『恰恰相应去』就是，日常生活我怎么办？怎么做人做事？我搞得糊涂了。我不听佛法，还是做人做事，到银行去都很好。一听佛法我到底偷还是不偷？喝一杯茶都要想道理啦，对不对？放屁都要想是空还是有的。想通了才“波”的放了。本来不学佛法，屁一放就没事。所以，佛法有时候会变成你的毒药。其实佛法本身没有这样。没有好，没有坏。是你自己把它当成毒药。是你自己把它当的呀。如果你把它当作甘露，当作醍醐， “啊，大法师呵，接触你后，我太太慢慢不生气了，迟一点回来她也不生气了，阿弥陀佛…...”。佛法哪有好坏？这个听起来，他们就受不了，说你乱讲，你欺负这个道，大道不能让你欺负。我想欺负这个大道却没办法。我想染污都没有办法染污，才是大道啊。哼，我这个小洪文亮乱讲，那大道就染污了，那我的本事好大呀！我比大道还大，大大道。对不对？道理那简单。哎，就是实际生活怎么办？做人做事怎么办？我听了那一大堆，我越听越憨了。他说『还会么？』你真不会？要怎么做你知道吗？要做人做事呢？早上起来还要刷牙吗？晚上想睡要睡吗？一定要赶快起来修法才去睡觉，否则，上次发誓一天要念五十次，今天才念三十次，还欠二十次，累得要死，只好爬起来念。真的有病，勉强起来念念，就“碰”的一声倒下。到底佛法帮你不帮你？『还会么？』呵，他就给你回答。

28【虚空谁肯挂一物，大海自然归百川。】

　　开悟的真正的禅师，就是有那正见，有一大事因缘，什么是平常心，在这个境界里，做人做事，他说，『虚空谁肯挂一物，大海自然归百川』，会吗？我们要挂衣服，要衣架，挂在衣柜里头。你难道要把衣服挂在虚空？玩弄空，你要挂衣服，一定要钉子、衣架嘛，在虚空里挂？一切都是空的？你难道要把衣服挂在空吗？不要去玩弄空呀。那，跟色声香味触法，都给它迷住了吗？没有呀。『大海自然归百川』，所有各种色声香味触法统统归于大海，归于什么？归于性空。我们挂东西不会挂在虚空吧。『谁肯挂一物』，谁也不肯。因为你清楚，不能挂。以为这是空性，你拿这个空性去玩，等于是你把东西挂在虚空一样。但是，你做什么，听的，看的什么东西，通通不离开你的『妙净明心』大海，『妙净明心』是大海，都是它的显现。所有『百川归大海』都是这个意思。所有一闻，一动，一静，语默动静，都是你的『妙净明心』在那里这样动。所以，『在一切时一切尘一切刹，通通『与法界等』。有没有出入，有没有生死？有，住在生的位置，住在死的位置。住的那个东西，一点都没有被污染掉。很难接受，非常难接受。跟我们普通境界格格不入。因为我们的妄想太大。你说我懂了，我的妄想去掉。你去掉看看，还在虚空挂东西呀！我妄想没有了，等于把你的衣服帽子，你的大帽子挂在虚空一样。“我都没有妄想了”，你不知道，你一挂就掉在地上你还不知道。

Labels: All is Mind, Anatta, Zen, Zen Master Hong Wen Liang (洪文亮禅师) 0 comments | |

Longchenpa: Finding Rest in Illusion

Soh

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

odpron9umh14tfuat740

Important book recommendation for post anatta contemplation

John Tan: This book u must read and keep for life. It contains all needed and u really don't need anything extra. If u can intuit the teaching, it includes clearly all the key essential pointers of how the 6 supramadane powers are awaken and practice in the 3 states, the view, the path and the result to natural liberations.

Do read with utmost reverence and do not assume u have understood it. Get back to it again and again and summarise it if possible so that it gets into ur inmost consciousness.

Soh: Oic..
U just read?

John Tan:
Almost finished.

Do read with deepest reverence and respect and don't act smart. The commentary are very valuable also. Only the mirror analogy I don't like... Lol.
[5:58 pm, 07/05/2022] John Tan: And it is actually only 150 pages as the root text took up almost 35%.
[6:00 pm, 07/05/2022] John Tan: In fact this is the exact book that I have been looking for more than a decade that I told u.

11 Comments

Mr./Ms. LS

Love the title … I’ll definitely check it out

- Reply
- 7h

Mr. KOÖ

Lama Lena recommended 2 days ago in a meeting that this is the single book someone needs to take on a retreat.

- Reply
- 7h

Cheng Chen

Piotr Ludwiński 50/50 for me.

In recent years, the mirror analogy is increasingly odd to me. Though it seems functional, the way it’s presented in language has a significant risk of leading one to believe oneself as the mirror. This subject-side bias can skew to all sorts of problematic views. It’s just not a good analogy.

The masters back then should have used holographic lasers, quantum particles, or just a plain old iPhone screen as better analogies. I guess they were undereducated and uncivilized…

I think it’s only recently that I came across Soh/JT describing their issues with the mirror.

- Reply
- 2h

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

Cheng Chen I concur.

I too had an issue with Longchenpa's description and analogy of mirror years ago, but found more recently based on what John Tan shared that Longchenpa is very much anatta.

Probably you read this before: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../a-letter-to-almaas...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

A Letter to Almaas on Dzogchen and Longchenpa

- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1h

Yin Ling

Admin

I love it too, it’s one of the best coz the language is clear and simple.. not like usual Tibetan book can cause headache sometimes lol

- Reply
- 6h

Yin Ling

Admin

Btw Soh Wei Yu thanks for sharing all these helpful information with us

- Reply
- 6h

Jayson MPaul

Got it immediately. It's time I got back to reading books again.

- Reply
- 4h

Alejandro Serrano

Longchenpa is simply beautiful, amazing and very enlightening. I have only read the Treasuries translated by Richard Barron, but these series is definitely in my "to read" list.

Labels: Books and Websites Recommendations, Dzogchen, Emptiness, Longchenpa, Non-Arising 0 comments | |

Report Abuse

- - - Followers

Search This Blog

Cloud Numbered Labels

Cloud Labels

Translate

Ads 300 x 600

Recent Posts

Yin Ling

69 Comments

Soh Wei Yu

11 Comments

Total Views

Other Languages

'Must Reads'

Free E-Books

Audio

Insightful Materials

Stickied Posts

Recommended Links

About Me

Blog Archive

Labels

The Awakening to Reality Practice Guide and The Original Awakening to Reality Guide

Recommended Blogs

(continued)

Popular Posts

Contact Form

Report Abuse

Subscribe To

- - - Followers

Search This Blog

Cloud Numbered Labels

Cloud Labels

Translate

Ads 300 x 600

Recent Posts

Yin Ling

69 Comments

Soh Wei Yu

11 Comments

Total Views

Other Languages

'Must Reads'

Free E-Books

Audio

Insightful Materials

Stickied Posts

Recommended Links

About Me

Blog Archive

Labels

The Awakening to Reality Practice Guide and The Original Awakening to Reality Guide

Recommended Blogs

(continued)

Popular Posts

Contact Form