From: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/9934915853216422/?__cft__[0]=AZXogy8Yd8MFTDGph_F_NkIg4BDE2f5VAiUT-ED6bCMDY_0ssuotj2mjWqEa3s7HJH77xCG9epzvPuJ9uM0vMN9Q0lZS5BG67z8yq7rzuxanA6UJxJBDAeLXmwDKXQ0tZAsnVMpcWyEwbE4Ix2k5wSlM&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
 
Mark Lopez
After anatta practice tends towards this:
“John Tan, 2006:
Reply part 1:
Is Absorption not aware of other things? This is difficult to say. Although many articles and books about mindfulness seem to suggest that it is so, this is not necessarily true when we progress towards the more subtle experience. Clarity can come a time where it is so clear that it is an absorption, it is a sort of Insight-Absorption but It is different from absorption derived from concentration. It is clarity absorption where it touches the heart of 'things', that is itself. For example being taste itself, it is absorbed yet completely clear. This is truly blissful and beyond description. I have not come across any book touching this yet and I hope Toni's new book can write something about it.

Reply part 2:
The AMness can be said to be a form of absorption where the object of concentration is the Self. It can be a question "Who am I" that leads one to the experience of the subject-object becoming one. Till a point the practitioner simply experiences a pure sense of existence. However such mode of experience has no understanding of its luminous clarity and its nature as anatta. The key point about mindful awareness is there is no keeping of the mind on anything and by not resting on anything, it fuses into everything; therefore it cannot be concentrated; rather it is to relax into nothingness empty of self, empty of any artificial doing so that the natural luminosity can take its own course. There is no focusing, there is only allowing the mirror bright clarity to shine with it natural radiance. In essence there is no one there, only the phenomenon arising and ceasing telling their stories.”
That being said more focused forms of practice can still be valuable and important and it depends on one’s conditions:
Excerpts from this 2012 meeting https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../transcript-with... , recommend to read in full
Jui asks: (? Question about samadhi)
John: actually what is more important is that background is completely gone. Then when the background is completely gone, you do not have a behind, only the sound. Then your experience becomes most direct, cannot be more direct. Then when you hear the basketball sound, bum bum bum.. only. You understand what I mean? Initially even if you have seen through, there will always be a tendency – you and the basketball. I ever went through a period where I thought that I will not have that problem anymore. After about three months later, it comes back. Then I wondered why does it come back after I have seen through? Then after that, the tendency (comes back?). for yours (me/Soh) it is quite clear, because lucid dream until one can control the three states, it is quite deep already. After the initial insight one needs 4-5 years to have that kind of calibre, you see? So some people are different. So it is sufficiently deep into the mind body tendency. For me, three months after (?) it has a dual sensation, then after still a period (?) after.
Jui: I always hear people say when you see one object you are like the object… but in my experience…
John: In your experience now, your self at the behind will be gone. But you are unable to reach completely mind to object (one pointedness). But your behind disappears. But to zhuan zhu yi ge (be absorbed in one [object]) you are unable to reach, that requires Samadhi state. That is, that behind is gone, but you are one pointed into one object, then with view you will experience maha experience, total exertion. He (me/Soh) is also the same, the behind is gone, no more self, only the sound but there is no self, there is just this, there is just that. That is because the insight has arisen but concentration (?) my way is different. Before insight of anatta I had decades of practicing meditation, then I AM, then meditation, then I AM. My practice is like that. (?) but for you guys, you see clearly first, the behind is gone and your experience becomes very clear and vivid and yet you are unable to concentrate. So you must understand that concentration is different. Peacefulness and releasing is (different), clear vivid awareness is also different. It requires different insights and practice. You still have to meditate, it is impossible that (?) you should be in this stage, you are very clear, the click click sound is felt to be very vivid, then one day you will have total exertion feeling, but you must practice releasing and concentration. When the mind is discursive and wandering, you need practice. your mindfulness/thought needs to be practiced. You need to have a stillness/Samadhi. (to me/Soh) Your stillness is still not enough. Your mind is still having thought after thought, you are unable to have stillness. But your insight is able to reach no self. You are still unable to reach stillness and releasing. It is not a matter of saying then you can reach it, it requires practice.
(Comments by Soh: before my realization of anatta I would do samatha and enter into jhanic bliss [samadhi bliss but not resting in nature of mind], afterwards it is more towards the bliss of no-self luminosity, yet samadhi is still vital)
Me: best way is to practice vipasssana?
John: Vipassana … when it becomes non conceptual and non dual, it is even more difficult like for you, your insight is there, there is no self, yet when you sit you are unable to reach it. Because you need to focus. You need to focus your breath, (otherwise?) unable to reach it. For normal people they are able to reach it even easier. For you it is somewhat more difficult. So I always tell you, for example, for you and him the way of entering is by clear luminosity… feel as clear as possible. For example when you breathe, feel your breathe entirely. So you feel very very clear, just this breath you know. Then you feel the vividness. It is easier to enter this way.
Me: so you are advising Anapanasati?
John: yes of course, then you do many times. But when you do many times you are not counting. Don’t count. Just feel the entire sensation of the breath. You are just that sensation of your breath. Then you are so clear with your entire breath. That whole aircon that touches your nostrils, then going into your lungs. It is just this sensation. This is what we call breath. So you keep on doing. You are very aware of it. Actually it is not you are very aware of lah. This is what I call awareness and the whole thing is awareness, there is no somebody awaring. It is just breath. Then slowly you will have this (Samadhi?), you need to keep doing.
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Transcript with Thusness 2012 - Group Gathering

All reactions:
5
Yin Ling, Sim Pern Chong and 3 others

16 comments

Mark Lopez

Top contributor

Soh Wei Yu One thing I still am not quite clear on is why is stillness of thoughts necessary. When I rest in a natural state in meditation without trying to concentrate or still thoughts, I am able to be absorbed and pleasurable in this presence and se… 

See more

Like

Reply5d

Active

Yin Ling

Admin

Top contributor

Mark Lopez

Imo if one is in mature Anatta, and strong view of anatta is there, thoughts don’t even have the chance to arise. Usually ppl will notice the dramatic reduction of thoughts.

It somehow is a reflection of insight to some extent.

• Like
• Reply
• 5d

Mark Lopez

Top contributor

Yin Ling Very interesting. Here is what I wrote immediately after my anatta experience two weeks ago:

“Discursive thoughts (which were CONSTANT before) have seemingly stopped, or atleast greatly reduced. Concentration is much more effortless. No feeling of “I” being “pulled away” out of concentration, just peaceful silence. If there any thoughts, there is no sense of resistance to them or someone observing them. Just the presence of this thought, that one, etc. No problem.”

And indeed, as you’ve said, when anatta is strong, thoughts do not even have the chance to arise. It is like a faucet that has been dripping your entire life (discursive thoughts) was suddenly turned off. And, if you wish, you can turn it on again but the thoughts have no weight to them. The water droplet is crystal clear.

So I think you are right: my anatta is not stable yet (very recent breakthrough) therefore I alternate between the thoughts not even arising or if they do, there is not a sense of them being a problem. So when thoughts are not arising that would be the stillness (samadhi?) and clean clarity of the senses (no radio static of discursive thoughts). Other times, if thoughts do arise, there is simply the presence of this thought, no need to watch it, reject it, accept it. I simply remain in the presence of thoughts, sights, etc. No hearing, no seeing, no thinking. Just that presence, that knowing capacity. Ive heard the term “self liberated” used before and I like it as a description but again, probably not using technical terminology correctly.

Like

Reply5d

Active

Yin Ling

Admin

Top contributor

Mark Lopez haha yeah. But do take time to test it out in variable situation eg conflicts, work place,  it’s humbling 

• Like
• Reply
• 5d

Mark Lopez

Top contributor

Yin LingLol yeah i am not deluding myself as if I can maintain it 24/7 in any situation. I always have to remember the afflictions and negative tendencies will be there even after anatta until Buddhahood, and anything short of that is simply not good enough for myself nor for the benefit of others. Cannot be complacent climbing the mountain just because you found a little foothold . One prayer that we recited during this course included: “Please grant me blessings to cut in my mindstream the myriad ways of grasping at self”. I love it because the ways of grasping at self are sneaky, unexpected, and seemingly endless, even after grasping at an “I” has stopped. Must stay vigilant and uproot all those sneaky little self grasping tendencies, even after anatta.

With that being said insight has allowed me to automatically make difficult situations MUCH easier and cut through negative tendencies/thoughts much quicker. After that breakthrough I also wrote:

“Exponential decrease in self-consciousness, social hesitation, fear, anger, need to defend myself. Earlier nondual experiences brought some of this, but this was a FARTHER exponential drop.”

Like

Reply5d

Reply to Mark Lopez…

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

+1

On importance of samadhi:

• Like
• Reply
• 4d

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

+1

Kyle dixon said:

"Nice explanation. Meido Moore, who is a Rinzai Zen master says the same, he writes:

'From a practice standpoint, the crucial point is contained in the words, "one should just constantly activate correct views in one’s own mind." This has nothing to do with theoretical certainty that defilements are empty and do not bind; it refers to the seamless, sustained upwelling of the unity of samadhi/prajna. Departing from but then returning to this, again and again, describes the post-awakening practice to dissolve jikke.

If one experiences departure from this samadhi, even for a moment, the path is not completed at all. If one does not know what is actually meant by that samadhi, then even with kensho the path is still barely begun in terms of actualization.'

This process, dovetailing the “sudden” and “gradual” is identical for Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā as well." - Kyle Dixon, 2021

“Only Buddhas rest in prajñā at all times, because they rest in “samati” which is an unfragmented samādhi which directly cognizes the nature of phenomena at all times.

The rest of us do our best to cultivate concentration, dhyāna, which then will lead to samādhi, and after time we will awaken to have the awakened equipoise which comes about due to our samādhi being infused with prajñā. However due to latent obscurations that awakened equipoise will be unstable and our prajñā will be fragmented. The more we access awakened equipoise however, the more karma in the form of kleśa and vāsanā will be burned away, and as a result, the more obscurations will be removed and diminished. The path is precisely eliminating those obscurations, the afflictive obscuration that conceives of a self and the cognitive obscuration that conceives of external objects. Buddhas have completely eliminated these two obscurations and as a result their samādhi is samati, a transcendent state of awakened equipoise beyond the three times.” – Kyle Dixon, 2021

Like

Reply4d

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

+1

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../dzogchen...

Acarya Malcolm Smith

Samadhi/dhyāna is a natural mental factor, we all have it. The problem is that we naturally allow this mental factor to rest on afflictive objects such as HBO, books, video games, etc.

Śamatha practice is the discipline of harnessing our natural predisposition for concentration, and shifting it from afflictive conditioned phenomena to nonafflictive conditioned phenomena, i.e., the phenomena of the path. We do this in order to create a well tilled field for the growth of vipaśyāna. Śamatha ultimately allows us to have mental stability and suppresses afflictive mental factors so that we may eventually give rise to authentic insight into the nature of reality. While it is possible to have vipaśyāna without cultivating śamatha, it is typically quite unstable and lacks the power to effectively eradicate afflictive patterning from our minds. Therefore, the basis of all practice in Buddhadharma, from Abhidharma to the Great Perfection, is the cultivation of śamatha as a preliminary practice for germination of vipaśyāna.

....

In the early period of Budddhism, there were two yānas, śamatha yāna and vipaśyāna yāna; beginners went to Śariputra to training in vipaśyāna for stream entry; then they would go train in śamatha with Maudgalyana for further progress.

Lance Cousins wrote a very interesting article about this.

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Dzogchen, Meditation and Jhana

Dzogchen, Meditation and Jhana

• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview
• 4d

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

+1

(anatta realization proper is stream entry as discussed in

https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf%20 , https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../insight-buddhism... , https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../buddhahood-end-of... )

REDDIT.COM

From the streamentry community on Reddit: [insight] [buddhism] A reconsideration of the meaning of "Stream-Entry" considering the data points of both pragmatic Dharma and traditional Buddhism

From the streamentry community on Reddit: [insight] [buddhism] A reconsideration of the meaning of "Stream-Entry" considering the data points of both pragmatic Dharma and traditional Buddhism

Like

ReplyRemove Preview4d

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

+1

Buddha:

In Tandem

Yuganaddha Sutta (AN 4:170)

NAVIGATIONSuttas/AN/4:170

On one occasion Ven. Ānanda was staying in Kosambī at Ghosita’s monastery. There he addressed the monks, “Friends!”

“Yes, friend,” the monks responded to him.

Ven. Ānanda said: “Friends, whoever—monk or nun—declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of four paths. Which four?

“There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquility. As he develops insight preceded by tranquility, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquility preceded by insight. As he develops tranquility preceded by insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquility in tandem with insight. As he develops tranquility in tandem with insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Then there is the case where a monk’s mind has its restlessness concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it—his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

“Whoever—monk or nun—declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of these four paths.”

See also: MN 149; SN 35:204; AN 2:29; AN 4:94; AN 10:71

John tan sits 2 to 3 hours a day. When he does self retreat it can be much more than 4 hours a day. Yin ling too sits as much.

"PATHS TO ENLIGHTENMENT

What follows is a short explanation of the way Mipam presents the structure of the Buddhist path to awakening. According to him, we can only go so far in the Lesser Vehicle, realizing the lack of a personal self based on its path, but without the Great Vehicle, we will not come to fully realize the lack of self (that is, emptiness) with respect to all phenomena. In other words, those in the Lesser Vehicle realize only part of emptiness (the lack of a personal self) but do not realize the entire scope of emptiness. They hang on to an ultimate foundation of reality (the fundamental elements of reality, or dharmas), whereas there is actually no such foundation. Therefore, according to Mipam, one cannot become a buddha based solely on the Lesser Vehicle path; becoming a buddha is the result of the Great Vehicle. Nevertheless, realizing the lack of a personal self is enough to free us from samsara, because in doing so, we relinquish the obscurations of the afflictive emotions. The afflictive emotions can be included within the “three poisons” of attachment, aversion, and delusion.

These afflictive obscurations function to prevent liberation, and they are tied in with the apprehension of a personal self. Based on the notion of such a self, we become attached (to me and mine) and averse (to what is other). This notion of self keeps the wheel of samsara rolling, because it perpetuates the distorted framework through which we selfishly act out attachment and aversion, thus sowing the seeds of suffering. Afflictive obscurations have two aspects: a gross, imputed aspect and a more subtle, innate aspect. According to Mipam, the imputed aspects are relinquished on the first “ground” (Tib. sa, Skt. bhūmi) when you directly perceive the suchness of reality. This experiential realization is called “the path of seeing.”

The imputed aspects of the afflictive obscurations are learned and not inborn like the innate aspects. Imputed aspects involve distortions that are explicitly conceptual, as opposed to the perceptual distortions that comprise the innate aspects. The difference between the imputed and innate aspects can be understood as something like the difference between software and hardware: the innate aspects are embedded more deeply in one’s mind-stream and are thus more difficult to eliminate. Imputed ego-clinging refers to imputing qualities to the self that are not there—namely, apprehending the self as a singular, permanent, and independent entity. This is overcome on the first bodhisattva ground in a direct, nonconceptual experience of reality that is the culminating insight of analysis. Nevertheless, the more subtle, innate aspect of ego-clinging hangs on.

The innate ego-clinging, as the bare sense of self that is imputed on the basis of the five aggregates, is more difficult to remove. Rather than construing qualities to the self such as singularity or permanence, it is a more subtle feeling of simply “I am” when, for instance, we wake up in the morning. This innate sense of self is a deeply rooted, instinctual habit. It thus involves more than just imputed identity; it is a deeper experiential orientation of distorted subjectivity. Although analysis into the nature of the self paves the way for it to be overcome, it cannot fall away by analysis alone. Rather, it has to be relinquished through cultivating the path of meditation. According to Mipam, there are no innate aspects of the afflictive obscurations left on the eighth ground. However, the afflictive emotions are only one of two types of obscurations, the other being cognitive obscurations.

Cognitive obscurations are nothing less than conceptuality: the threefold conceptualization of agent, object, and action. Conceptuality is tied in to apprehending a self of phenomena, which includes mistaking phenomena as real, objectifying phenomena, and simply perceiving dualistically. Such conceptualization serves to obstruct omniscience. Based on the Great Vehicle, these cognitive obscurations can be completely relinquished; thereby, the result of the Great Vehicle path culminates in not merely escaping samsara, as in the Lesser Vehicle, but in becoming an omniscient buddha. According to Mipam, up to the seventh ground, the realization (of the twofold selflessness) and abandonment (of the twofold obscurations) are the same in the Great and Lesser Vehicles.

As with the Great Vehicle, he maintains that accomplishing the path of the Lesser Vehicle entails the realization of the selflessness of phenomena, to see that phenomena are empty. Those who accomplish the Lesser Vehicle path also realize the selflessness of phenomena, because their realization of emptiness with respect to a person is one instance of realizing the emptiness of phenomena. The final realization of the Lesser Vehicle path, however, is incomplete. Mipam compares it to taking a small gulp of the water of the ocean: we can say that those who realize emptiness in the Lesser Vehicle have drunk the water of the ocean, just not all of it.150 The final realization of the bodhisattva’s path in the Great Vehicle, however, is the full realization of emptiness, like drinking the entire ocean.

- Jamgon Mipam: His Life and Teachings"

• Like
• Reply
• 4d

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

+1

Like

Reply4d

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

+1

• Like
• Reply
• 4d

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

+1

A conversation with John Tan in 2007:

“John: Anyway I read a lot talking about you [can] have a lot of thoughts during meditation and you are doing correctly. That is pure nonsense. Lack of practice and misunderstanding. Cannot be taken to mean a form of achievement. There are thoughts, but thoughts are reduced tremendously and there is this clear insight of their spontaneity. means like what [Sixth Ch’an/Zen Patriarch] Hui-Neng said [about] thoughtlessness, but it arises due to the presence of conditions, not from attachments. When there is attachments, there are a lot of thoughts, and these thoughts are dualistic in nature. thought must reduce tremendously for clarity to arise. The nakedness aspect, the crystal clarity aspect. This is because of habitual propensities in action.

When one has some experience but is unable to understand the transcendental experience but due to the lack of practice is unable to touch the most essential and fundamental of our nature. So in the mind, there is this constant contemplation using thoughts to articulate things to understand, to know. But it is hardly anywhere near to crystal clarity. First thing ask oneself, are there symbols attached to experience? Are there any meanings attached to these symbols? If what is felt and understood are the meaning of the symbols, then there is a waste of time. In meditation, it is the nakedness, the qualities of our luminosity that is experienced. like clarity, spontaneity, blissfulness, realness, energy… nothing to do with symbols, meaning, purpose… etc”

Like

Reply4d

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

+1

• Like
• Reply
• 4d

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

+1

Wanted to paste a 2006 conversation with Thusness on the importance of developing tranquil calmness/shamatha. But too long to paste here, so I post as a blog page: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../importance-of...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Importance of Tranquil Calmness

Importance of Tranquil Calmness

Like

ReplyRemove Preview4d

Active

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

+1

Do also go through: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../transcript-with...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Transcript with Thusness 2012 - Group Gathering

Transcript with Thusness 2012 - Group Gathering

• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview
• 4d

Write a comment…

Also see: The Disease of Non-Conceptuality

Nicely explained 👍

Excerpt from https://www.byomakusuma.org/InterviewWithKhenchenRigdzinDorjeOnThe%20NyingmapaView.html

Khenpo: This debate is very old. A few centuries ago, some writers said that but now it’s over. Those who did not understand the exact view of Dzogchen used to say that. But according to Ha Shang, their view is that if you want to meditate, don’t think anything. Just keep your mind free from all thoughts, just keep it quiet. That is the perfect meditation. Then we can understand the perfect nature. But Dzogchen is not like that. It is the same as Madhyamika. (NB: And it has many skillful means ).

Ratnashree: So Dzogchen is not just being aware without thoughts or remaining in thoughtless non conceptual pure awareness but you have to know the nature?

Khenpo: Yes. Yes! It is not just that.

Ratnashre: Even in India, today we have many schools who say just remaining without thoughts, choice-less awareness, just awareness ( chidghana), pure awareness by itself ( chinmatra) etc. as the correct view. Many Western people think this is the same as 

Dzogchen. Do you agree?

Khenpo: Unless you have understood the nature of mind, just remaining thoughtless or choice less awareness is not Dzogchen. Remaining in the nature of mind is Dzogchen, not just remaining in thoughtless non conceptual awareness.

(NB: The Hindu Vedantic practice as advocated by perhaps the most respected and accepted Sri Sankaracharya (788 CE - 820 CE) instructs that the only way to enlightenment is to remain in the non dual, non conceptual awareness that is the watcher/witness/ knower ( advaita nirvikalpa drasta) which is one’s true identity ( Atman) and the only reality while everything else is an illusion. ‘ Brahman satyam jagan mithya’, i.e., Brahman the non dual and non conceptual awareness is the real truth while the Samsara is an illusion. This view was not created by Sri Sankaracharya around the 8 th century but already existed clearly in the Brihadaranyak Upanishad which is dated to be anytime from 800BC to 1200BC. In the Brihadaranyak Upanishad it says very clearly ‘Eko drastadvaito bhavati’ meaning ‘it is the one non dual awareness’ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV, 3. 32). Dolpopa’s( 1292 - 1361) Shentongview appears to be ditto with slight modifications of this Vedantic view as his main thesis is that thoughts are not Mahamudra, that Samsara is not Nirvana and that Samsara is an illusion which does not exist and is therefore empty. But the ultimate non dual awareness exists and is therefore not empty and can never be one with Samsara and by implication thoughts can never be Mahamudra as the Karma Kagyupa teaching says.

This view makes the whole of Buddhist Tantra which is the way of transformation impossible since Samsara, and by implication thoughts, the five aggregates, the 12 faculty gates and the sixteen constituents ( skandhadhatvayatanani) can never be transformed into the primordial wisdom or the five Buddhas. This view makes all of Buddhist Tantra irrelevant as Samsara which can never be indivisible with Nirvana because one is empty of real existence ( nisvabhava) and the other is not empty and really exists ( sat); can never be transformed into primordial wisdom and thoughts can never become Mahamudra.

This Hindu Vedantic type of thesis of Dolpopa contradicts the root Tantras like the Hevajra Root Tantra which says, ‘precisely this is known as Samsara, and precisely this is Nirvana itself. After rejecting Samsara, Nirvana will not be realized elsewhere.’ The two part Hevajra Tantra 2.4.38 states ‘ami Dharmas tu nirvanammohat samsararupina,’ meaning all these Dharmas ( Samsara) are Nirvana but because of delusion they appear as Samsara. Dolpopa’s view also contradicts the teachings of the Aryas (enlightened ones) of Jambudvipa like Arya Nagarjuna who says in his Magnum Opus the Mulamadhyamaka Karika, chapter 25, Nirvana Parikshya (examination of nirvana verses 19-20) ‘there is no special distinction of Samsara from Nirvana and there is no special distinction of Nirvana from Samsara. There is not the slightest difference between Nirvana and Samsara.’ Also, ‘you do not accept a Nirvana where Samsara has been rejected.’ In the Dharmadhatu Stava, it is said that ‘total transformation is explained as dharmakaya,’ therefore the question arises, what is totally transformed in the Shentong thesis of Dolpopa. If Samsara which is unreal cannot be transformed into Nirvana that is “really existing”, there is nothing to transform but only to realize the ever separate ultimate wisdom like the Hindu Brahman.

This is exactly the view of Sri Sankaracharya. It must also be clarified that these concepts were not taken by Sri Sankaracharya from the Mahasiddhas as some misinformed Buddhists would like to believe, but already existed in the Chandogya Upanishad and Brihadaryanaka Upanishad, dated from 800BC to 1200 BC by Ranade based on linguistic and ideological development and even earlier by some. These texts mention very clearly that Dwitiyam Nasti meaning there is no second but only this Brahman/Atman. And this is the Non dual Awareness/‘Eko drastadvaito bhavati’. All else is an illusion. Sankaracharya based himself on these Upanishads most of which were older than the Buddha himself and definitely did not learn these view from Buddhist Mahasiddhas, as some Western Shentongpas try to push forth.}

Ratnashree: So remaining only in the awareness, thoughtless, choiceless without knowing the nature of mind is the Ha Shangview?

Khenpo: Yes! That is what Kamalashila refuted about the Ha Shang. Kamalshila said that remaining in such a blank, thoughtless awareness is ignorance ( moha). You have to discriminate or distinguish the nature of mind, nature of phenomena.

(NB: This is exactly what Sakya Pandita meant when he refuted what he called hinese Dzogchen and said that due to cultivating this Moha/Ignorance predominated awareness state , it can become a means to be born either as a Naga or in the Formless Realm/Arupa Dhatu, which is something that every bodhisattva tries to avoid.This is avoided in modern Zen through Koans/Kung ans/ Kong answhich is a unique form of Vipashyana/Lhag thong within the Zen school. Even the Soto school which seems to lean towards remaining quietly in a thoughtless non conceptual mind does have what the founder of Japanese Soto School, Dogen Zenji (1200 - 1253), calls Genjo Koans or everyday Koans)

Ratnashree: So it is not enough to be just thoughtless, non conceptual?

Khenpo: No, being non conceptual, thoughtless is not enough. Even a small child is also concept free; Samadhi (one pointed absorption related to samatha) is also concept less, the unconscious state is also thoughtless, non conceptual, a piece of stone is also concept-less/thoughtless. That’s not the correct Dzogchen view. In Dzogchen teaching, the teacher asks the student where is the mind etc, and you should search, the same as in Madhyamika. There is no difference.

(NB: In Zen too the Master asks “show me your mind “and one has to “show” one’s mind to the Master after intensive searching and one is corrected if one is wrong in a typical Zen style)

Ratnashree: The main difference here is there must be Vipashayana. Without Lhagtong ( Vipashayana) togme (concept-less/non conceptual) is not enough?

Khenpo: Yes, that is not enough.

(NB: according to the Abhidharmic classification there are two types of avikalpa/tog me (non conceptual state), they are the anashrava avikalpa that is the non conceptual state free from the outflows or defilements and sashrava avikalpa, that is the non conceptual state withflows or defilements . Many people are hopelessly confused by the word “non conceptual” assuming that just being “non-conceptual” is enough. The Abhidharmika teachings make it clear that one cannot jump from defiled conceptual knowledge directly to undefiled non conceptual knowledge but rather one has to move from defiled conceptual knowledge to undefiled conceptual knowledge and from there to undefiled non-conceptual knowledge. The metaphor used is that a larva cannot fly directly but must first transform itself into a butterfly before it can fly into the sky of undefiled non conceptual knowledge. Vajragarbha the lord of the tenth bhumi in his commentery on the Hevajra Tantra called the Satasahasrika Hevajratika 1.51 says very clearly that in the beginning we go by using concepts to conceptual emptiness and finally to the non conceptual emptiness of all the Buddhist ‘adau vikalpadheto savikalpam sunyata phalam bhavet.ante cha sarva Bauddhanam akalpata sunyata phalam. ’There are many kinds of non conceptual states and experiences and they are not the same simply because they are non conceptual experiences. We can have a non conceptual experience of a sour lemon’s taste and also of a sugar candy. Simply because they are both direct non conceptual experiences they do not become the same. In the same way the non conceptual experience of the Brahman is definitely not the same as the non conceptual experience of Emptiness nor do they produce the same results.)

André A. Pais wrote:

REFLECTIONS ON SOLIPSISM

Solipsism is based on the idea that "only I exist" or "only this experience exists" or "only this exists." Some of these expressions are subtler than others, but all amount more or less to the same. It is true that nothing in experience directly affirms anything other than experience itself. What is overlooked is that nothing in experience actually denies anything "outside" experience either. Experience is totally mute, totally silent - it says nothing whatsoever about anything (be it internal or external to it). Even concepts are utterly silent, since, in a final sense, they don't point to anything either - they are mere sounds, vibrations, images, etc. In this sense, experience - and even conceptual processes - is totally incapable of refuting or establishing solipsism.

Solipsism is also based on a half-baked intuition of non-duality. The very concepts of "this" or "I" or "mine" depend on their opposites. So, by saying that "only this exists" I'm already establishing its opposite - some "that" that is nonexistent. "Existent-this" vs. "nonexistent-that" is a dualistic stance, making solipsism inherently self-refuting. Experience is devoid of "other" or "thatness," but it too is devoid of "me/mine" or "thisness." There is nothing exclusivistic in experience - there is no exclusion of anything. It's rather the opposite, experience is intrinsically open-ended, expansive and accommodating - even of concepts positing closed, constricted and excluding attitudes.

Also, solipsism seems to be based on notions of limited space and mutual exclusion of experiences. There is a sense of "there is only here" and so a "there" is excluded. Again this is dualistic, as without the notion of "there" there can't be a "here" either. So, in the non-conceptual spaciousness of experience there can be no sense of "here." So solipsism still embraces ideas of spatial extension, distance and separation, which it then paradoxically uses to refute notions of "other separate places," etc. So, we have dualistic principles being used in the defense of some non-dual solipsistic reality.

There is also the sense that experiences are mutually exclusive - if "this" experience is "here," "other" experiences cannot be simultaneously "here." Yet, we can cultivate an openness to the possibility that "everything is already here," that "everything is intrinsically included" right within this very experience. In the same way that we can develop our conventional senses (or other "senses") and experience things previously unnoticed - but that were already present -, we can also conceive of developing perception (or some kind of empirical sensitivity) in a way that allows the accommodation of an infinity of experiences, in opposition to the previously "singular solipsistic experience." That's what omniscience seems to entail - a non-conflicting appreciation of the totality of experiences, a full embrace of the entirety of the space-time display. In cutting through the solidity and seemingly exclusivistic nature of space and time - what is "here" is not "there," what is "now" cannot be "then" -, the "whole field" can become naturally manifest.

The sections of our experiential field that seem more obscure and concealing (like the sense of past and future experiences, and the notions of beyond the horizon and behind/bellow/above "me"), which are all instances of some type of impenetrable not-knowing, can be seen as representatives, clues or empirical "handles" that can serve as portals or doorways into the infinite dimensions of experience that remain unrevealed and unaccommodated. "Other times" and "other places," even in infinitely cosmic scales, can be seen as mere subtler dimensions - and yet unappreciated - of what is already here, of "this very experience."

Another angle of exploration is to consider if "this sole experience" is either one or many. A "many" can only be composed of a plurality of "ones" or units. Yet, no unit or singularity can ever be found - it's a logical and empirical impossibility. So, notions of singularity and plurality fall apart, and thus solipsism falls apart, since it is based on the idea of being the "singularly existing thing." Also, if "this experience" was the only existing thing, where would the seemingly diversity of experience come from? It either comes from something else (refuting solipsism) or it is generated "internally," in which case "this sole experience" is itself already a pluralistic experience.

Also, in the absence of a sense of there being some singular observer, experience is understood as "self-luminous" and "self-knowing"; why then can't the diversity of experience be already a case for so-called multiple perceivers or observers? Solipsism is based on the idea that "only I perceive" - but if all objects (material, mental or emotional) are already "self-knowing" and "naturally luminous," how can there be a sense of "only I perceive"? Experience is not intrinsically one for it arises as diversity; and it is not intrinsically many, since it's embraced by utter intimacy and non-separation. Solipsism, being based on solid notions of singularity and plurality, is incapable of appreciating the transparency and spaciousness of experience; and it is incapable of appreciating the fine balance of appearance-emptiness, a luminous display that is beyond materialistic, solidified and dualistic tendencies - that is, in fact, beyond all notions whatsoever, be they dual, non-dual, both or neither. Solipsism seems to be a classical example of an attempt to interpret an utterly transcendent and unlimited reality by making use of somewhat mystical and yet still conventional and limited notions and perspectives.

Replied someone:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/10064928413548498/

Some people prefer a more vipassana path (over self-enquiry), so that leads more to nondual and anatta. Yin Ling took this path and can elaborate more. You can read https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/05/nice-advice-and-expression-of-anatta-in.html

I am unable to offer mentorship because I have a full time job. IMO it will not be possible for any person to offer mentorship to a large community and still have a separate full time job. That is to say, unless I decide one day to quit my job and dedicate full time to coaching people, this would be impossible for me. If I do that, then I will have to charge people for my survival, and some people did request me to do that but I rejected their requests because I do not want to give up my career for this.

That being said, you can indeed find mentors, who do 1 on 1 coaching but there is a fee involved of course, which you can find out from Yin Ling -- she has a teacher who guided her to anatta.

You can also attend teachings like those by Acarya Malcolm Smith www.zangthal.com . There is a fee to attend the Dzogchen teachings. He will give practice instructions and teachings on Zoom to all his students regularly, you can also e-mail him, although because he also has a community with hundreds of students, and he has to juggle with his job of dharma translation work, he requested his students to limit their questions to only a paragraph per e-mail.

I personally attend Acarya Malcolm Smith's teachings too. 

p.s. there are also teachers like Ven Jinmyo Osho Renge (whose articles I like) who offers long distance training program for Zen https://wwzc.org/long-distance-training-program -- I believe there is a fee like Acarya Malcolm Smith's teachings. 

-----

https://www.reddit.com/r/AwakeningToReality/comments/16tmwbb/im_looking_for_a_good_nondual_coach_and_guide/

1
Posted by
u/ch3nr3z1g
44 minutes ago
I'm looking for a good nondual coach and guide. Suggestions?

I was browsing the AtR website and came across this link.

...
xabir
·
9 min. ago

Hi, Soh here, co author of AtR.

I don't do coaching but do refer people to teachers like Acarya Malcolm Smith ( www.zangthal.com ) for Dzogchen (although some of his courses can be quite technical for some) and Ven Jinmyo Osho for Zen https://wwzc.org/long-distance-training-program , you can read her articles on that website. If you attend their teachings, you can write to them to get your answers about practice answered.

I notice so called "nondual coaches" charge a lot, the rates go like 100usd per hour? And it's not even clear if they have genuine and deep insights. I can vouch for the two individuals above, they do charge for teachings but they have a community to run, and the charges are like 180usd (depends on teaching) for a couple months of teachings, and I think the Ven Jinmyo it's something like 95 canadian dollars a month? And they have a temple, community, monastics to support so I think it's all quite reasonable.

It's more important that you find a practice and community and teaching you resonate with and can stick to it with earnest interest and discipline so that you can keep consistent practice and interest and engagement. Rather than attend a one time or one hour 1 to 1 session which may not work out. There is no magic pill to enlightenment, it does depend on one's interest and engagement on the path.
1

——

Someone asked for an introduction to Malcolm’s teachings, I said:

For malcolm you can watch this https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/09/talk-on-buddhahood-in-this-life.html

And read this https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html

…..

Malcolm will be teaching i think near year end again so keep track of zangthal.com announcements. Meanwhile his recommendations for beginners as always is to first read these two books before attending his teachings as some background introductory materials to dzogchen if possible:

https://www.amazon.com/Crystal-Way-Light-Dzogchen-Philosophy/dp/1559391359

And

https://www.amazon.sg/Dzogchen-Self-Perfected-Chogyal-Namkhai-Norbu/dp/1559390573