Comments

Mr./Ms. MF

Only if consciousness is being asserted as intrinsically fundamentally existing.

• 
  

• Reply
• 9h

• 
  

Mr./Ms. MF

Check this out:

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Eight_extremes

RIGPAWIKI.ORG

Eight extremes - Rigpa Wiki

Eight extremes - Rigpa Wiki

• 
  

• Reply
• 9h

Mr. OR

Mr./Ms. MF how could it be fundamental, yet not fundamentally extant?

• 
  

• Reply
• 9h

• 
  

Mr./Ms. MF

Mr. OR because “fundamental” here is being used conventionally;

For example, heat and light is fundamental to fire, but fire—which is heat and light—is not fundamentally extant,

• 
  

• Reply
• 9h

Mr./Ms. MF

Mr. OR (and also, neither is fire, because fire is also dependent on conditions.)

• 
  

• Reply
• 9h

Mr./Ms. MF

Mr. OR hope that helps,

• 
  

• Reply
• 8h

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

Top contributor

Mr. OR

For detailed explanations of michael’s point, see https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../clarifications-on...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

• 
  

• Reply
• Remove Preview
• 6h

Mr. OR

Mr./Ms. MF what conditions is consciousness dependent on?

• 
  

• • • Reply
    • 6h

Aditya Prasad

Top contributor

Yes, it conflicts. Bernardo is talking about Brahman (or what AtR calls substantial nonduality). I gave a few of his quotes in the piece I shared here a few days ago that makes this clear.

• 
  

• Reply
• 9h

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

Top contributor

I haven’t read them up but I trust Aditya have gotten them right.

I will just share the Buddhist view here:

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/04/way-of-bodhi.html

Excerpt:

Discourse)

Dissolving the Mind

Dissolving the mind

Though purifying mind is the essence of practicing the Way, it is not done by clinging at the mind as a glorified and absolute entity. It is not that one simply goes inward by rejecting the external world. It is not that the mind is pure and the world is impure. When mind is clear, the world is a pure-field. When mind is deluded, the world is Samsara. Bodhidharma said,

Seeing with insight, form is not simply form, because form depends on mind. And, mind is not simply mind, because mind depends on form. Mind and form create and negate each other. … Mind and the world are opposites, appearances arise where they meet. When your mind does not stir inside, the world does not arise outside. When the world and the mind are both transparent, this is the true insight.” (from the Wakeup Discourse)

Just like the masters of Madhyamaka, Bodhidharma too pointed out that mind and form are interdependently arising. Mind and form create each other. Yet, when you cling to form, you negate mind. And, when you cling to mind, you negate form. Only when such dualistic notions are dissolved, and only when both mind and the world are transparent (not turning to obstructing concepts) the true insight arises.

In this regard, Bodhidharma said,

Using the mind to look for reality is delusion.

Not using the mind to look for reality is awareness.

(from the Wakeup Discourse)

So, to effectively enter the Way, one has to go beyond the dualities (conceptual constructs) of mind and form. As far as one looks for reality as an object of mind, one is still trapped in the net of delusion (of seeing mind and form as independent realities), never breaking free from it. In that way, one holds reality as something other than oneself, and even worse, one holds oneself as a spectator to a separate reality!

When the mind does not stir anymore and settles into its pristine clarity, the world does not stir outside. The reality is revealed beyond the divisions of Self and others, and mind and form. Thus, as you learn not to use the mind to look for reality and simply rests in the natural state of mind as it is, there is the dawn of pristine awareness – knowing reality as it is, non-dually and non-conceptually.

When the mind does not dissolve in this way to its original clarity, whatever one sees is merely the stirring of conceptuality. Even if we try to construct a Buddha’s mind, it only stirs and does not see reality. Because, the Buddha’s mind is simply the uncompounded clarity of Bodhi (awakening), free from stirring and constructions. So, Bodhidharma said,

That which ordinary knowledge understands is also said to be within the boundaries of the norms. When you do not produce the mind of a common man, or the mind of a sravaka or a bodhisattva, and when you do not even produce a Buddha-mind or any mind at all, then for the first time you can be said to have gone outside the boundaries of the norms. If no mind at all arises, and if you do not produce understanding nor give rise to delusion, then, for the first time, you can be said to have gone outside of everything. (From the Record #1, of the Collection of Bodhidharma’s Works3 retrieved from Dunhuang Caves)

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Way of Bodhi

Way of Bodhi

• 
  

• Reply
• Remove Preview
• 7h

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

Top contributor

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../some-zen-masters...

….

The myriad forms of the entire universe are the seal of the single Dharma. Whatever forms are seen are but the perception of mind. But mind is not independently existent. It is co-dependent with form.

- Zen Master Mazu

….

“But how could one [even] gain the ability to know that it is no-mind [that sees, hears, feels, and knows]?"

"Just try to find out in every detail: What appearance does mind have? And if it can be apprehended: is [what is apprehended] mind or not? Is [mind] inside or outside, or somewhere in between? As long as one looks for mind in these three locations, one's search will end in failure. Indeed, searching it anywhere will end in failure. That's exactly why it is known as no-mind."”

“At this, the disciple all at once greatly awakened and realized for the first time that there is no thing apart from mind, and no mind apart from things. All of his actions became utterly free. Having broken through the net of all doubt, he was freed of all obstruction.”

Doctrine of No Mind by Bodhidharma, see http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/04/way-of-bodhi.html and http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-doctrine-of-no...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Some Zen Masters’ Quotations on Anatman

Some Zen Masters’ Quotations on Anatman

• 
  

• Reply
• Remove Preview
• 6h

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

Top contributor

"Although mind is distinguished from form, they share the same nature. Form is mind, mind is forms. They interfuse with one another without difficulty. Therefore, knowing is the objects of knowledge, and the objects, knowing. Knowing is reality, reality knowing."

- Kūkai

• 
  

• Reply
• 6h

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

Top contributor

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../greg-goode-on...

Greg Goode on Advaita/Madhyamika

Dr. Greg Goode wrote in Emptything:

It looks your Bahiya Sutta experience helped you see awareness in a different way, more .... empty. You had a background in a view that saw awareness as more inherent or essential or substantive?

I had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's treatise about the "prior entity," and I had been meditating on "emptiness is form" intensely for a year. These two threads came together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the "ten-thousand things" in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic, playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back. No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy everywhere...

........

Stian, cool, get into that strangeness! There is a certain innocent, not-knowing quality to strangeness that counteracts the rush to certainty, the need to arrive, to land.

I still don't get your "no compromise" point. Can you rephrase it, but without the words "between" or "compromise"?

Anything can be denied. And is. There is one prominent Advaita teacher that I like who likes to say "You can't deny that you are the awareness that is hearing these words right now."

This kind of gapless continuity, so prized in Advaita, is readily denied in other approaches to experience:

you. can't. deny. that. you. are. the. awareness. hearing. these. words. right. now.

I remember feeling during one retreat, just how many ways that this could be denied. From a different model of time and experience, there are gaps and fissures all over the place, even in that sentence (hence. the. dots). Each moment is divided within itself, carrying traces of past and future (retention and protention). The first "you"-moment and the second "you"-moment are not necessarily experienced by the same entity. Each "I" is different. Entitification itself is felt as autoimmune, as divided within itself, and any "gaplessness" is nothing more than a paste-job.

Not saying one of these is right and the other wrong. Just pointing out how something so undeniable can readily be denied!

......

Emptiness group:

Awareness and Emptiness.

Many people, myself at times as well, have thought that Advaitic, atman-style awareness and emptiness are the same thing. When I began to study Nagarjuna, I was reading through a lens colored by the Advaita teachings. You know how they go, Awareness is the Self and very nature of me. The psychophysical components are certainly not me. I remain the same through the coming and going and changing of the components.

At that time, I had had trouble understanding 50% of the key line in the Heart Sutra,

"Form is emptiness and emptiness is form."

I got the "form is emptiness" part. But I couldn't grok the "emptiness is form" part. Thinking that Advaitic Awareness=emptiness, I was used to thinking that Awareness IS, whether universes arise or not. How can Awareness equal its contents? And if it did, why even call it global Awareness? The contents could speak for themselves," I was thinking.

Also, many Advaitic-style teachings proceed by refuting the phenomena (thoughts, feelings and sensations) but retaining THAT to which they arise. That was the type of teaching I was used to, and it colored my approach to Madhyamika.

So it was very easy to read the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" in this same way. But it began to get a little puzzling. In my readings of Prasangika Madhyamika (which never mentions a global awareness), they never say that anywhere that emptiness=awareness. Nevertheless, I was supplying this equivalence for myself, making the mental substitution of one highest path's highest term with another's.

As I continued, there seem less and less evidence that Madhyamika was doing this, but I didn't encounter anything that knocked the idea away. It got more and more puzzling for me.

And then one day I read this from Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Sloka IX:4, about the "prior entity," or a subject or owner or substrate for what is seen and heard. (translations from the Garfield edition).

"If it can abide Without the seen, etc., Then, without a doubt, They can abide without it."

Then it dawned on me! The independence (and hence the dependence) that Buddhism is talking about is two-way, not just one-way. If A is logically independent from B, then B is logically independent from A.

If you can have a self that doesn't depend on things seen, then you can have things seen that do not depend on a self.

So, for Nagarjuna, can you really have a self that is truly bilaterally independent from what is seen?

No, because of his next sloka, IX:10:

"Someone is disclosed by something. Something is disclosed by someone. Without something how can someone exist? Without someone how can something exist?"

With these two verses, I finally understood the two-way dependence that Buddhism was talking about. And both halves of that important line in the Heart Sutra finally made sense!!

.........

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Greg Goode on Advaita/Madhyamika

Greg Goode on Advaita/Madhyamika

• 
  

• Reply
• Remove Preview
• 6h

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

Top contributor

.........

Taken from Krodha (Kyle Dixon)'s Dharmawheel posts compilation: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../table-of-contents...

Author: krodha

Date: Tue May 28, 2013 6:35 pm

Title: Re: Question about "location of mind" Content:

Greg Goode had some good insight on this too:

Greg wrote:

Matt, when you say

'can someone show me how it's [awareness] not an eternal, non-separate essence?' and

'as soon as you point to a phenomenon upon which awareness would be dependent, awareness was already there,'

are you assuming that awareness is one, single unified thing that is already there before objects are? That awareness is present whether objects are present or not?

That is a particular model. It sounds very similar to Advaita. But there are other models.

The emptiness teachings have a different model. Instead of one big awareness they posit many mind- moments or separate awarenesses. Each one is individuated by its own object. There is no awareness between or before or beyond objects. No awareness that is inherent. In this emptiness model, awareness is dependent upon its object. And as you point out, the object is dependent upon the awareness that apprehends it. But there is no underlying awareness that illuminates the entire show.

That's how these teachings account for experience while keeping awareness from being inherently existent.

This isn't the philosophy that denies awareness. That was materialism. We had a few materialists in the fb emptiness group, but they left when they found out that emptiness doesn't utterly deny

awareness. So you see, there are people who do deny it... In the emptiness teachings, things depend on awareness, cognitiion, conceptualization, yes. But it is the other way around as well. Awareness depends on objects too.

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

Greg wrote:

Speaking of *after* studying the emptiness teachings.... After beginning to study the emptiness teachings, the most dramatic and earth-shattering thing I realized the emptiness of was awareness, consciousness.

It came as an upside-down, inside-out BOOM, since I had been inquiring into this very point for a whole year. It happened while I was meditating on Nagarjuna's Treatise. Specifically verse IX:4, from “Examination of the Prior Entity.”

If it can abide

Without the seen, etc., Then, without a doubt, They can abide without it.

I saw that a certain parity and bilateral symmetry is involved. If awareness can exist without its objects, then without a doubt, they can exist without awareness. True enough. Then there is a hidden line or two:

BUT - the objects CAN'T exist without awareness. Therefore, awareness can't exist without them. This was big for me.

.........

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Table of Contents for Malcolm Dharmawheel Posts + Astus, Krodha (Kyle Dixon), Geoff (Jnana), Meido Moore

Table of Contents for Malcolm Dharmawheel Posts + Astus, Krodha (Kyle Dixon), Geoff (Jnana), Meido Moore

• 
  

• Reply
• Remove Preview
• 6h

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

Top contributor

.........

I'm not sure what you mean by "itch," but I can tell you that when I began to study the Mulamadhyamakakarika (MMK), I wanted to let it speak for itself. I didn't want to bring to it any presumptions that I picked up from other teachings, such as that all reality depends on an aware ground of being. This was my intention from the beginning, and it took me a while to detect those assumptions in myself as I proceeded with my study. The text of the MMK itself actually helped dissolve those assumptions from my study and practice of Madhyamika.

It's pretty clear that in the MMK there is no support for an aware ground of being.

About verses 8 and 9. they are dialectical arguments against the notion of an independent self that is the basis and unifying substance of all experience. As dialectical arguments, they examine consequences that would follow if there were really such an independent self. And they find that the consequences are absurd, or that they go against the independent-self idea. Confronting these absurd consequences frees us from assenting to the independent-self doctrine.

Verses 8 and 9 are instances of the same/different argument schema. Those who believe in existence usually assert that if A and B exist, then they must be the same as each other, or different from each other.

Verse 8 examines the absurd consequences of stating that the seer and hearer and feeler are the same.

It looks at what would happen if there were a self that is the hearer and seer and feeler (which is what the independent-self doctrine asserts). If there were such a self, it would contravene the insights from Verses 4-6, which argue that the seer depends on the seen just like the seen depends on the seer.

In our experience, seeing and hearing and feeling happen at different times, sometimes apart, sometimes together. If there WERE such a self, the very same self that hears and sees, Verse 8 is arguing that the self would have to exist PRIOR to hearing and PRIOR to seeing.

Verse 9 examines the absurd consequences of stating that the seer and hearer and feeler are different. It argues that in this case, there would be multiple independent selves, one for seeing, one for hearing, and one for feeling. This obviously contradicts the main point of the independent self doctrine, which is that there is just ONE entity which does all the seeing and hearing.

Nagarjuna's strategy here is to show that assuming an independent entity prior to experience makes no sense at all. This is because it makes no sense if the seer equals the hearer, and it makes no sense if the seer does not equal the hearer.

Therefore, it makes no sense!

And it keeps on going, getting more and more radical.

Verse 11 - here the MMK uses the conclusion about the absurdity of the independent seer to refute the inherent existence of independent modes of perception.

In Verse 12, the MMK says that having seen all this, we are freed from conceptions and assertions of existence and non-existence.

.......

Geovani, I’m very glad to hear that your mind is knotted up. Emptiness insights can do that to us when we start getting into them.

Yes, this approach would acknowledge swoons, anesthesia, “zone” moments and deep sleep. We could say that these are “longer” gaps than the gaps between momentary sounds and other sensations. But that isn’t a metaphysical claim, just a non-theoretical comment about experience.

The main takeaway from the refutation of an independent “prior entity” is that continuity is only imputed casually as a transactional, conventional way of organizing experience. It’s not a serious claim, and it wouldn’t hold up under analysis. So for this kind of practical manner of speaking, continuity doesn’t require an inherent, underlying ground. If continuity itself were examined, it would be just as insubstantial as the other things examined by the MMK.

Many Buddhist meditations focus on discerning the DIScontinuities in what we normally assume is continuous and unbroken.

Also, for Nagarjuna in this chapter, the “prior entity,” has already been refuted in by the time he reaches verses 8-12.

Labels: Advaita, Emptiness, Greg Goode, Madhyamaka |

• 
  

• Reply
• 6h

Mr. RDT

Not necessarily, look Vijnanavada (Cittamatra).

The difference is that Buddhist models of consciousness present it as momentary, conditioned, diverse (individual streams and sense spheres).

Hindu models posit consciousness that is permanent, uncoditioned, unitary.

This crucial difference shows up on brain studies of meditators. Its not only theory. According to researcher Stanisław Radoń (not Buddhist nor Hindu btw) Buddhist meditation turns off habituation so You constantly see, hear, feel the flow of data as new, your brain is constantly engaged. In Hindu meditation external stimuli activation is decresed in order to focus on a self-consciousness and absorbption in one's self.

Ofc course there are then further differences between various sub-systems of Buddhism or Hinduism.

You can think of consciousness in Buddhism as a stream. Stream of sense data and thoughts that doesn't exist on its own apart from the everchanging stream of sense and mental (this dichotomy is not asserted in many Buddhist schools) phenomena.

In Hinduism consciousness or awareness (there is some semantic confusion here as some prefer one word over another) is a stable observer background or substance that serves as a support for sense and mental experience.

Hindu one serves as a stable reference point for your meditation, experience is seen from its standpoint. The Buddhist teaching doesn't posit such a reference point, experience is freeflowing and unsuported.

So the question is: do these guys treat consciousness more in the Buddhist or in the Hindu sense? Like what is their model of cognition? More Samkhya or more Abhidharma/Cittamatra?

• 
  

• • Reply
  • 4h
  • Edited

https://www.facebook.com/groups/546474355949572/posts/1367279883869011/?__cft__[0]=AZUuwrTmw85y2rqNNvRM2bjcXW4ZufZMtIztFwXZRoGQozyNduyhfB9F98ejQJSq-G6ep_LRs0nhZ2iFIqoa9E_LBCzO70c96ogExE9ijDLBUxmTr0B7BiaF28PVMS0lmTvfRXkDOS3zqIt_UPThKo42T6j6N1vcAhvK9vdiO7YleWiEw4I2_NcTSW-x3gNfMDA&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Soh replied to someone:

Actually self enquiry is not just to realise the lack of a personal self, but Pure Presence. 

As my mentor Thusness/John Tan said:

“On a related topic, John Tan wrote in Dharma Overground back in 2009,

“Hi Gary,

It appears that there are two groups of practitioners in this forum, one adopting the gradual approach and the other, the direct path. I am quite new here so I may be wrong.

My take is that you are adopting a gradual approach yet you are experiencing something very significant in the direct path, that is, the ‘Watcher’. As what Kenneth said, “You're onto something very big here, Gary. This practice will set you free.” But what Kenneth said would require you to be awaken to this ‘I’. It requires you to have the ‘eureka!’ sort of realization. Awaken to this ‘I’, the path of spirituality becomes clear; it is simply the unfolding of this ‘I’.

On the other hand, what that is described by Yabaxoule is a gradual approach and therefore there is downplaying of the ‘I AM’. You have to gauge your own conditions, if you choose the direct path, you cannot downplay this ‘I’; contrary, you must fully and completely experience the whole of ‘YOU’ as ‘Existence’. Emptiness nature of our pristine nature will step in for the direct path practitioners when they come face to face to the ‘traceless’, ‘centerless’ and ‘effortless’ nature of non-dual awareness.

Perhaps a little on where the two approaches meet will be of help to you.

Awakening to the ‘Watcher’ will at the same time ‘open’ the ‘eye of immediacy’; that is, it is the capacity to immediately penetrate discursive thoughts and sense, feel, perceive without intermediary the perceived. It is a kind of direct knowing. You must be deeply aware of this “direct without intermediary” sort of perception -- too direct to have subject-object gap, too short to have time, too simple to have thoughts. It is the ‘eye’ that can see the whole of ‘sound’ by being ‘sound’. It is the same ‘eye’ that is required when doing vipassana, that is, being ‘bare’. Be it non-dual or vipassana, both require the opening of this 'eye of immediacy'.”

In 2009, John Tan wrote:

"Hi Teck Cheong,

What you described is fine and it can be considered vipassana meditation too but you must be clear what is the main objective of practicing that way. Ironically, the real purpose only becomes obvious after the arising insight of anatta. What I gathered so far from your descriptions are not so much about anatta or empty nature of phenomena but are rather drawn towards Awareness practice. So it will be good to start from understanding what Awareness truly is. All the method of practices that you mentioned will lead to a quality of experience that is non-conceptual. You can have non-conceptual experience of sound, taste...etc...but more importantly in my opinion, you should start from having a direct, non-conceptual experience of Awareness (first glimpse of our luminous essence). Once you have a ‘taste’ of what Awareness is, you can then think of ‘expanding’ this bare awareness and gradually understand what does ‘heightening and expanding’ mean from the perspective of Awareness.

Next, although you hear and see ‘non-dual, anatta and dependent origination’ all over the place in An Eternal Now’s forum (the recent Toni Packer’s books you bought are about non-dual and anatta), there is nothing wrong being ‘dualistic’ for a start. Even after direct non-conceptual experience of Awareness, our view will still continue to be dualistic; so do not have the idea that being dualistic is bad although it prevents thorough experience of liberation.

The comment given by Dharma Dan is very insightful but of late, I realized that it is important to have a first glimpse of our luminous essence directly before proceeding into such understanding. Sometimes understanding something too early will deny oneself from actual realization as it becomes conceptual. Once the conceptual understanding is formed, even qualified masters will find it difficult to lead the practitioner to the actual ‘realization’ as a practitioner mistakes conceptual understanding for realization.

Rgds,

John"

“The anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of no-self. But it must first have an intuitive insight of Presence. 

Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights.” - John Tan, 2018

He also said:

“Hi Mr. H,

In addition to what you wrote, I hope to convey another dimension of Presence to you. That is Encountering Presence in its first impression, unadulterated and full blown in stillness.

So after reading it, just feel it with your entire body-mind and forgot about it. Don't let it corrupt your mind.😝

Presence, Awareness, Beingness, Isness are all synonyms. There can be all sorts of definitions but all these are not the path to it. The path to it must be non-conceptual and direct. This is the only way.

When contemplating the koan "before birth who am I", the thinking mind attempts to seek into it's memory bank for similar experiences to get an answer. This is how the thinking mind works - compare, categorize and measure in order to understand.

However, when we encounter such a koan, the mind reaches its limit when it tries to penetrate its own depth with no answer. There will come a time when the mind exhausts itself and come to a complete standstill and from that stillness comes an earthshaking BAM!

I. Just I.

Before birth this I, a thousand years ago this I, a thousand later this I. I AM I.

It is without any arbitrary thoughts, any comparisons. It fully authenticates it's own clarity, it's own existence, ITSELF in clean, pure, direct non-conceptuality. No why, no because.

Just ITSELF in stillness nothing else.

Intuit the vipassana and the samantha. Intuit the total exertion and realization. The essence of message must be raw and uncontaminated by words.

Hope that helps!” - John Tan, 2019

Also, Angelo wrote: 

Inquiry for First Awakening

The inquiry that leads to first awakening is a funny thing.  We want to know “how” precisely to do that inquiry, which is completely understandable.  The thing is that it’s not wholly conveyable by describing a certain technique.  Really it’s a matter of finding that sweet spot where surrender and intention meet.  I will describe an approach here, but it’s important to keep in mind that in the end, you don’t have the power (as what you take yourself to be) to wake yourself up.  Only Life has that power.  So as we give ourselves to a certain inquiry or practice it’s imperative that we remain open.  We have to keep the portals open to mystery, and possibility.  We have to recognize that the constant concluding that “no this isn’t it, no this isn’t it either...” is simply the activity of the mind.  Those are thoughts.  If we believe a single thought then we will believe the next one and on and on.  If however we recognize that, “oh that doubt is simply a thought arising now,” then we have the opportunity to recognize that that thought will subside on its own... and yet “I” as the knower of that thought am still here!  We can now become fascinated with what is here once that thought (or any thought) subsides.  What is in this gap between thoughts?  What is this pure sense of I, pure sense of knowing, pure sense of Being?  What is this light that can shine on and illuminate a thought (as it does thousands of times per day), and yet still shines when no thought is present.  It is self illuminating.  What is the nature of the one that notices thoughts, is awake and aware before, during, and after a thought, and is not altered in any way by any thought?  Please understand that when you ask these questions you are not looking for a thought answer, the answer is the experience itself.

When we start to allow our attention to relax into this wider perspective we start to unbind ourselves from thought.  We begin to recognize the nature of unbound consciousness by feel, by instinct.  This is the way in.

At first we may conclude that this gap, this thoughtless consciousness is uninteresting, unimportant.  It feels quite neutral, and the busy mind can’t do anything with neutral so we might be inclined to purposely engage thoughts again.  If we recognize that “not interesting, not important, not valuable” are all thoughts and simply return to this fluid consciousness, it will start to expand.  But there is no need to think about expansion or watch for it.  It will do this naturally if we stay with it.   If you are willing to recognize every thought and image in the mind as such, and keep your attention alert but relaxed into the “stuff” of thought that is continuous with the sense of I, it will all take care of itself.  Just be willing to suspend judgement.  Be willing to forego conclusions.  Be willing to let go of all monitoring of your progress, because these are all thoughts.  Be open to the pure experience.  Just return again and again to this place of consciousness with no object or pure sense of I Am.  If you are willing to do this it will teach itself to you in a way that neither I nor anyone I’ve ever seen can explain, but it is more real than real.

Happy Travels.

Also, recently I shared in another group: 

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

Top contributor

Also an admin msged me

“I think he is practicing self-enquiry incorrectly based on his description, focusing on the sense gates instead of discovering his true self/luminous pure consciousness. Most people tend to focus outward instead of inward when attempting to realize I AM.”

Reply

2w

Mr GW Author

Soh Wei Yuthanks for the pointers - though "he should be discovering his luminous awareness" - seems obvious that this is what I want, but not really actionable practice guidance

Reply

2w

Chris Wilson

Mr GW  I think one point from that comment might have been to kind of close out the other senses and put your attention in the thought consciousness gate.

What's crazy is we end up looking for some event or big bang revelation that we can talk about. Perhaps, while watching the thoughts and doing inquiry, let the goal be more to rest as the space between the thoughts. See if there is anything you can even say about it. That amness or beingness is so close and simple that we easily overlook it trying to find something that matches a description.

Reply

2w

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

Top contributor

Mr GW Try

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/08/tips-on-self-enquiry-investigate-who-am.html

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/11/angelo-dilullos-inquiry-pointers.html

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/11/what-is-your-very-mind-right-now.html

www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/the-direct-path-to-your-real-self.html

Reply

2w

Edited

Some random compilation of John Tan comments I thought of sharing. [18/6/23, 1:07:21 AM] John Tan: 👍 No seer, no seeing, nothing seen means freedom from all elaborations into the natural state -- spontaneously presents and naturally perfected. A state free from conceptual elaborations can be non-mentation like what Tsongkhapa said, there is no wisdom and insight involved. Insight of non-inherentness will result in direct taste non-existence clear appearances. .... 

 
“Ultimately, the basis is free from all elaborations, no mind, no consciousness, no conditions therefore no DO, no emptiness...no line of demarcation can be drawn.

For a practitioner that has anatta insight, there is no issue on freedom from all elaborations of the ultimate, It is how the conventional is understood that is difficult.” - John Tan months ago

—-

“Yes, I think should add together as they represent the 2 different view of emptiness.

Freedom from all elaborations and freedom from self-nature.

Yeah I included the two. One is freedom from all elaboration, one is spacious dream-like nature, lack of self-nature as emptiness.” - John Tan 2022

——

“It is not simply about freeing from elaborations and we r left with with the world also. Nor is it simply about experiencing presence and non-dual, they aren't the main concern.

Look at the scenery, so lurid and vivid;

Is the "scenery" out there?

Feel the "hardness" of the floor;

Is this undeniable "hardness" out there?

If "hardness of the floor" aren't out there, are is "inside" the brain? There is no "hardness" in the brain u can locate in the parts that make up the experience of "hardness".

It is not even in the "mind" for u can't even find "mind" then how can "in" the mind be valid?

If "hardness" isn't external nor internal, then where is it?

So, to me, buddhism is not about helping one taste presence or into an effortless state of non-dual or into a state free of conceptualities but also points out this fundamental cognitive flaw that confuses the mind. This is more crucial. If the cognitive fault isn't uprooted and seen through, then all experiences regardless of how mystical and profound will be distorted.

It is not simply about freeing from elaborations and we r left with with "the world" also. Nor is it simply about experiencing presence and non-dual, they aren't the main concern.

Look at the scenery, so lurid and vivid;

Is the "scenery" out there?

Feel the "hardness" of the floor;

Is this undeniable "hardness" out there?

If "hardness of the floor" aren't out there, is it "inside" the brain? There is no "hardness" in the brain u can locate in the parts that make up the experience of "hardness".

Then we say "no", it is in the "mind". So now what that is believed to be "external" in the past is being "internalized" in a "mind".

But WAIT,

How can "hardness" which is no where to be found be in "mind"?

Furthermore, we can't even find "mind" then how can "in" the mind be valid?

If "hardness" isn't external nor internal, then where is it?

So, to me, buddhism is not only about helping one taste presence or into an effortless state of non-dual or into a state free of conceptualities but more importantly points out this fundamental cognitive flaw that confuses the mind. This is more crucial. If the cognitive fault isn't uprooted and seen through, then all experiences regardless of how mystical and profound will be distorted.” - John Tan months ago

 ........

 [19/6/23, 4:59:42 PM] John Tan: But inexpressibility doesn't mean there is no valid means of presentation but whatever expressed always imply characterization. This is nothing new as it is also clearly expressed in Tao De Jing. [19/6/23, 5:09:56 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Tao te ching points to a similar insight as anatta and freedom from extremes? [19/6/23, 5:11:28 PM] John Tan: Not anatta but freedom from all conventional elaborations. [19/6/23, 5:11:38 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. [19/6/23, 5:12:39 PM] John Tan: U must discern the difference between nyingma and gelug understanding of emptiness. [19/6/23, 5:13:25 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Actually upanishads also i think. But then i think still based on atman “e organs, i.e., free from the dualistic mind (namshe). So the Upanishadic view is that the really existing, eternal / permanent, non-dual, non-referential cognition is the âtmà, and this is not dualistic mind. This Upanishadic view existed even before the Buddha, and this was what Sankaràcàrya expounded very clearly and most powerfully around the 6th century. This view, similar to this Sankara view, was refuted by Śāntarakṣita as a wrong view. The Vedàntic Sutras and Sàstra-s are full of statements like: This âtmà is truly existent beyond existence and non-existence. This is truly non-dual beyond dual and non-dual. This âtmà is the Great Thing (mahàvastu), which is permanent beyond permanent and impermanent, etc., etc. It is empty of all qualities (nirguna), which means empty of foreign qualities, but not empty (of itself), i.e., not empty of being a truly existing permanent entity (sat); not empty of being non-dual cognition (cit), and not empty of bliss (ànanda). Sat-cit-ànanda is the nature of this âtmà (or non-dual cognition). “ - https://www.byomakusuma.org/VedantaVisAVisShentong.html [19/6/23, 5:13:35 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Anurag also said advaita also stress its inexpressible [19/6/23, 5:13:45 PM] John Tan: Yes [19/6/23, 5:13:53 PM] John Tan: Even christian [19/6/23, 5:14:00 PM] John Tan: 🤣 [19/6/23, 5:14:05 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic [19/6/23, 5:15:00 PM] Soh Wei Yu: But i think longchenpa should be clear about the anatman and emptiness of inherent existence [19/6/23, 5:15:29 PM] John Tan: Definitely [19/6/23, 5:15:46 PM] John Tan: Din u read the illusory book? [19/6/23, 5:16:21 PM] John Tan: And don't anyhow comment stuff u r not sure 🤦 [19/6/23, 5:16:40 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah This is also nice Longchenpa: 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. [19/6/23, 5:18:24 PM] Soh Wei Yu: So i think for longchenpa, nyingma, their freedom from elaborations include the emptiness of inherent existence [19/6/23, 5:18:39 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Maybe they differ from gelug in expression and emphasis? [19/6/23, 7:15:53 PM] John Tan: To me, this separation of "existence" from "what appears" is unique and very skillful. "Non-existence" appearance is essentially the same insight as anatta. It involves the 2 authentications: 1. Seeing through the reification of conventional construct and 2. Recognition of appearances as one's empty clarity. What makes appearances appear "real, solid and external" are our mistaken perception of the inherent framework of subject-action-object. But that is only part of the confusion. The other is not realizing what appears is just radiance, that is y it is illusory and insubstantial. However if we deconstruct entities and characteristics, then mind and phenomena, consciousness and conditions are all deconstructed, u can't treat mind as real due to point 1. Otherwise one skewed towards yogacara (but then yogacara doesn't actually treat mind as real either). It is sort of straw-man stereotyping a group of practitioners attaching to mind as real. ..... [1/8/23, 12:06:48 PM] John Tan: It is difficult for a mind holding essential view to understand conceptually seamlessness, free of divisions, boundaries and non-difference. The best it can do within the limitation of it's inherent framework is to describe the taste is like everything emerges from space or emptiness. So as a skillful mean, there is nothing wrong taking things dissolve into an all encompassing dharmadhatu much like how vajrayana visualize everything as deities. But like how ocean is realized as a construct as well as wave, ocean is not any special than wave. Then when background consciousness is gone and only empty appearances left, even "wave" is gone. Many got stuck at One-Mind, there r also many that got stuck in non-conceptualities also in de-construction and do know know the actual taste of empty radiance. [1/8/23, 12:08:49 PM] John Tan: Everything is of "nature" of space in contrast to everything dissolves into space and space becomes a special substratum. ..... [1/8/23, 12:14:20 PM] John Tan: Yes I agree. Coz many understand from essential view and thought they understood freedom from all elaborations. If it contradicts DO, then the view is essential view like what Tsongkhapa said. Means there is no contradiction between spontaneous presence and dependent arising. Also when one deconstruct, there r 2 authentications; one relates to de-construction of conceptual mind and the other is recognizing and directly tasting the empty radiance. [1/8/23, 12:15:44 PM] John Tan: Whether, we deconstruct self, internality-externality, physicality, cause-effect, we must have this direct taste of radiance and relates to the actual taste. ..... [27/8/23, 9:29:26 AM] John Tan: 👍 Not only that u cannot realize emptiness without the clarity, u cannot realize dependent origination without clarity, they r both talking about radiance and light. Another important point is we do not realize that we r analysing and understanding from the perspective from essential view. We "negate" from the standpoint of an essential view; we understand dependent arising from an inherent view without realizing it. We do not understand from the perspective of light and radiance. They understand "illusion" from an essential view and thought that because of illusoriness, it is inconsequential. ..... [8/9/23, 2:26:14 PM] John Tan: I suggest u look into DO, emptiness and understand the non-contradiction between free from all elaborations and DO-emptiness of the conventional. It is not easy to understand functioning in the non-essential way of manifestations. Even if one is clear of how the mind confuses itself with essential view in terms reification of entities-characteristics, it does not mean one can understand how empty radiance functions in the non-essential way. This requires not only stable insights but also very stable authentication of energy and radiance patterns -- that the natural expressions of empty radiance exhibits certain patterns. [8/9/23, 2:35:06 PM] John Tan: For example, u think it is so easy to come out the 12 afflictive chain of DO? [8/9/23, 2:36:49 PM] John Tan: This requires very stable insight and radiance experience and observe how a mind in confusion sets the wheel of samsara in action. [8/9/23, 2:42:06 PM] John Tan: Do u think it is so easy to point out consciousness and phenomena are like the 8 similes of illusions? Or despite vivid appearances, there is nothing that is "there" at all, no "thingness" can be found at all and because of this empty nature, whole of samsara as well of the immense diversities of radiance can manifest? How skillful is it in that pointing? Yet we just simply read pass such profound pointing. ..... ..... [8/9/23, 2:44:04 PM] John Tan: Yes. Only when we deeply experience and authenticate, then our faith in the teaching can grow. Not through blind believe and we will practice diligently ...... [8/9/23, 3:07:42 PM] John Tan: Yes and even micro and macro cosmic orbit breathing of taoism. But one doesn't need to know all or suddenly change path. De-construction of mental constructions and conceptualities for example is a very effective way until one releases itself in openness of radiance clarity. Every de-construction of reification is energy-related, it is a full path itself also just that we do not carry it all the way. ..... [8/9/23, 3:16:00 PM] John Tan: For example, as we let go reifications into presence, it is not something just "mental", it is equally "physical"; it is not just "mind", it is equally "body", "breath" and "energies". When we alternately experience total exertion and freedom from elaborations, the seamlessness and intimacies without self and inherentness of empty parts allow deeper insights of the non-essential (empty) radiance. Then it allows us to glimpse the non-contradiction between the ultimate and relative. [8/9/23, 3:16:33 PM] John Tan: This is very good yin ling, don't lose track and continue ur meditation. [8/9/23, 3:35:44 PM] John Tan: Then we slowly have a deep understanding of the "conventional" and "conceptual" not only from mental perspective like arm-chair philosophers, but we "SEE and TASTE" dimensions of energies, radiances, "physicalities" in these so called "conventional concepts". So when we say they r only "conceptually" designated, the depth of understanding is different. [8/9/23, 3:42:53 PM] John Tan: "Self" for example, is not just a conceptual construct, it is also at the same time immense energies "stuck" in conflicts manifested everywhere in our body.😬🤣

-----------

André A. Pais
The point, however, is not that one keeps rehearsing in one's head the reasonings leading to an understanding of DO. If the aim is some kind of insightful lucidity free of conceptual elaborations, the 'presence' that is realized is not "a non-entity," or "empty of intrinsic nature." Those are just super useful conceptual elaborations, used prior to meditative equipoise or after, in post meditation discourse.

Reply
7h

André A. Pais
It's always important to distinguish path and fruition, equipoise and post meditation, approximate ultimate and actual ultimate, etc.

Reply
6h

Soh Wei Yu
André A. Pais What you said is not wrong, equipoise is without seer, seeing, seen, free from elaborations. But it is not seen here as contradicting D.O.:
[1/8/23, 12:14:20 PM] John Tan: Yes I agree. Coz many understand from essential view and thought they understood freedom from all elaborations. If it contradicts DO, then the view is essential view like what Tsongkhapa said.
Means there is no contradiction between spontaneous presence and dependent arising.
Also when one deconstruct, there r 2 authentications; one relates to de-construction of conceptual mind and the other is recognizing and directly tasting the empty radiance.
[1/8/23, 12:15:44 PM] John Tan: Whether, we deconstruct self, internality-externality, physicality, cause-effect, we must have this direct taste of radiance and relates to the actual taste.
.....
[27/8/23, 9:29:26 AM] John Tan: 👍
Not only that u cannot realize emptiness without the clarity, u cannot realize dependent origination without clarity, they r both talking about radiance and light.
Another important point is we do not realize that we r analysing and understanding from the perspective from essential view. We "negate" from the standpoint of an essential view; we understand dependent arising from an inherent view without realizing it. We do not understand from the perspective of light and radiance.
They understand "illusion" from an essential view and thought that because of illusoriness, it is inconsequential.
.....
[8/9/23, 2:26:14 PM] John Tan: I suggest u look into DO, emptiness and understand the non-contradiction between free from all elaborations and DO-emptiness of the conventional.
It is not easy to understand functioning in the non-essential way of manifestations.
Even if one is clear of how the mind confuses itself with essential view in terms reification of entities-characteristics, it does not mean one can understand how empty radiance functions in the non-essential way.
This requires not only stable insights but also very stable authentication of energy and radiance patterns -- that the natural expressions of empty radiance exhibits certain patterns.
[8/9/23, 2:35:06 PM] John Tan: For example, u think it is so easy to come out the 12 afflictive chain of DO?
[8/9/23, 2:36:49 PM] John Tan: This requires very stable insight and radiance experience and observe how a mind in confusion sets the wheel of samsara in action.
[8/9/23, 2:42:06 PM] John Tan: Do u think it is so easy to point out consciousness and phenomena are like the 8 similes of illusions? Or despite vivid appearances, there is nothing that is "there" at all, no "thingness" can be found at all and because of this empty nature, whole of samsara as well of the immense diversities of radiance can manifest? How skillful is it in that pointing? Yet we just simply read pass such profound pointing. .....
.....
John tan also wrote in 2022, “Should not be immobilized by ultimate otherwise ultimate becomes a stage or a state. Whether Dzogchen or Yogacara, they both have their views of the conventional. So no worry of formulating a valid view of the conventional clearly as whatever views formulated will not survive ultimate analysis and that is how one refine our insights as thoroughly understanding the emptiness of the conventional, one liberates further one's mind. Even Dzogchen of basis is also a view so it too is empty when subject to ultimate analysis.”

Reply
18m
Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Ultimate and Relative
"If asked what I am most drawn to (in Tsongkhapa's teachings), I am most drawn to Prasangika's "mere imputation". The quintessence of "mere imputation" is IMO the essence of Buddhism. It is the whole of 2 truths; the whole of 2 folds. How the masters present and how it is being taught is entirely another matter. It is because in non-conceptuality, the whole of the structure of "mere imputation" is totally exerted into an instantaneous appearance that we r unable to see the truth of it. In conceptuality, it is expanded and realized to be in that structure. A structure that awakens us the living truth of emptiness and dependent arising that is difficult to see in dimensionless appearance."
"In ultimate (empty dimensionless appearance), there is no trace of causes and conditions, just a single sphere of suchness. In relative, there is dependent arising. Therefore distinct in relative when expressed conventionally but seamlessly non-dual in ultimate."
"When suchness is expressed relatively, it is dependent arising. Dependent designation in addition to causal dependency is to bring out a deeper aspect when one sees thoroughly that if phenomena is profoundly without essence then it is always only dependent designations."
- Thusness, 2015
Labels: Dependent Designation, Dependent Origination, Emptiness, Madhyamaka |

Reply
17m

Soh Wei Yu
Those who hold the view that ultimate is non-dependent and separate from the relative are the more extreme forms of Shentong that veer into Advaita Vedanta. No different from Advaita Vedanta view

Reply
17m

The realization of Certainty of Being (I AM) is important and is the important base for further insights IMO. In further stages, it is not denied, the view just get refined through deeper realization that breaks down the view of dualism (subject object/perceiver-perceived dualism) and inherency.

🙏 :) p.s. I'm Soh, and Thusness (John Tan) is my mentor... I've been through similar stages as him in my journey

Session Start: Saturday, 27 March, 2010

(9:54 PM) Thusness: Not bad for self-enquiry

(9:55 PM) AEN: icic..

btw what do u think lucky and chandrakirti is trying to convey

(9:56 PM) Thusness: those quotes weren't really well translated in my opinion.

(9:57 PM) Thusness: what needs be understood is 'No I' is not to deny Witnessing consciousness.

(9:58 PM) Thusness: and 'No Phenomena' is not to deny Phenomena

(9:59 PM) Thusness: It is just for the purpose of 'de-constructing' the mental constructs.

(10:00 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:01 PM) Thusness: when u hear sound, u cannot deny it...can u?

(10:01 PM) AEN: ya

(10:01 PM) Thusness: so what r u denying?

(10:02 PM) Thusness: when u experience the Witness as u described in ur thread 'certainty of being', how can u deny this realization?

(10:03 PM) Thusness: so what is does 'no I' and 'no phenomena' mean?

(10:03 PM) AEN: like u said its only mental constructs that are false... but consciousness cant be denied ?

(10:03 PM) Thusness: no...i am not saying that

Buddha never deny the aggregates

(10:04 PM) Thusness: just the selfhood

(10:04 PM) Thusness: the problem is what is meant by 'non-inherent', empty nature, of phenomena and 'I'

2010:

(11:15 PM) Thusness: but understanding it wrongly is another matter

can u deny Witnessing?

(11:16 PM) Thusness: can u deny that certainty of being?

(11:16 PM) AEN: no

(11:16 PM) Thusness: then there is nothing wrong with it

how could u deny ur very own existence?

(11:17 PM) Thusness: how could u deny existence at all

(11:17 PM) Thusness: there is nothing wrong experiencing directly without intermediary the pure sense of existence

(11:18 PM) Thusness: after this direct experience, u should refine ur understanding, ur view, ur insights

(11:19 PM) Thusness: not after the experience, deviate from the right view, re-enforce ur wrong view

(11:19 PM) Thusness: u do not deny the witness, u refine ur insight of it

what is meant by non-dual

(11:19 PM) Thusness: what is meant by non-conceptual

what is being spontaneous

what is the 'impersonality' aspect

(11:20 PM) Thusness: what is luminosity.

(11:20 PM) Thusness: u never experience anything unchanging

(11:21 PM) Thusness: in later phase, when u experience non-dual, there is still this tendency to focus on a background... and that will prevent ur progress into the direct insight into the TATA as described in the tata article.

(11:22 PM) Thusness: and there are still different degree of intensity even u realized to that level.

(11:23 PM) AEN: non dual?

(11:23 PM) Thusness: tada (an article) is more than non-dual...it is phase 5-7

(11:24 PM) AEN: oic..

(11:24 PM) Thusness: it is all about the integration of the insight of anatta and emptiness

(11:25 PM) Thusness: vividness into transience, feeling what i called 'the texture and fabric' of Awareness as forms is very important

then come emptiness

(11:26 PM) Thusness: the integration of luminosity and emptiness

(10:45 PM) Thusness: do not deny that Witnessing but refine the view, that is very important

(10:46 PM) Thusness: so far, u have correctly emphasized the importance of witnessing

(10:46 PM) Thusness: unlike in the past, u gave ppl the impression that u r denying this witnessing presence

(10:46 PM) Thusness: u merely deny the personification, reification and objectification

(10:47 PM) Thusness: so that u can progress further and realize our empty nature.

but don't always post what i told u in msn

(10:48 PM) Thusness: in no time, i will become sort of cult leader

(10:48 PM) AEN: oic.. lol

(10:49 PM) Thusness: anatta is no ordinary insight. When we can reach the level of thorough transparency, u will realize the benefits

(10:50 PM) Thusness: non-conceptuality, clarity, luminosity, transparency, openness, spaciousness, thoughtlessness, non-locality...all these descriptions become quite meaningless.

2007:

(4:20 PM) Thusness: buddhism stresses more on direct experience.

(4:20 PM) Thusness: there is no-self apart from the arising and ceasing

(4:20 PM) AEN: icic..

(4:20 PM) Thusness: and from arising and ceasing one sees the emptiness nature of 'Self'

(4:21 PM) Thusness: There is Witnessing.

(4:21 PM) Thusness: Witnessing is the manifestation.

(4:21 PM) Thusness: there is no witness witnessing manifestation.

(4:21 PM) Thusness: that is buddhism.

2009:

(7:39 PM) Thusness: it is always witnessing...don't get it wrong

just whether one understand its emptiness nature or not.

(7:39 PM) Thusness: there is always luminosity

since when there is no witnessing?

(7:39 PM) Thusness: it is just luminosity and emptiness nature

not luminosity alone

(9:59 PM) Thusness: there is always this witnessing...it is the divided sense that u have to get rid

(9:59 PM) Thusness: that is why i never deny the witness experience and realization, just the right understanding

2008:

(2:58 PM) Thusness: There is no problem being the witness, the problem is only wrong understanding of what witness is.

(2:58 PM) Thusness: That is seeing duality in Witnessing.

(2:58 PM) Thusness: or seeing 'Self' and other, subject-object division. That is the problem.

(2:59 PM) Thusness: U can call it Witnessing or Awareness, there must be no sense of self.

(11:21 PM) Thusness: yes witnessing

not witness

(11:22 PM) Thusness: in witnessing, it is always non-dual

(11:22 PM) Thusness: when in witness, it is always a witness and object being witness

when there is an observer, there is no such thing as no observed

(11:23 PM) Thusness: when u realised that there is only witnessing, there is no observer and observed

it is always non-dual

(11:24 PM) Thusness: that is why when genpo something said there is no witness only witnessing, yet taught the staying back and observed

(11:24 PM) Thusness: i commented the path deviates from the view

(11:25 PM) AEN: oic..

(11:25 PM) Thusness: when u teach experience the witness, u teach that

that is not about no subject-object split

u r teaching one to experience that witness

(11:26 PM) Thusness: first stage of insight of the "I AM" 

Read more at: No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness