Soh

Experience, Realization, View, Practice & Fruition

(Note: This article was originally written in 2011 when I was 21. It has been lightly edited for English flow in 2025.)

Here's something I just added to my e-book.

I was trained in these three aspects and John Tan (Thusness) asked me to write something clearer about 'experience, realization and view', and synchronistically I actually had the same thought on that day. I think I'm going to add this as one of those preface chapters before I start with the journal section in my e-book.

So the three aspects I'm talking about are:

  1. The Experience
  2. The Realization
  3. The Implications of View

However, for the sake of this article and benefit for readers, I will add two more:

  1. The Practice
  2. The Result/Fruition

I put Practice after the first three instead of dealing with practice in the first part because I want people to know what they are doing their practice for, the reason why they are doing those practices, how those practices result in realization, and their effects on View. You will understand as you read further.

This article documents my insight, experience, and journey. Even though whatever I said is authentic, spoken from experience, and accurate, it is not meant to be an authoritative map for everyone. Not everyone goes through these insights in the same linear fashion (for instance, the Buddha only taught people to realize Anatta and Shunyata in the traditional Pali texts and did not talk about Self-Inquiry or I AM/Self-Realization, even though the luminous mind is spoken of). However, it is true that all traditions of Buddhism (provided that there is right guidance and training) will eventually result in these various kinds of insights and experience, despite going through a different path or practice.

It should also be understood that when people talk about "no-self", it could imply a number of things... from impersonality, to non-dual, to Anatta. In the worst case, it is being misunderstood as dissociation (I, the observer, dissociate from phenomena as not myself). Therefore, we should always understand the context of 'no self' that is being said by the practitioner or person and not always assume that the 'no self' must be the same as the 'no self' you have in mind. Due to lack of clarity, very often 'Anatta' is confused with 'impersonality', or 'Anatta' with 'non-duality'. They are not the same even if there may be overlaps or aspects of each in one's experience. One must be careful to distinguish them and not confuse one with another.

I would also like to quote from a forum post Thusness made in 2010 which I feel is quite important to understand:

"...there exist a predictable relationship between the 'mental object to be de-constructed' and 'the experiences and realizations'... As a general guideline:

1. If you de-construct the subjective pole, you will be led to the experience of No-Mind.
2. If you de-construct the objective pole, you will be led to the experience of One-Mind.
3. If you go through a process of de-constructing prepositional phrases like 'in/out', 'inside/outside', 'into/onto', 'within/without', 'here/there', you will dissolve the illusionary nature of locality and time.
4. If you simply go through the process of self-enquiry by disassociation and elimination without clearly understanding the non-inherent and dependent originated nature of phenomena, you will be led to the experience of 'I AMness'.

Lastly, not to talk too much about self-liberation or the natural state, it can sound extremely misleading... we have to understand that to even come to this realization of the “Simplicity of What Is”, a practitioner will need to undergo a painstaking process of de-constructing the mental constructs. We must be deeply aware of the ‘blinding spell’ in order to understand consciousness…"

1. The Experience

I will now start explaining 'experience'. There are a number of important experiences related to our true nature:

1. Pure Presence/Witness

This is the case when practitioners have experienced a pure radiance of presence and awareness in the gap between two thoughts. Having recognised this pure presence-awareness, one tries to sustain this recognition in daily life. In daily life, one may sense this as a background witnessing presence, a space-like awareness in the background of things. It is felt to be something stable and unchanging, though we often lose sight of it due to fixation on the contents of experience or thoughts (like focusing on the drawing and losing sight of the canvas). This is related to the 'I AM', but still, this is the experience, not the realization.

Impersonality

This is the case when practitioners experience that everything is an expression of a universal cosmic intelligence. There is therefore no sense of a personal doer... rather, it feels like "I" and everything is being lived by a higher power, being expressed by a higher cosmic intelligence. But this is still dualistic – there is still this sense of separation between a 'cosmic intelligence' and the 'world of experience', so it is still dualistic.

I experienced impersonality after the I AM realization, however, some people experience it before I AM realization. Theistic Christians may not have I AM realization (it depends), however through their surrendering to Christ, they can drop their sense of personal doership and experience the sense of 'being lived by Christ', as in Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." This is an experience of impersonality that may or may not come with the realization of I AM. And as Sailor Bob Adamson said, "That separate entity, the belief in that entity or person, has never done a damn thing! It never can and never will. You must realize that you have been lived. That body-mind that you call 'you' is being lived, and it is being lived quite effortlessly. As Christ said, 'Which of you, by taking thought, can add one cubit to his stature?' That separate entity can’t do a bloody thing."

It should be noted that impersonality is not just an experience of non-doership. It is the dissolving of the construct of 'personal self' that leads to a purging of ego effect to a state of clean, pure, not-mine sort of "perception shift", accompanied with a sense that everything and everyone is being an expression of the same aliveness/intelligence/consciousness. This can then be easily extrapolated into a sense of a 'universal source' (but this is merely an extrapolation and at a later phase is deconstructed) and one will also experience 'being lived' by this greater Life and Intelligence.

Impersonality will help dissolve the sense of self but it has the danger of making one attached to a metaphysical essence or to personify, reify and extrapolate a universal consciousness. It makes a practitioner feel "God". At this phase, it is good to focus on this impersonal and universal aspect of consciousness, but beware of the tendency to extrapolate.

2. Non-dual into One Mind

Where subject and object division collapsed into a single seamless experience of one Naked Awareness. There is a difference between a temporary non-dual experience and non-dual insight. Explained later.

3. No-Mind

Where even the naked Awareness is totally forgotten and dissolved into simply scenery, sound, arising thoughts and passing scent. This is the experience of Anatta, but not the realization of Anatta. Explained later.

4. Sunyata (Emptiness)

It is when the 'self' is completely transcended into dependently originated activity. The play of dharma. There is a difference between this as a peak experience and the realization of emptiness/dependent origination. Explained later.


2. The Realization

Next is the 'Realization':

1. The Realization of I AM

Having an experience of witnessing, or a state of pure presence, is not the same as having attained the doubtless self-realization - in that case, the practitioner can be said to have an experience, but not insight/realization. I have had experiences of Presence and Witnessing consciousness since 2007, but not the realization until February 2010 after almost two years of self-inquiry practice.

Also just to be clear: the 'I AM' that Nisargadatta mentions is not the same as the 'I AM' as defined by me and Thusness. For me and Thusness, 'I AM' refers to the doubtless apprehension of Awareness, doubtless Self-Realization. Just so you know... many people use terms differently. Nisargadatta's 'I AM' is more related to Ramana Maharshi's I-thought, the root thought or the Aham Vritti. When you have seen that Aham Vritti, continue inquiring into the Source of that – Who is it that Witnesses the sense of self? And continuing to ask "Who am I?", "Who is the source of that?", eventually the 'I thought' will vanish and the Source will be realized. This Source that I call “Realization of I AM” is not to be confused with Nisargadatta’s “I AM” or Ramana’s “Aham Vritti”.

Self-realization is attained when there is a complete certainty of Being - an unshakeable and doubtless realization of Pure Presence-Existence or Consciousness or Beingness or Existence as being one's true identity. You clearly see that you are not a machine, you are nothing inert, you are not just an inert or dead corpse but you are pure Existence, Consciousness Itself. There is nothing clearer or undoubtable or irrefutable than You! Eureka. Without this quality of 'unshakeable certainty', whatever experiences one has cannot be considered as a realization.

One realizes the luminous essence of mind but is unable to see it as all manifestations under differing conditions (that would be non-dual realization and beyond). Yes, this luminous essence is experienced as a non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception (NDNCDIMOP) and is a Self-Knowing Consciousness (the Presence is itself its Knowing, there is no separate knower of its presence). Yes, in this moment of Beingness, there is no thought, and not even any sense of self. It is all-pervasive and limitless, and is often described as being like a raindrop (sense of individuality) dissolving into the ocean - one identifies oneself AS this infinite Presence, and in this infinite oceanic Presence there can be no sense of individuality (especially when this phase of experience and realization has matured in terms of intensity and impersonality). However, as Thusness puts it:

"The sense of 'Self' must dissolve in all entry and exit points. In the first stage of dissolving, the dissolving of 'Self' relates only to the thought realm. The entry is at the mind level. The experience is the 'AMness'. Having such experience, a practitioner might be overwhelmed by the transcendental experience, attached to it and mistaken it as the purest stage of consciousness, not realizing that it is only a state of 'no-self' relating to the thought realm."

The sense of 'Self' dissolves in all sense doors and experiences (in seeing just the seen without seer, in hearing just sound no hearer, in thinking just thought but no thinker, etc) when Anatta is realized as 'nature', as a dharma seal. This is discussed later.

In this phase of insight (I AMness) one sees all thoughts and experiences as coming from and subsiding within this Ground of Being, but the Beingness as a noumenon is unaffected by the comings and goings of phenomena, like the movie images passing through the screen, or the waves coming and going within an unchanging ocean. Seeing a subtle distinction between the Noumenal and Phenomenal, one clings to the pure thoughtless beingness (which is non-conceptual thought) as one's purest identity, as if it is the true unchanging self or ground Behind all things - one clings to a formless background source or witness of phenomena.

Since the view of duality and inherency is strong, Awareness is seen as an eternal witnessing presence, a pure formless perceiving subject. Therefore even though the I AM experience is itself non-dual, one still clings to a dualistic view which therefore affects the way we perceive reality and the world. This dualistic framework distorts a non-dual experience by clinging or reifying that experience into an ultimate Background which is merely an image of a previous non-dual experience made into a Self, ultimate and unchanging. So it is being perceived/conceived that "I am here," as an eternal unchanging Witness/Watcher of passing thoughts and feelings. The “I” simply witnesses but is not affected by, nor judges the thoughts/perceptions that are experienced - nonetheless there is a separation between the Observer and the Observed. A true experience is being distorted by the mind's tendency at projecting duality and inherency (to things, self, awareness, etc).

Also, in my experience, the I AM experience after the initial realization is tainted with a slight sense of personality and locality. That is, even though the mind knows how to experience Presence beyond all concepts, the mind still cannot separate Presence from that slight and subtle sense of personality. It wasn't until about two months after the realization, that the sense of a localized witness completely dissolved into a non-localized, impersonal space of witnessing-awareness-presence (but still dualistic and 'background'). At this level, the I AM is separated from Personality, and it is seen as if everything and everyone in the world share the same source or same space, like if a vase breaks, the air inside the vase completely merges with the air of the entire environment such that there is no sense of a division between an 'inside space' or an 'outside space', such that everything shares the same space, as an analogy of all-pervading presence. Because of the dissolving of the personal construct, it seems that myself and the chair and the dog equally 'share' the same space, the same source, the same substance of consciousness. Actually it is not that one "merges", but one Realizes that one IS the infinite self and not a small enclosed self.

2. The Realization of Non-Dual, into One Mind

Having an experience of non-duality is not the same as having a realization... for example, you may have a temporary experience where the sense of separation between experiencer and experience suddenly and temporarily dissolves or there is the sense that subject and object has merged... temporarily. I had such experiences since 2006 (I had a number of similar experiences in the years following, differing in intensity and length). The first time I had it was when looking at a tree - at that point the sense of an observer suddenly disappeared into oblivion and there is just the amazing greenery, the colours, shapes, and movement of the tree swaying with the wind with an amazingly intense clarity and aliveness as if every leaf on the tree is crystal-like. This had a lot of 'Wow' factor to it because of the huge contrast between the Self-mode of experience and the No-Self mode of experience (imagine dropping a one-ton load off your shoulders, the huge contrast makes you go "Wow!"). This is not yet the realization of non-duality... the realization that separation has been false right from the beginning... there never was separation.

When non-dual realization (that there never was subject-object duality) arises, non-dual experience becomes effortless and has a more ordinary, mundane quality to it (even though not any less rich or intense or alive). Everywhere I go, it is just this sensate world presenting itself in an intimate, non-dual, clean, perfect, wonderful way, something that 'I' cannot 'get out of' even if I wanted to because there is simply no illusion and sense of self/Self that could get out of this mode of perceiving, and there is nothing I needed to do to experience that (i.e. effortless), something that has no entry and exit. In the absence of the 'huge contrast' effected in a short glimpse of non-dual experience prior to insight, there is less of the 'Wow' factor, more of being ordinary, mundane, and yet no less magnificent and wonderful.

At this stage, you also become doubtless that the taste of luminosity experienced in I AM is exactly the same taste in all six entries - sights, sounds, smell, taste, touch, thought. So now you realize the "one taste of luminosity" and effortlessly experience pure luminosity and presence-awareness in and as the transience (a note however: the ‘one taste’ spoken in Mahamudra tradition is not just one taste of luminosity but the one taste of the union of luminosity and emptiness). You realize that the I AM (non-conceptual thought) that you realized and experienced is simply luminosity and NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) in one particular state or manifestation or realm, by no means the totality. By not realizing this you reified one state into the purest and most ultimate identity, and thus you no longer "choose" or have "preference" on a purer state of presence to abide, since you see that I AM is no more I AM than a transient sound or sight or thought; everything shares the same taste of luminosity/awareness, and of non-duality. Here the tendency to refer back to a background is reduced as a result of this seeing.

Hence merely having temporary non-dual samadhis are not enlightenment... why? The realization that there never was separation to begin with hasn't arisen. Therefore you can only have temporary glimpses and experiences of non-dual... where the latent dualistic tendencies continue to surface... and not have seamless, effortless seeing.

And even after seeing through this separation, you may have the realization of non-dual but still fall into substantial non-duality, or One Mind. Why? This is because though we have overcome the bond of duality, our view of reality is still seeing it as 'inherent'. Our view or framework has it that reality must have an inherent essence or substance to it, something permanent, independent, ultimate. So though everything is experienced without separation, the mind still can't overcome the idea of a source.

Certain contemplations like "Where does Awareness end and manifestation begin?" are helpful for challenging and breaking through the dualistic view of Awareness as a watcher of manifestation, until we see clearly there is no real demarcation of 'inside' and 'outside', 'subject' and 'object', 'perceiver' and 'perceived'. Without an artificial dualistic boundary yet with an inherent view of Awareness, Awareness and manifestation become seen as an indistinguishable and inseparable oneness like the surface of a bright mirror and its reflections – can’t say the mirror is this and the reflection another. In One Mind, seer and seen are one inseparable seeing, one naked awareness – it is the inseparability of seer and seen instead of realizing no subject, no agent, no observer.

There is no overcoming the idea of an ultimate metaphysical essence, something unchanging and ultimate, even with insight into the non-duality of subject and object. With this view of inherency, Awareness is seen as inherent, even though previously it was as if things were happening 'In' Awareness but now all manifestations ARE Awareness, or rather, Awareness is manifesting 'AS' everything (rather than things happening 'IN' Awareness which would be dualistic). Awareness is not apart from manifestation. Here it is seen that "All is Mind" - everything is You! The trees, the mountains, the rivers, all You and yet not You - no duality or division of subject and object.

At this phase, subject and object are seen to be indivisible by collapsing all manifestations into the One Subject/One Awareness/One Mind. Therefore the mind keeps coming back to a 'source', a 'One Naked Awareness', a 'One Mind' which manifests as the many, and is unable to breakthrough but finds the constant need to rest in an ultimate reality in which everything is a part of... a Mind, an Awareness, a Self.... Or one tries to be non-dual by attempts to reconfirm the non-dual or one mind (thinking the sound and sights is You, trying to subsume everything into Mind, trying to be nondual with or intimate with sights and sounds) which is another form of effort arising due to ignorance – the ignorance of the fact of anatta that always already, seeing is just the seen, no seer, and therefore no effort or attempts to reconfirm are necessary. All effort is due to the illusion of ‘self’.

What this results in is a subtle tendency to cling, to sink back to a ground, a source, or attempt to reconfirm, and so transience cannot be fully and effortlessly appreciated for what it is. It is an important phase however, as for the first time phenomena are no longer seen as 'happening IN Awareness' but 'happening AS Awareness' – Awareness is its object of perception (or rather, all objects of perceptions are subsumed to be Awareness itself), Awareness is expressing itself as every moment of manifest perception.

It should be understood that even in this phase, at the peak of One Mind, one will have glimpses of No Mind as temporary peak experiences where the source/Awareness is temporarily forgotten into 'just the scenery, the taste, the sound, etc'. Very often, people try to master the state of No Mind without realizing Anatta, thus no fundamental transformation of view can occur.

Since no fundamental change in view has taken place (the view is still of 'inherent Source/Self'), one can still fall back from that peak experience and reference back to the One Awareness. That is, until you see that the idea itself is merely a thought, and everything is merely thoughts, sights, sounds, disjoint, disperse, insubstantial, ephemeral, bubble-like. There, a change of view takes place... the result of:

3. The Realization of Anatta

Here, experience remains non-dual but without the view of 'everything is inside me/everything is an expression of ME/everything is ME' but 'there is just thoughts, sight, sound, taste' – just manifestation.

More precisely (as it is realized for me in October 2010 when I was doing Basic Military Training): in that moment of seeing, you realize that the seeing is JUST the experience of scenery! There is no 'seer is seeing the scenery' - the view of 'seer seeing the seen' is completely eradicated by the realization that 'in seeing ALWAYS just the seen, Seeing is just the seen'. In seeing, always just the shapes, colours, forms, textures, details of manifestation. The illusion of agency is seen through forever. This is not merely the subject-object, seer-seen, awareness-content inseparability of One Mind but seeing the emptiness of an inherent Self/Awareness, it is seeing through the need to posit a subjective essence as there isn’t any. It is no longer the ‘seamlessness, indistinguishability and inseparability between the bright mirror and its reflections’, it is seeing that there is no mirror, there is no observer, needless to speak about the inseparability of an observer and its display. Instead, there is simply the flow of observing/observed as a verb, as action, as manifestation, nothing about a source or agent – nothing unchanging, no background reality that is inseparable from the foreground.

It is seen very clearly in Anatta that all views and notions of consciousness/super-consciousness having some independent or unchanging true existence is not true, awareness is simply the quality of the transient sensate world, it is intrinsically self-luminous or self-aware but does not exist as some independent unchanged substratum, background, source, etc. Of course, without awareness, there is nothing made manifest. But it is not "awareness, therefore sensation". It is "awareness-sensation", "awareness-world". Prior and after (false construct of time) doesn't apply so the source-emanation analogy does not apply. The three kayas are a single co-arising. Source/awareness goes with transience like wetness goes with water. They are not even inseparable, they are synonymous. In seeing there is only/just the seen. To speak of water is to speak of wetness, to speak of sensations is to speak of luminosity, just as to speak of wind is to speak of blowing. Both are words but just points to the single flow of empty-luminosity, as just this action, just this activity (but not some One Mind/source and substratum of phenomena).

BUT... this is not the end of story for Anatta and no-agency. The initial entry into Anatta for me was the aspect of Thusness's Second Stanza of Anatta, however the First Stanza was not as clear for me at the moment (for some people, they enter through the first stanza, but for me and those focusing on non-dual luminosity, insight comes through second stanza first).

A few months later, even though it has already been seen that ‘seeing is always the sights, sounds, colours and shapes, never a seer’, I began to notice this subtle remaining tendency to cling to a Here and Now. Somehow, I still want to return to a Here, a Now, like 'The actual world right here and now', which I can 'ground myself in', like I needed to ground in something truly existing, like I needed to return to being actual, here, now, whatever you want to call it. At that point when I detected this subtle movement I instantly recognised it to be illusory and dropped it, however I still could not find a natural resolution to that.

Until, shortly maybe two weeks later, a deeper insight arose and I saw how Here/Now or something I can ground myself in doesn't apply when the "brilliant, self-luminous, vivid, alive, wonderful textures and forms and shapes and colours and details of the universe", all sense perceptions and thoughts, are in reality insubstantial, groundless, ephemeral, disjoint, unsupported and spontaneous, there was a deeper freedom and effortlessness. It is this insight into all as insubstantial, ephemeral, bubble-like, disjoint manifestations that allows this overcoming of a subtle view of something inherent. There is no observer observing something changing: simply that the "sensate world" is simply these disjoint manifestations without anything linking each sensation to another, without some inherent ground that could link manifestations, so manifestations are 'scattered'.

Prior to this insight, there isn't the insight into phenomena as being 'scattered' without a linking basis (well there already was but it needs refinement)... the moment you say there is an ‘Actual World Here/Now’, or a Mind, or an Awareness, or a Presence that is constant throughout all experiences, that pervades and arise as all appearances, you have failed to see the 'no-linking', 'disjointed', 'unsupported' nature of manifestation – an insight which breaks a subtle clinging to an inherent ground, resulting in greater freedom.

This opens the way to the experience of the self-release of everything – spontaneous, disjoint, self-releasing without any linkage. One also begins to understand Zen Master Dogen’s doctrine – that firewood is a complete and whole dharma-position of firewood, ash is a complete and whole dharma-position of ash, it is not that firewood turns into ashes. Similarly awareness does not turn into world nor is there an awareness which emanates world. Each manifestation is a whole and complete awareness-world with no before and after, disjoint and self-liberating upon its inception.

Only one who realizes Anatta and thus becoming a stream winner (Sotappana) will start to understand the purpose of Buddhist practice.

4. The Realization of Emptiness (Shunyata)

Effectively with the realization of Anatta, the substantiality of any self/Self is totally seen through. There is no such thing as a 'self' or an ultimate 'Self' with the capital S at all - always, in seeing just sights, in hearing only sounds, in sensing - just tactile sensations. Manifesting and liberating upon inception... moment by moment. Once seen, there is no longer any more clinging to some ultimate Source or metaphysical essence/substance. Instead, one finds delight in the direct revelation of the sensate world moment by moment, seeing, hearing, tasting, all wonderful, all marvellous, how alive... words can never capture it, the practitioner is no longer concerned with concepts and contents, but instead 'grooves' in the minutest details of every sensation. Freedom from sense of self/Self is very freeing and blissful.

However, having said so much, there is a danger of reifying the sensate world into an actual, substantial, tangible, inherently existing objective universe. This is the phase after the realization of Anatta, and before the realization of Shunyata. At this phase, it is as Thusness has said:

"Before the insight anatta first arose, you still risked the danger of seeing the physical as inherent and truly existing. Therefore there is a period that you are lost, unsure and AF [Actualism/Actual Freedom - a teaching that aims to eradicate all sense of self/Self and emotions] seems appealing - a sign that you have not extended the insight of emptiness to phenomena though you kept saying twofold emptiness."

And after Shunyata it is more like:

"There is just aggregates that are like foams, bubbles, ethereal having all the same taste without substantiality and implicitly non-dual. No sense of body, mind and the world, nothing actual or truly there."

So what is the realization of Shunyata?

When observing a thought in the beginning of June 2011, observing where it came from, where it goes to, where it stays, it's discovered (again, a eureka moment) that the thought is utterly illusory (and likewise all forms and sense perception are the same)! Empty! No-arising, no-staying, no-cessation! Insubstantial! Coreless! Substanceless! Hollow! Unlocatable! Without an origin! Without a destination! Cannot be pinned down! Cannot be grasped! Cannot be found! And yet, as empty as it is, still, like a magician's trick, an apparition, an illusion, vividly manifesting due to interdependent origination out of nowhere, in nowhere! How amazing it is! A sense of wonder and bliss arose in light of this realization, a newfound freedom and liberation.

It should be understood that everything is dream-like, mind-only, in the sense of Emptiness is not the same as Substantial Non-duality of One Mind.

It is now seen that everything is really no different from a thought - as in as baseless and empty as a projected thought like a dream, though it doesn't literally mean everything (including sense perceptions) are mere figment of imagination or projection (if you stop thinking, illusory perceptions still manifest due to natural dependent origination). Since everything is dream-like and illusory, they are fundamentally no different from a thought or a dream, and it is in this sense we can say that everything is mind-only. So all is mind in terms of emptiness signifies this dreamlike nature, vastly different from all is mind from a substantialist perspective.

So in short, there is a very big difference between substantialist non-dual of One-Mind and what I said here. In this experience, there is no background reality. It is NOT 'The world is illusory, only Brahman is Real'. It is not about the background Awareness (there is no awareness apart from manifestation!) but rather the foreground aggregates that I am talking about - A thought. Everything is as insubstantial and illusory as a thought or a dream. There is just the aggregates that are like foams, bubbles, ethereal, having all the same taste (of luminosity and emptiness) without substantiality and implicitly non-dual. No sense of body, mind and the world, nothing actual or truly there or here.

Also, it is crucial to understand the transition from Anatta to Emptiness involves a deepening of insight regarding reification. As John Tan pointed out to me in a conversation from 2022:

John Tan: Still only anatta then pure appearances as one's radiance clarity. That will not lead you to the insight of emptiness. You need two more insights, what are those?

Soh Wei Yu: Whatever dependently originates are non arising... everything is like chariot... Anatta is before emptiness. But it sees through inherent view of awareness and background...

John Tan: If you stay at this... then you only know "oh, there is no self" and all your focus is on eliminating self, it will not lead to emptiness.

The insight of Anatta leads to seeing consciousness as a construct, similar to the "weather." When you understand Anatta, you realize awareness is like "weather" - it is a label to denote this luminous yet empty arising (rain, clouds, wind), which are pure aggregates. We feel the wind and the blowing, but when we look at language and mistake verbs for nouns, we reify "Weather" into an entity. Similarly, seeing through the background and inherent existence of awareness leads to the direct taste of manifestation, but one must extend this to seeing through the constructs of objects—seeing that "flower" and "redness" deconstruct into vivid, non-referential empty clarity-appearance. Like red is no longer mistaken to be "redness of a flower" as an object; the redness and flower deconstruct into mere vivid red.


3. The Implications of View

The implication of views wasn’t very clear to me until more recent months (some time after I realized Anatta and Shunyata), when I began to see that what was causing grasping, clinging, the wrong way of perception, sense of self and so on was actually the latent view of inherency and duality. Even though previously realizations had arisen which had clearly done damage to such views, the impact of views in our experience and living wasn’t fully clear until more recently.

What is view? View is a deeply held notion, belief, position, stance, with regards to the reality of self and objects. This view has direct implications on how we view things - how we form a mental conception of self and things which causes grasping and contraction. When you want to cut ignorance, you go for cutting its roots, not its leaves and branches. In this analogy, sense of self/Self is its manifest form (leaves and branches) in the form of a sense of contraction, alienation and self-grasping in the form of craving and emotions, while the latent view is its roots.

This is why we cannot successfully get rid of the sense of self/Self by will and effort without effectively cutting off self-view from its root through a paradigm shift via realization. There are times of peak experiences which everyone has been through some time in their lives (usually in childhood) where the sense of a self/Self goes into temporary abeyance and there is just the sensate world, magnificent and wonderful, untainted by any sense of self or emotional contents, just the pristine purity and clarity of the sensate world at large. Yet most of us tend to forget those moments, and continue our lives not transformed by such experiences at all. Why is that so? Our self-view is intact, and no amount of glimpses of PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) or NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) is fundamentally going to transform us unless we cut off the roots of ignorance.

Self and Phenomena as a Learnt, Reified Concept

Recently John Tan asked me to recall when did I realise that 'self' is a learnt and reified concept. Wanted to mention that this is an important point and even in initial anatta breakthrough it is usually unclear at first. It comes as a deepening of insight.

At the I AM level, the personal ego is seen to be “learnt” and dropped... but all self/Self is only seen through and dropped at Anatta.

However, John Tan corrected me: "I don't think this is true. Think deeper, recall. You must understand that you can enquiry "who am I" and search for "I", you can have experience of "I AM" or even experience no-mind, or even realized that "I" does not exist, but still not realized that "I" is a reified concept."

I replied: ““I” as reified concept probably becomes clearer as I contemplated more on emptiness. But even in the initial Bahiya Sutta realization, there was a recognition that the sense of a seer or a seeing or awareness behind or beside manifestation is a reified concept that is wrong. That it is imagined and abstracted out of manifestation due to false view and then Anatta is immediately authenticated as luminous manifestation and realised as always already so. Seeing is only ever the seen and no other seer beside, in the seen only the seen. Like putting on glasses and vision is corrected finally.”

John said: “Yes, you realized "self/Self" is learnt, there is no self. A reified mental construct, a named thing mistaken as real. Then you extend that insight to all phenomena. A thorough de-construction of inherentness on all aspects of named things in which “觉” (Awareness) is one of such phenomena/dharma only, although a very crucial one. All these deal directly with alaya in "uprooting" ignorance.”

The View of Existence ("There Is") and Non-Existence ("There Isn't")

I have just come to a new realisation in mid 2011 on the implications of views in daily life. I now see that every single attachment is an attachment to view, which, no matter what it is, comes to two basic clinging: the view 'there is' and the view 'there isn't'.

The view of There is.... Self, body, mind, awareness, world, whatever. Because of this clinging on to things as existent, they appear real to us and we cling to them. The only way to eradicate such clingings is to remove the root of clinging: the view of 'there is' and 'there isn't'.

The realization of Anatta removes the view of 'there is self', 'there is awareness' as an independent and permanent essence. Basically, any views about a subjective self is removed through the insight that "seeing is just the seen", the subject is always only its objective constituents. There is no more sense of self, body, awareness, or more precisely there is no clinging to a "there is" with regards to such labels. It is seen that these are entirely ungraspable processes. In short, the clinging and constant referencing to an awareness, a self dissolves, due to the notion "there is" such things are being eradicated.

The realization of dream-like reality removes the view of 'there are objects', the universe, the world of things... One realizes what the Heart Sutra meant by no five skandhas. This is basically the same realization as Anatta, except that it impacts the view "there is" and "there isn't" in terms of the objective pole, in contrast to the earlier insight that dissolves "there is" of a subjective self.

As Loppon Namdrol (Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith) states: "At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive reification of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena."

Let me offer something for you to think about: every day we go into a state of deep sleep where all our beliefs, concepts, views, thoughts are temporarily suspended. But when we wake up, what happens? We are as ignorant as ever. Our framework of viewing self and reality is still the same. We still experience the same problems, the same sufferings, the same afflictions. This analogy should clearly show you that sustaining a state of non-conceptuality or mastering a state of 'forgetting the self' is not going to result in a fundamental change or transformation or effortless seeing, unless true wisdom and insight arises.

I shall offer two more analogies which are related: a person deluded as to see a rope as a snake, will live in fear, trying to tame the snake, trying to get rid of the snake, escape from the snake. Maybe he has managed a way to distance himself from the snake, yet the belief that the snake is still there is nevertheless going to haunt him. Even if he managed to master the state of forgetting the snake, he is nonetheless in a state of delusion. He has not seen as it truly is: the snake is simply a rope.

In another analogy, the child believes in the existence of Santa Claus and awaits eagerly for arrival of his presents on Christmas day. One day the parents decide that it's time the child be told the truth about Santa Claus. To do this, beating the hell out of the child is not going to work. You simply need to tell the child that Santa Claus doesn't truly exist. In these analogies, I try to showcase how trying to deal with the problem of false views through means of 'forgetting conceptuality, forgetting the self' is as useless or deluded as 'trying to forget the snake, trying to tame the snake, trying to beat the hell out of the child' when the simple, direct and only true solution is only to realize that there is only a rope, and that Santa Claus isn't real. Only Awakening liberates us from a bondage that is without basis. A ‘self’ was never truly there to begin with, so why are you trying so hard to get rid of it? Simply stop conceiving that there is one. But you cannot help but conceive a self until the doubtless realization of Anatta arises which erases our false view.

There are two kinds of views (with sub categories):

1. View of Subject-Object Duality

The view of subject-object duality is prevalent in everyone prior to nondual realization. If you have not realized I AM, this duality is felt as a sense of alienation, separation, distance, between I as a subjective perceiver inside my head looking at the world 'outside' from a distance.

2. View of Inherency

The view of inherency is twofold: the view that a subjective self [whether personal or universal], and the view that objects/phenomena have intrinsic, objective substantiality (whether gross such as 'a tree', or subtle, such as elemental existence of atoms).

All metaphysical views come down to 'is' or 'is not'. Either something exists, or something does not exist. The former is eternalism, the latter is nihilism. Both views are extremes and to be rejected according to Buddha.


4. The Practice

I think the topic of Practice is dealt with more in-depth in other sections of the e-book, therefore I am going to skim through this portion here.

There are many kinds of practices one can engage in in order to give rise to realization. There are neo-Advaita teachers who teach that "no practice is necessary, no realization is needed", I call bullshit to that. As long as ignorance, false view of reality is in effect, we are going to experience suffering, afflictive emotions, sense of self, self-contraction and all that. Even though there never was truly a self and all these are a result of pure delusion, nonetheless, unless we wake up, we can never be liberated from suffering. There are "pure now-ists" that say, all thoughts of awakening are a dream, your true self is fully evident Here and Now. Well that's ok as a pointer - but to take it as a suggestion that no practice or no realization is necessary? Bullshit again, and even though your true nature is fully evident in the present, unless you realize it, it is as useless as a diamond hidden under a beggar’s pillow unnoticed - the beggar is still going to be poor, perhaps for his entire life, which is tragic to say the least.

There are many neo-Advaita teachers who basically teach that "seeking after enlightenment is simply the delusion that there is a seeker and a thing apart from a seeker to be sought, therefore it is dualistic". But the problem is that seeking WILL continue as long as you have not realized that there is no you. In other words, it is not through force, will, or intention that seeking and the delusion of a seeker ends.

How does seeking end? Only by the realization that always already, there is no you, and no 'thing' apart from you that can be sought - reality never had a subject and object dichotomy. The 'self' is a mere delusion... there is just the spontaneous perfection of the inseparability of awareness-emptiness AS all appearances, all happenings. When this is seen, naturally the seeking falls away.

Direct path does not mean if you take up this practice, you will attain awakening today or tomorrow (it took me 1 year 10 months of self-inquiry to realize I AM and a couple of months more to realize the further stages of insights). It is direct, because the practice focuses on a form of very direct contemplation on the nature of self and reality that results in a direct realization of the nature of reality. It does not focus on cultivating experiences (such as merely experiencing awareness, presence, space-like awareness, or any other aspects of experience that becomes natural and implicit after realization). Rather, it goes right to the core of things, very quickly resulting in a direct realization of our true nature.

As for gradual practice: for example, practicing 'Awareness Watching Awareness', turning the light of awareness upon itself and so on is a gradual method that focuses on the experience of I AM but eventually can lead to realization after the experience has matured and stabilized.

But I should say, when I advise people on how to move from non-dual to Anatta, I always advise both direct path contemplation and also the practice of vipassana and mindfulness. So it is not always an 'either/or' case.

My practice and the practice I advise differs according to your aim at the moment, and where you are in your practice.

  • For I AM: Self-Inquiry ("Who am I?")
  • For Non-Dual: Focus on the four aspects (impersonality, etc) and challenging boundaries.
  • For Anatta: Investigate Bahiya Sutta ("In seeing just the seen").
  • For Shunyata: Investigate where thoughts arise from, where thoughts abide and where thoughts go to.

Apart from these direct path contemplations, daily practice of meditation (both in sitting and daily lives) is helpful. It is best to take meditation seriously and sit one hour a day. It could be split into two sessions. At least thirty minutes if you do not have time. (Update 2025: John Tan personally sits 3 to 4 hours a day for the past couple of years, and advises others and myself to sit 2 hours a day at least).

Thusness told me many years ago that it is important to "go beyond names and labels to touch our pristine awareness and experience reality as it is...". However, he said that one must be able to sustain "at least 30 minutes of thoughtlessness in meditation for the clarity and vitality to arise". Note that it does not mean "30 minutes of meditation" (which can be spent in distraction anyway) but rather "30 minutes to maintain the gap between two moments of thoughts".

He also criticized teachers who put down the importance of meditation by telling me “do not listen to people saying there is no need for meditation, these are people with only small attainment and realization”. That said, there is a time when everything becomes effortless and non-meditation takes over effortful meditation.


5. The Result/Fruition

You may be wondering, what is all this fuss about? Why should I bother with this stuff? Why get awakened? What are the results out of this? Is there any practical transformation in life?

But to me, in my experience, when you have sufficiently deep insight and experience, a far more profound and life-changing transformation takes place.

Here's what I know can be attained through deep awakening (at this moment these are the ones more apparent to me but as time progresses there could be more):

  • A permanent freedom from all delusions pertaining to the view of an existing self or object.
  • Freedom from any sense of self, separation, alienation from the world, self-contraction.
  • Freedom from attachment to a sense of a body-mind, drop off body-mind - no more inside and outside or any kind of boundaries and weight.
  • High degree of attenuation of craving, anger, fears, sorrow, attachments, or any afflictive emotions, thus by inference the complete eradication of all mental afflictions, defilements and clinging are definitely possible.
  • Pure bliss and wonder and delight in the intimate and intense aliveness of every moment's experience due to effortless and perpetual NDNCDIMOP: non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception of reality.
  • Deep sense of wakefulness, clarity and aliveness.
  • Sleep need reduced, wakefulness and alertness increased very much.
  • Discursive thoughts lessen, replaced by NDNCDIMOP.
  • Thoughts that do arise self-release without trace.

It should be understood that you should not focus on removing emotions head on, or removing thoughts head on, or removing sense of self head on. Why? If you do not go for the roots, but try to cut off the branches, then you leave the root intact. Your delusion is intact even if you managed to 'get rid of the sense of self' (just like your delusion is intact even if you managed to distance yourself from the illusory snake that actually is a rope). But once you cut off the root ignorance, the branches are dealt with, or they naturally fall away easily. So when realization occurs, you honour realization first, understanding that there is no liberation from afflictions without first liberation from ignorance via true knowledge and vision of things as they are.

Also, before realization, it is truly difficult to experience things like 'the luminosity of the textures and forms of manifestation', 'non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception' and things like that. But after Anatta, it seems that this brilliant non-dual luminosity is very effortless - I don't need to practice anything to be in NDNCDIMOP or the pure consciousness experience. Every ordinary and mundane experience even in daily life and non-meditation setting is already implicitly so.

Like Simpo said, "IMO, before the insight of no-self, it is quite hard to not get caught at the content level. This is because, before the non-dual, non-conceptual experience/insight, one does not know how 'not getting caught' in the content is like."

That is why insight is important. But don't worry if you don't experience all those qualities before awakening - it is very difficult to, but it becomes natural after insight, so just focus on insight.

Soh



Introducing Measureless Mind: A Field Guide to the Buddha’s Early Teachings—Now on SoundCloud

SoundCloud playlist: https://soundcloud.com/soh-wei-yu/sets/measureless-mind
Also see: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddha-teachings.html

Link to the PDF File: https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/274168728-Measureless-Mind.pdf / https://www.scribd.com/document/274168728/Measureless-Mind


If you’ve ever wished for one, reliable, sutta-grounded companion to walk you through the Buddha’s path from ethics to meditative composure to discernment and release, Geoff Shatz’s Measureless Mind is it. It is practical without being simplistic, scholarly without being dry, and relentlessly faithful to the earliest strata of the Pāli Nikāyas. We’ve now made a full audio reading available on SoundCloud so you can study by ear—on commutes, walks, or before practice.

When I first ran into Measureless Mind years ago, my reaction was the same as what I later wrote publicly: “Wow—what a great resource of Buddha’s teachings!” I called it “very valuable… well formatted, well presented, all-rounded,” and recommended it to practitioners at every level. (Awakening to Reality) Thusness/John Tan agreed and encouraged featuring selections on the blog: “Both the articles are very well written… that site is a great resource.” (Awakening to Reality)


What makes Measureless Mind special

  • Back to the sources. The book leans on the four Nikāyas (and the oldest Khuddaka material) and checks definitions against early exegetical works when helpful. 

  • Practice-first structure. Chapters are organized the way a practitioner actually grows: from ethical conduct (sīla) to meditative composure (samādhi) to discernment (paññā) and liberation (vimutti). It’s not an abstract map; it’s a working manual.

  • Clarity on pivotal topics. From jhāna factors to the seven factors of awakening, from sense restraint to the God-like abidings, from anicca/dukkha/anattā to the twelve links, the book shows how these teachings cohere—not as isolated techniques but as a unified training.

A taste of the tone we value at ATR: John Tan often emphasizes that seeing through the background construct of “a knower apart from the known” is key—not nihilism, but the effortless clarity where “the seen is merely the seen; the heard, merely the heard.” (Awakening to Reality) Measureless Mind resonates with that same sensibility: close to the suttas, uncompromisingly experiential.


Listen while you learn: the full audio is live

  • Playlist: https://soundcloud.com/soh-wei-yu/sets/measureless-mind

  • How it’s read: steady study pace, accurate Pāli pronunciations where possible, minimal theatrics.

  • Note about tables: when the book presents information as tables/matrices (e.g., jhāna factors by level), the audio necessarily reads them line-by-line. This keeps fidelity to the text, but can sound mechanical. For those sections, please open the PDF and follow along so you can see the columns and relationships at a glance. (This is consistent with accessibility guidance: when audio alone can’t show structure, pair it with the visual.) (Awakening to Reality)

Pro tip: If you’re studying a structured section (like the four jhānas or eighteen dhātus), listen once end-to-end, then replay the table portion with the PDF open.


How this audio edition was produced (and how you can use the tooling)

I built a small pipeline/helper app to prepare the text for Text-to-Speech and to generate SSML (Speech Synthesis Markup Language) where helpful for Pāli words. In brief:

  1. PDF → text extraction (page-wise)

  2. Clean-up & normalization: remove headers/footers, unwrap line-breaks, de-hyphenate, lightly normalize punctuation

  3. Tables: optional CSV extraction (for manual polishing later)

  4. SSML build: paragraph structure, optional <phoneme> entries for tricky Pāli terms

This produces:

  • A single 00_MASTER_clean.txt and .ssml (feed either into your TTS)

  • Per-chapter .txt / .ssml files (easy to regenerate individual MP3s)

  • An optional tables appendix for reference

For fellow tinkerers: I’ve uploaded the helper app that I vibe coded so you can run it yourself on other sutta/text resources. (It uses a modern .NET stack; reads PDFs, cleans structure, and emits ready-to-speak SSML.) If you prefer not to tinker, you can simply enjoy the SoundCloud playlist and the original PDF.

Link to the application: https://app.box.com/s/k01emf5fgkbojov9to8hir99fispxv6s


Why ATR recommends it (and how it fits our curriculum)

  • It aligns with ATR’s “practice-anchored scholarship.” Geoff stays with the suttas and earliest commentarial strata where they clarify the Nikāya meaning. (Awakening to Reality)

  • It complements the ATR “Must Reads.” Use it alongside posts on stream-entry, non-reification, and twofold emptiness. (For example: stream-entry as the ending of self-view; and how “no awareness” never means nothingness but the collapse of background subjectivity.) (Awakening to Reality)

  • It’s learner-friendly. The structure is navigable; it doesn’t bury you in abstraction; and when you have time, it points you back to the Pāli sources (which you can browse freely via CST4/CSCD). (The Pali Tipitaka)

Thusness/John Tan put it simply years ago, and it still stands: “That site is a great resource.” (Awakening to Reality)


Start listening

May this project support your practice from the very first mindful breath to the complete exhaustion of “I-making” and “mine-making.” As the Nikāyas say, the path is to be “individually experienced” (paccatta veditabba). ✨

Soh

英文原文:https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html

请看:《婆希耶经》必须从“悟”的角度来理解



佛陀论不二  

Soh  

相关文章:《突破》(The Breakthrough)  (以下内容由阿姜·阿马罗〔Ajahn Amaro〕撰写,关于佛陀的不二、无我和空性教导。


另请参阅:Thusness/PasserBy的《证悟七阶段》〔Seven Stages of Enlightenment〕)


古人的无住教法


古代南传佛教也有无住的教法,这并非是阿姜查个人的知见,或是百年前在泰北山区流浪的宁玛派喇嘛的遗教。  在巴利大藏经的自说经(Udāna,佛有感而发的话语选集)中,佛直接指出:此界无地、水、火、风;  无空无边,识无边,无所有处,非想非非想;  无此世、彼世,非月非日;  无来无去,非不动,无生无死;  无所依、无落脚处。  无进退:它是烦恼的止息。  (自说经 8.1)


明觉(Rigpa 藏文),无能所的觉知,就是直接体验无住,也是心本然无住的本质。


同选集也提到有一名叫婆希迦(Bāhiya)的流浪者,在舍卫城(Sāvatthī)拦住佛陀,说道:“尊者,沙门乔达摩,你的法闻名于世,请教导我。”  佛陀回答:“我们在托钵,婆希迦。现在不是恰当的时间。”  答:“生命无常,尊者,我们不知道何时会死;请教导我。”  如此重复了三次。


最后,佛说:“当如来被询问三次时,就得回答。请仔细听,以契入我所说的法义,婆希迦。”


佛说:  在所见中,只有所见。在所闻中,只有所闻。  在所感中,只有所感。在所知中,只有所知。  如此会看到,的确无物在此 [1] ;  婆希迦,该如此修习。


婆希迦,你应该依此:  在所见中,只有所见。在所闻中,只有所闻。  在所感中,只有所感。在所知中,只有所知。  如此你会看到,的确无物在这里;  如此,的确无物。  什么都没有时,您将看到,你不在此处,  不在彼处,也不在两者之间。  此即苦的止息 [2] 。(自说经 1.10)


婆希迦言下大悟。  不久他就被惊牛撞死。  他讲得很对:生命无常。  后来婆希迦被称为“见法最快的弟子。”


“哪里”都用不上


“无一物”是什么?  是说明物质界的实相;要明白“看只是看”,如此而已。  虽然物质世界有形体、外观、颜色等,但里头无一物。  无实体,不牢固,也无实存的自我。  有的只是经验本身,不多也不少。  只有看、听、受、觉、知。  心去安立名字,也只是另一个经验:如:“道场”、“阿姜阿马罗的声音”、“念头”、“我了解这个吗?”、“我不理解吗?”  这些都只是一个一个的念头。


虽然有所看、所听、所尝等经验,但里头无一物、不坚实、也没有所经验的独立实体。  随洞见的成熟,不只“外无一物、内无实体”,也没有恒常独立、具有实体的体验者,这是说明主体界的真实存在状态。


无住是空掉主客,真正看到主客皆空。  看到主客是空,没真正内或外,此时去哪里找所谓的自我感及我所有感?  正如佛陀告诉婆希迦“你无法在此主体界或客体界,或两者之一找到自我。”


中国禅宗常用的《楞严经》中佛与阿难有类似的对话,但更长一点。  佛陀不断地问阿难,心在那里。  但是阿难就是找不到,最后他只好投降说:“我在哪里都找不到我的心!”  佛说:“你是有心的啊,不是吗?”  阿难也只能回答,心跟“哪里”无关。


啊!这就是“无住法”所要教导我们的“在哪里”、架构及我等等的概念,看起来好像是时空点的某实体,但实际上都只是假定如此的而已。  唯有打破此惯性知见,才能放开执取。  拔掉这些知见、道具,才能撼动以物为依的执取。  此即阿姜查逼问人:“不准前进,不准后退,不准停驻,你能去哪儿?”所指向的无住之处:永恒、无处可依的无我。


有趣的是现代科学对物质本质的研究,也得到与上述相当的结论。  量子力学里,科学家用“生命井”或“能量海”的名词,指出粒子和能量结晶后又瓦解的物体最原始状态。  测不准法则(Uncertainty Principle)[3] 意味着“物质在那里”这件事无法被定义,单一事件可似乎同时广泛影响它处,粒子被认为是遍满时空。


“一个地方”和“不同的地方”,从某层次说只是世俗的幻相;  从究竟层次及量子泡沫海的立场来看,“方位”没有真正的意义。  物质分析小到亚原子时,方位的概念就不再适用,根本没有“那里”在那里。  不管无住法或无位法也好,两者都很有趣,也适用于物质界和精神界。  对知识份子和理性主义者而言,佛法义理与科学研究结论不违悖很令人欣慰。


初修此法是在寺院中的长期独自的修行中,我突然体会到即使能放下自我感——这个、那个等等感受——不管什么经验,都是发生在“这里”,还是有一个“这里”。  观照几周的“当下在哪里?”之后,不再自问自答,只是观照,放下当下的执取。  认出这样的制约已经是修行的一半功夫,认出此一相对性,有“这”,就有“那”。  同样的区分了有“内”,“外”马上跳出来。  认清这一种微细的执取很重要;这种执取的产生很快,层次和面向也很多。


简单地了解上述这些执取的经验,这样的观照就如智光照耀执取的心,好像把烦恼摊在聚光灯下,烦恼就紧张、不舒服而无法作怪。  如果我们一不注意观照,执著就起来作怪。  当执著是觉知的焦点时,它就无法作怪了。  简单地说,智慧若充满,执取即无所遁形。


Labels: Ajahn Amaro, Anatta, Buddha, Non Dual, Theravada |


38 Responses


HARISH  Feb 4, 2009, 6:47:00 PM  这段文字对我个人非常有用。  挑战在于要持续地安住在体验(experiencing)本身,而不引入体验者(experiencer)。  此外,预设“我”存在于时空某处的这种制约,是很难打破的。  想要体验那永恒的当下,似乎需要一种几乎不可能拥有的能量和注意力。  感谢这篇文章。


PasserBy  Feb 6, 2009, 11:16:00 AM  确实如此,Buddha Bra,  起初,为了以最直接、最当下的方式聚焦于“觉受”(sensation)的鲜活性,这种“努力”会一直存在。  在它变得毫不费力(effortless)之前,会有一段时间是“专注的”。  我有几点想分享:


1. 必须生起“无我(anatta)是一个法印(seal),而非一个阶段”的洞见,才能进一步进入“无功用/无作”(effortless)的模式。  也就是说,无我是所有经验的基础,且一直如此,从未有过“我”。  在看中,永远只有所见;在听中,永远只有声音;在思考中,永远只有念头。  不需要努力,也从未有过一个“我”。


2. 最好不要将觉受视为“真实的”(real),因为“真实”一词在佛教中有不同的含义。  它更像是一个鲜活、光明的临在(luminous presence)瞬间,但并非什么“实有的东西”。  现在可能很难意识到这为何重要,但在我们修行的后期阶段会变得更清晰。


3. 务必进一步深入缘起(dependent origination)和空性(emptiness)的面向,以进一步“净化”无我的体验。  在所有的显现中,不仅没有“谁”,也没有“哪里”和“何时”。


无论所说是什麽,都不是权威之论。  只是分享,祝旅途愉快!


Soh  Feb 22, 2009, 3:04:00 PM  想补充一段我们的论坛版主Longchen前段时间发的帖子。  心没有意识到“努力”本身就是分裂——这是一种根深蒂固的机制,它感知到一个不存在的二元对立,然后试图通过努力来解决它。  它不知道正是通过对“本自如是”(Always So)、“无我”的“洞见”,才能带来解脱——这使得修行可以变得“毫不费力”。


以下是Longchen的帖子:


“对我来说,‘无论生起什么,本自如是’(whatever arises already is)是一个独特的阶段和洞见。  它让我能在活动中维持不二……因为由于那份‘不需要/无法通过努力来达成不二’的领悟。


在这个洞见之前,曾有努力要去放下‘自我感’……但心没有意识到那份努力本身就是分裂。


过了一阵子,这就变得非常清晰:‘为什么’一开始就没有分裂……因此,一个分裂(能所二元划分)在现实中是‘如何’绝不可能发生的。


在‘无论生起什么,本自如是’的洞见之前,有很多无意识/习惯性的努力想要去修补那个分裂。  在洞见之后,体验变成是从未发生过任何分裂……这使得无我体验能更好地与活动‘融合’。  有了这点,修行的益处就能被更清晰地体验到。”


以及


“……然而,不可能从一个二元的状态‘进步’到一个不二的状态。  每一个当下就是它!  没有哪一个状态比其他的更好!  每一刻都如其本然。


绝对不需要做任何事。  即使‘作意努力’(efforting)或任何事物生起,就让它去!  努力也是自动生起的……那里也没有一个自我!


借由什么都不做,一切事物都依其自己的规律生起和以此灭去。


实际上,不可能有一个‘什麽都不做’……在任何一个当下只能有‘如是’(what is)。”


此外也相关……PasserBy/Thusness几年前写的:


“……当一个人无法看到我们本性的真相时,所有的‘放下’不过是另一种伪装的‘抓取’形式。  因此,没有‘洞见’,就没有解脱……这是一个更深层看见的渐进过程。  当被看见时,放下就是自然的。  你无法强迫自己放弃自我……对我来说,净化总是这些洞见……不二与空性本质……”


HARISH  Mar 19, 2009, 3:05:00 AM  我想在这个阶段,“毫不费力”似乎太微细了。  只是练习“体验”,然后当人回到机械性的思维过程时它就衰退,然后再次醒来,这似乎是例行公事。  我注意到一个方面,即体验声音且仅仅是声音(中间没有任何东西阻碍),或者味觉或嗅觉,似乎比较“容易”。  然而,视觉似乎相当不可能。  没有任何东西能被新鲜地看到——储存在心里的图像会浮现并取代“正在被看到的事物”。  我在想,这是不是因为视觉印象在视野中停留很长时间,而声音或味觉的印象只在耳朵或舌头上停留很短的一瞬间?


PasserBy  Mar 19, 2009, 12:25:00 PM  不完全是,对于大多数不二论(Advaita)修行者来说,它是首先来自视觉的,这被称为不二觉知(non-dual awareness)。  没有观察者和被观察者的分裂,而只是一个观察,如果他们从“永恒见证者”(Eternal Witness)阶段进步,这对他们来说是最明显的。  融入仅是颜色、形状、形态的纯粹体验以及融入风景,对他们来说比较容易。


对于观察身体觉受并观照三法印(3 characteristics)的内观(vipassana)修行者来说;“声音”是最明显的,然后是其他,视觉印象是最后的。


原因是“印记”(imprints)。  所有的知见和意图都会造成印记。  在这种情况下,对你而言,无常比无我(无能所/主客分裂)有更微妙的影响。  由于视觉印象看起来更静态,修行者就更难体验到那种“无常”,从而阻碍了该体验。  如果我们能更稳固地确立“观察者与被观察者之间没有分野”的知见,视觉方面就会显得更容易。  这只是我的看法。


无论如何,在后期阶段变得太“用力”可能会导致一些问题,比如因过度专注而失眠。  做常规运动来平衡它同样重要。  如果情况仍然持续,就放下并停止你的练习。  你会发现,通过“停止”1-2周,之后再重新审视,你反倒进步了。


只是我的意见。  希望这有帮助。  -:)


HARISH  Mar 20, 2009, 4:17:00 AM  非常感谢。  我打算试着放松一点,并试着观察观察者和被观察者之间的分裂是何时出现的。


PasserBy  Mar 20, 2009, 8:15:00 PM  是的。  以更放松的方式练习,不要寻求体验。


必须要有无畏,或者我应该说一种强烈的意愿去放下“我”,那么体验就会显现为仅仅是声音、味觉、色相……只是体验,没有我。  祝旅途愉快。  :-)


HARISH  Jul 4, 2009, 12:22:00 AM  我想了解的事情之一是关于“苦”(suffering)。  在白天或某些日子里,会体验到焦虑或心理痛苦。  它可能由各种原因引起,包括有人说了导致这种状况的话。  尽管一个人试图不去认同它,但痛苦或焦虑依然存在。  当一个人练习观照痛苦时——例如作为一个局外人,并试图不认同它,痛苦或焦虑继续存留,就像一颗跳痛的牙齿。  在这种时候,当一个人无法再忍受时,我会做的是做一些呼吸练习,甚至做一些体育锻炼。  在这种时候你有什么建议?  这也是因为这个众生依然不成熟,因此在言语能够造成伤害之前,无法驾驭那份能够冷静观照所需的能量吗?  一个人该如何从这种痛苦中解脱?


PasserBy  Jul 5, 2009, 5:11:00 PM  嗨,Buddha Bra,


“心理痛苦”与我们的“自我感”直接相关。  自我感直接关联于我们根深蒂固的“固有实有且二元对立的思维”(inherent and dualistic thought)。  这种痛苦是一个迹象,表明我们尚未完全认清正在生起的“自我感/我”的起因及其多重面貌,这包括了试图保持为一个不受影响的被动观察者。  如果我们开了错误的药方,就没有治愈的可能。  因此,你体验到“保持为一个抽离的观察者似乎并没有消除痛苦和焦虑,然而呼吸练习和一些体育锻炼却做到了”,这是一个珍贵的领悟。  这有两部分。


首先,我们必须意识到为什么我们将“抽离”(detachment)等同于这种“不受影响且被动的观察者”。  这是由于对我们觉知那本初、不二且空性本质的洞见不完整。  这部分是因为我们对觉知那“无生、本初且光明之本质”(Unborn, pristine and luminous nature)的直接且非概念性的体验,部分是因为将体验固实化(solidify)的业力习气。  当这个直接体验是透过“二元和固有实有”的框架来理解时,我们自然会将“一个被动的观察者”视为解决这种心理痛苦的方法。


其次,除了觉知那“无生、本初且光明”的面向之外,我们必须对我们觉知那“亲密、不可分、不二且缘起”(intimate, inseparable, non-dual and dependent originated)的面向有更透彻和深入的洞见。  这关系到为什么“呼吸练习和一些体育锻炼能够缓解心理痛苦”。  我们必须直接且深刻地体验所谓与无常变化“不可分”是什么意思,并明白“存在感”(beingness)从未离开过任何生起的事物。


最后,那“无生、本初且光明”的东西不能是“缘起且与无常不可分”的,这只有在逻辑上听起来合理,但在体验上并非如此。  起初接受这样的观点似乎不合逻辑且不自然,但当二元化和固实化体验的习气消退时,那么风景、味道、气味、声音、呼吸、我们脚触地面的觉受……所有的生起都将有助于减轻这种心理痛苦。  因此,无畏地、毫无保留地且完全地对任何生起的事物开放。


HARISH  Jul 6, 2009, 5:19:00 PM  无尽感激。


HARISH  Jul 10, 2009, 1:41:00 AM  在你于回复中提到它之前,我从未听说过缘起(Dependant Origination)这个词。  我确实在网上查了一下,以更多地了解它。  它开启了一条新的路径。  对缘起的洞见是如此令人震惊!


PasserBy  Jul 11, 2009, 8:57:00 AM  确实!  看见缘起能让我们解脱。


在我们意识的最深处,我们是以“二元且实有”的方式看待事物的。  这种看待事物的潜在习气在非常微细和深刻的意义上影响着我们的心、身和体验。  以这种根深蒂固的错误知见为因,我们抓取、实体化、客体化;我们以一种终极的意义来寻求和思考。  无论什么体验都很快被扭曲,以至于当我们体验到无念时,我们实体化这个体验。  当我们体验不二时,我们将这个体验人格化。  不可否认这种不二的光明临在(本初觉智),这是一个珍贵的洞见和体验,但我们也需要透彻地理解它的空性本质(缘起)。


如果我们能够以缘起的正见消融这种潜在习气,我们将以新的光芒体验“鲜活的临在”(Aliveness Presence)。  鲜活的临在将变得自然任运、无中心且动态;我们将能够直接直觉到临在是亲密互联的,只要条件具足它便生起,而不需要一个起源点。  我们将从表现为“这里性”(hereness)、“当下性”(nowness)、“自我性”(selfness)的各种“固有实有的抓取习气”中解脱出来,并彻底消融那种不断需要再次确认这个“见证”临在以及退回到一个源头的冲动。  鲜活的临在不被体验为一个纯粹源头本身,而是被体验为这个生起的念头、这个经过的声音……作为任何生起的事物。


祝旅途愉快!


HARISH  Aug 15, 2009, 12:13:00 AM  一个人如何从好恶中获得自由?  现在,按照我的大脑回路,我喜欢所有快乐的事件,并喜欢通过避免不愉快的事件。


Soh  Aug 15, 2009, 4:47:00 PM  这里有一部佛陀的相关经文,你可能想研究一下:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html


PasserBy  Aug 16, 2009, 10:15:00 PM  嗨,Buddha Bra,


你可能也想尝试“让无论生起什么都开放且毫无保留地显现”的自然之道。  对于一个已经体验过观察者与被观察者的不二,并尝过从自我感中解脱出来的感官实相的人来说,“让其显现”(let manifest)的道路是一个自然的进程。


为了做到这一点,要深刻理解当试图压抑你的偏好、好和恶时,会有更多的问题。  因此第一步是体验并意识到“压抑”不是办法。  如果我们认为“压抑”是办法,或者当生起的事物让我们心烦意乱时,那麽我们会在不知不觉中试图阻止它们的生起。


第二,清楚地理解让“好恶”显现是迈向解脱的第一步。  我们无法阻止那些硬连线(hardwired)的东西生起。  只要种子在那里,就会有显现。  当这些习气潜伏时,我们可能没有意识到它们,但“让其显现”是通往自由的第一步。


第三,与任何生起的觉受不二。  当观察者的感觉消失且不被阻断时,那就是自由的感觉。  它最终也会消融那些习气,因为所有事物都共享同一味道。


HARISH  Aug 17, 2009, 2:20:00 AM  上帝保佑你,先生……我已经感觉到了“让其显现”的力量。  心怀感激。


HARISH  Apr 16, 2010, 11:43:00 AM  在过去的两年里,我一直在正语(Right speech)的修习中挣扎。  仅仅是正语的一个方面——在说话时保持觉知,并在不需要时不说话。  但即使每天早上都做肯定语(affirmations),很快在一天中,我看到自己机械性地说话,把一切都忘了。  有没有什么修习或善巧的方法可以灌输,以便当一个人有说话的冲动时引起注意?


Soh  Apr 21, 2010, 10:56:00 PM  嗨,Buddha Bra,


我自己不知道有什么“善巧方便”。  我所知道的是,佛陀教导的对我们的心和觉受的正念修习,是一个发现我们即时的习惯和意图的强大工具,但它必须作为一种念念分明的事情来练习,无论我们正在从事什么活动。  肯定语(如果你是指设定意图/誓愿)是有用的,也许你也可以做一个肯定,不在日常活动中失去正念。


佛陀教导:“再者,当前进和返回时,他让自己完全警觉;当看向前方和看向别处时……当弯曲和伸展肢体时……当携带他的外衣、上衣和钵时……当吃、喝、咀嚼和品尝时……当排尿和排便时……当行走、站立、坐着、入睡、醒来、说话和保持沉默时,他让自己完全警觉。


“以此方式,他保持专注于内在的身体本身(body in & of itself),或专注于外在……不支撑于世间任何事物。  这就是比丘如何保持专注于身体本身(body in & of itself)。”


(《大念处经》)


我不认为我们可以单靠意志强迫自己改变,它必须是一种念念分明的观察,逐渐唤醒智慧,以阻止心自动/无意识地通过任何显现的心智模式/习惯表现出来。


这不容易,需要练习,因为我们花了我们大部分的生命以一种无意识的方式生活和行动。


希望吉杜·克里希那穆提(J Krishnamurti)的这段话有帮助:


提问者:如果我理解正确的话,觉知本身就足以消融冲突及其根源。我完全觉知到,而且很长一段时间以来都觉知到,我是“势利的”。是什么阻碍了我摆脱势利?


克里希那穆提:提问者没有理解我所说的觉知是什么意思。如果你有一个习惯,例如势利的习惯,仅仅通过另一个习惯,它的对立面来克服这个习惯是没有用的。用一个习惯去对抗另一个习惯是徒劳的。去除心智习惯的是智慧。觉知是唤醒智慧的过程,而不是创造新习惯来对抗旧习惯。所以,你必须意识到你的思维习惯,但不要试图培养相反的品质或习惯。如果你完全觉知,如果你处于那种无选择的观察状态,那么你会感知到创造习惯的整个过程,以及克服它的对立过程。这种洞察力唤醒智慧,从而消除所有的思维习惯。我们急于通过创造其他的思维习惯和主张,来摆脱那些给我们带来痛苦或我们要发现毫无价值的习惯。这种替代的过程完全是不明智的。如果你去观察,你会发现心智不过是一团思维习惯和记忆。仅仅通过用其他习惯克服这些习惯,心智仍然在监狱里,困惑和受苦。只有当我们深刻理解自我保护反应的过程(它们变成了思维习惯,限制了所有行动)时,才有可能唤醒智慧,唯有智慧能消融对立面的冲突。


J. 克里希那穆提  选集,第三卷 - 73


HARISH  Apr 29, 2010, 11:48:00 AM  谢谢先生。  佛陀的那段引言相当有力,在过去的几天里似乎不知何故击中了内心深处的某个地方,使得正念比以前“更容易”了!


HARISH  Apr 29, 2010, 11:53:00 AM  “这就是比丘如何保持专注于身体本身(body in & of itself)”


你能指导我如何理解引言中与身体有关的“身体本身/于身观身”(in and of itself)吗?


Soh  Apr 29, 2010, 3:32:00 PM  嗨,Buddha Bra,很高兴它对你有效 :)


关于“in and of itself”(于身观身/身即是身),这里有一行禅师的一些解释:


“《念处经》,一部教导觉知的佛教经典,使用了诸如‘于身观身’(observing the body in the body)、‘于受观受’、‘于心观心’、‘于法观法’这样的表达。  为什么身、受、心、法这些词被重复了?  一些阿毗达磨的大师说,这种重复的目的是为了强调这些词的重要性。  我有不同的看法。  我认为重复这些词是为了提醒我们不要把禅修者和禅修对象分离开来。  我们必须与对象生活在一起,认同它,与它融合,就像一粒盐进入大海以测量大海的咸度。”


此外,关于相关的一点……约翰·威尔伍德(Dr. John Welwood)博士写道,


“我们只能通过一种非概念性地、无条件地向事物开放的觉知,允许它们在‘如其所是’(as-it-is-ness)中揭示自己,从而感知事物的真如(suchness)。  正如诗人芭蕉(Basho)所建议的:


‘从松树  学习松树  并从竹子  学习竹子。’


日本哲学家西谷启治(Nishitani,1982)在评论这些诗句时解释说,芭蕉的意思并不是


‘我们应该仔细观察松树。’更不是指我们要‘科学地研究松树。’  他的意思是我们要进入松树是松树本身、竹子是竹子本身的存有模式,并从那里看松树和竹子。  他呼吁我们将自己带入事物在其真如中显现的维度。’(第128页)


同样地,禅宗大师道元建议:‘你们不应局限于仅仅从人类的观点学习看水。要知晓你们必须以水看水的方式看水’(井筒俊彦,Izutsu,1972,第140页)。  ‘以水看水的方式看水’意味着在水的真如中认出水,摆脱所有源自于从体验中退缩的观察心(observing mind)的概念。”


.......


你会看到“in and of itself”(于……观……/……本身)贯穿于整部《大念处经》,我所引用的只是一小部分。


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html


HARISH  May 1, 2010, 11:29:00 PM  “在那里,他辨识眼,他辨识色,他辨识依两者而生起的结使(fetter)。他辨识未生起的结使是如何生起的。”——《念处经》  这个生起的结使是什么?


Soh  May 2, 2010, 2:59:00 AM  佛教承认十种结使(尽管还有其他的结使列表):


1. 相信有一个独立的自我(巴利语:sakkāya-diṭṭhi)[4]  2. 疑,特别关于教导(vicikicchā)[5]  3. 执着于仪式和规矩/戒禁取(sīlabbata-parāmāso)[6]  4. 感官欲望/欲贪(kāmacchando)[7]  5. 恶意/嗔恚(vyāpādo 或 byāpādo)[8]  6. 对色界存在的贪爱/色贪(rūparāgo)[9]  7. 对无色界存在的贪爱/无色贪(arūparāgo)  8. 慢,我慢,傲慢(māno)[10]  9. 掉举,散乱(uddhaccaŋ)[11]  10. 无明(avijjā)[12]


所以——一个结使的例子是这样的:


由于一个色相的生起,如果存在人格信仰,相信这个色相是“我”或“我的”,他就犯了萨迦耶见(sakkaya ditthi,身见)的第一个结使。


如果由于一个色相的生起,产生了厌恶、不喜欢、甚至愤怒和仇恨的感觉,他就犯了嗔恚(vyapado)的第五个结使。


如果由于一个色相的生起,他被吸引、渴望、贪图这个色相,他就犯了欲贪(kamacchado)的第四个结使。


诸如此类……


所有这些结使都有一个基础,即虚妄的能所/主客二元,一种根深蒂固的信念,认为有一个与“外在对象”分离的“自我”。  正因如此,这个“自我”受制于“外在对象”,或者可以寻求、或移除自己、或从“外在对象”中调离。  所有的痛苦都源于此。


正如Thusness曾经说过的,“正是这种分裂、分离导致了痛苦以及欲望的生起。  没有‘无分裂’的洞见,心就会继续划分。  欲望是心为了弥合分离的鸿沟而产生的一种内在匮乏。”  也许这就是为什么J.克里希那穆提说,“在主体和客体之间的鸿沟中,存在着人类所有的苦难。”


HARISH  Aug 6, 2010, 10:47:00 PM  这不是一个问题……而是一个分享,我开始对体验到“所见仅仅是所见。就是这样。有形状、形态、颜色等等,但那里没有东西。没有真实的实体,没有坚固性,也没有自性实有的现实。所有的只是体验本身的特质。不多,也不少。”意味着什么,有了一点非常微弱的感觉。


Soh  Aug 6, 2010, 10:48:00 PM  听起来不错……如果你有什么要分享的,请随时让我们知道 :)


PasserBy  Aug 6, 2010, 11:29:00 PM  一直都是这样!  无畏且彻底地向形状、形态、颜色、声音、气味等等开放。  没有“你”,就只是那个!  :-)


HARISH  Jul 26, 2011, 1:50:00 AM  我必须和你分享,我似乎对视觉的不二觉知(visual non-dual awareness)有了一种模糊的感觉。  它似乎是一种奇妙感,生命总是在运动中……去看而没有评论和评判……甚至没有贴标签。


PasserBy  Jul 28, 2011, 6:37:00 AM  嗨,Buddha Bra,


当心从已知中解放出来时,奇妙感就会生起。


当心从贴标签、评论和评判中解放出来时,显现就会显得“鲜活”(vivid)和“生动”(alive)。


当心从能所/主客划分的二分法中解放出来时,不二就会生起。


当体验中具备上述所有因素时,“运动”总是伴随着一种深深的亲密感和寂静感。


HARISH  Oct 13, 2011, 4:04:00 PM  谢谢你,Passer By。  我有时也看到不同的层次。  有时“我”看到运动,听到声音,或者对身体有模糊的感觉,但我的心是冷的,觉知是“沉重”的。  其他时候,会有情感内容的加入,一种奇怪的喜悦,然后努力变得轻盈。

Soh

A reader’s question (paraphrased)

A reader writes to express deep reservations about the coherence of the Buddhist anattā (no-self) doctrine when paired with the teachings on rebirth and karma.

First, the reader argues there is a fundamental contradiction in asserting continuity without an entity. If there is no self, "who" is reborn? They suggest that claiming rebirth occurs without a soul is akin to saying a "flame continues with no fire" or a "river flows with no water"—implying that continuity logically requires a carrier or a metaphysical model that Buddhism seems to lack.

Second, the reader questions how moral causation (Karma) can function without a moral agent. If there is no "doer" to intend actions and no "receiver" to experience the fruit, karma appears to be a hollow, mechanical process—like "weather being reborn"—devoid of ethical meaning.

Third, they contend that the Buddhist "stream of conditions" is simply a "hidden soul" or Eternalism in disguise. They argue that concepts like karmic memory, psychological patterns, and individual destiny require a locus or organizing principle. The reader contrasts this with the Mr A's teachings, which teach that the "individuality of consciousness" is real, divine, and evolves through lifetimes. They suggest the difference between the Buddhist "stream" and the "soul" is merely semantic, not structural.

Finally, the reader asserts that the doctrine of no-self contradicts lived experience. They point out that even in deep meditation or ego-transcendence, an "observer" or "awareness of awareness" remains. They conclude that true enlightenment (Christ Consciousness) is the fulfillment of this individuality rather than its dissolution into emptiness, and that meaning requires a continuing identity that learns, grows, and evolves.


Soh's reply:


The Redundancy of the "Doer": Why Continuity Requires No Identity

Your objection rests on a linguistic and cognitive illusion: the belief that for a function to occur (burning, moving, thinking), there must be a static entity behind it performing the function. You ask, "How can a flame continue with no fire?" or "How can karma exist without a receiver?"

The Buddhist answer is precise: The burning is the fire.

If you search for a "fire" distinct from the process of "burning," you will never find it. If you remove the heat and the combustion, where is the "fire"? It does not exist. There is no fire apart from burning, fire simply is only the burning. Similarly, if you search for a "Self" distinct from the stream of thoughts, intentions, and perceptions, you will never find it.

You are demanding a "Thinker" behind the thought, a "Mover" behind the movement, and a "Soul" behind the rebirth. But analysis and experiential contemplative realization reveals that these "Agents" are redundant conceptual imputations.

Here is the thorough breakdown of why your model of "Identity" is not required for continuity, moral causation, or meaning.


1. The Fallacy of Natures: "Water vs. Wetness"

You argued that a "stream without a self" is like a "river flowing with no water." You assume there is a "substance" (Soul/Self) that possesses "attributes" (consciousness/karma/memory). Madhyamaka analysis refutes this by showing that entities do not have intrinsic "natures" separate from their appearing.

If we analyze your claim that a "Self" is needed to hold the stream together, we find it is as redundant as claiming "Water" is needed to hold "Wetness" together. As explained by Ācārya Malcolm Smith, the "nature" of a thing is not a separate property held by a thing.

Refutation: Wetness and Water (Soh / Ācārya Malcolm Smith)

Source: https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=28648&start=20

Malcolm:

What do you mean by "nature?" Most people mean something that is intrinsic to a given thing. For example, common people assume the nature of fire is heat, the nature of water is wetness, and so on.

Bhavaviveka, etc., do not accept that things have natures. If they did, they could not be included even in Mahāyāna, let alone Madhyamaka.

...

The idea that things have natures is refuted by Nāgārjuna in the MMK, etc., Bhavaviveka, Candrakīrti, etc., in short by all Madhyamakas.

A "non-inherent nature" is a contradiction in terms.

The error of mundane, conventionally-valid perception is to believe that entities have natures, when in fact they do not, being phenomena that arise from conditions. It is quite easy to show a worldly person the contradiction in their thinking. Wetness and water are not two different things; therefore wetness is not the nature of water. Heat and fire are not two different things, therefore, heat is not the nature of fire, etc. For example, one can ask them, "Does wetness depend on water, or water on wetness?" If they claim wetness depends on water, ask them, where is there water that exists without wetness? If they claim the opposite, that water depends on wetness, ask them, where is there wetness that exists without water? If there is no wetness without water nor water without wetness, they can easily be shown that wetness is not a nature of water, but merely a name for the same entity under discussion. Thus, the assertion that wetness is the nature of water cannot survive analysis. The assertion of all other natures can be eliminated in the same way.

...

Then not only are you ignorant of the English language, but you are ignorant of Candrakīrti where, in the Prasannapāda, he states that the only nature is the natureless nature, emptiness.

Then, if it is asked what is this dharmatā of phenomena, it is the essence of phenomena. If it is ask what is an essence, it is a nature [or an inherent existence, rang bzhin]. If it is asked what is an inherent existence [or nature], it is emptiness. If it is asked what is emptiness, it is naturelessness [or absence of inherent existence]. If it is asked what is the absence of inherent existence [or naturelessness], it is suchness [tathāta]. If it is asked what is suchness, it is the essence of suchness that is unchanging and permanent, that is, because it is not fabricated it does not arise in all aspects and because it is not dependent, it is called the nature [or inherent existence] of fire, etc.

The Application: Just as there is no "Water-Entity" holding "Wetness," there is no "Soul-Entity" holding "Karma." There is only the flow of the stream. Adding a "Soul" is adding a redundancy.


2. The Fallacy of Agency: "The Moving Mover"

You asked: "If there’s no self, then who acted? Who receives the result? Who learns? Who feeds on the karma?"

This specific line of questioning—looking for a "Who" behind the process—was explicitly addressed and rejected by the Buddha. The question itself is incorrect because it presupposes an agent where there is only a process of conditionality.

In the Phagguna Sutta, the Buddha corrects a monk who asks, "Who feeds?" and "Who feels?"

Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna

Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera

"There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four? Edible food, coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, volitional thought; fourthly, consciousness."

After these words, the venerable Moliya-Phagguna addressed the Exalted One as follows:

"Who, O Lord, consumes the nutriment consciousness?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he consumes.' If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The nutriment consciousness is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence; when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'"

"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"

"Who, O Lord, feels?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

"Who, O Lord, craves?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

"Through the complete fading away and cessation of even these six bases of sense-impression, sense-impression ceases; through the cessation of sense-impression, feeling ceases; through the cessation of feeling, craving ceases; through the cessation of craving, clinging ceases; through the cessation of clinging, the process of becoming ceases; through the cessation of the process of becoming, birth ceases; through the cessation of birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering."

The Application: "Who acts?" The action acts. The intention (cetana) arises, acts, and dissolves. "Who receives?" The fruit of the action arises. There is no static "Receiver" sitting in a waiting room; the "Receiver" is just the next moment of the stream, conditioned by the previous moment.

This is further supported by Madhyamaka analysis regarding the "Moving Mover." If you are not walking, you are not a walker. If you are walking, the "walker" is not separate from the act of walking. There is no "Doer" standing apart from the "Deed."

Refutation: Agent and Action (Soh / Ācārya Malcolm Smith)

Source: Facebook Group "Ask the Ācārya" and DharmaWheel archives

Malcolm Smith: "Nāgārjuna shows two things in chapter two, one, he says that if there is a moving mover, this separates the agent from the action, and either the mover is not necessary or the moving is not necessary. It is redundant.

...

In common language we oftren saying things like "There is a burning fire." But since that is what a fire is (burning) there is no separate agent which is doing the burning, fire is burning.

...

The point is aimed at the notion that there has to be a falling faller, a seeing seer, etc. it is fine to say there is a falling cat, but stupid to say the cat is a falling faller. The argument is aimed at that sort of naive premise.

...

But if the sight of forms cannot be found in the eyes, and not in the object, nor the eye consciousness, then none of them are sufficient to explain the act of seeing. Because of this, statements like the eyes are seers is just a convention, but isn’t really factual.

...

There is no typing typer, no learning learner, no digesting digester, thinking tinker, or driving driver.

...

No, a falling faller does not make any sense. As Nāgārjuna would put it, apart from snow that has fallen or has not fallen, presently there is no falling.

...

It is best if you consult the investigation into movement in the MMK, chapter two. This is where it is shown that agents are mere conventions. If one claims there is agent with agency, one is claiming the agent and the agency are separate. But if you claim that agency is merely a characteristic of an agent, when agent does not exercise agency, it isn't an agent since an agent that is not exercising agency is in fact a non-agent. Therefore, rather than agency being dependent on an agent, an agent is predicated upon exercising agency. For example, take movement. If there is an agent there has to be a moving mover. But there is no mover when there is no moving. Apart from moving, how could there be a mover? But when there is moving, there is no agent of moving that can be ascertained to be separate from the moving... If a moving mover cannot be established, an agent cannot be established."


3. The Mechanics of Karma: A Process, Not a Person

You claim that without a soul, karma is "incoherent." This is because you view karma as a judicial system requiring a defendant. In Buddhism, Karma is a natural causal law (Pratītyasamutpāda), like a seed producing a fruit. Does a mango seed need a "soul" to remember to become a mango tree? No. The conditions necessitate the result.

Nāgārjuna explicitly states that this wheel of existence turns without a sentient being.

Verses on the Heart of Dependent Origination (Arya Nāgārjuna)

...

From the three the two originate,

And from the two the seven come,

From seven the three come once again—

Thus the wheel of existence turns and turns.

All beings consist of causes and effects,

In which there is no ‘sentient being’ at all.

From phenomena which are exclusively empty,

There arise only empty phenomena.

All things are devoid of any ‘I’ or ‘mine’.

...

Like a recitation, a candle, a mirror, a seal,

A magnifying glass, a seed, sourness, or a sound,

So also with the continuation of the aggregates—

The wise should know they are not transferred.

...


4. Rebutting "The Flame with No Fire" (Continuity without Transmigration)

You wrote: “That’s just like saying a flame continues with no fire... I sense a contradiction.”

The flame analogy is not a contradiction; it is the precise explanation of how rebirth works without a soul. The flame of the second candle is not the "same" flame as the first, nor is it "totally different" (as it arose dependent on the first). It is a continuum of heat and combustion, not the movement of a "fire substance."

Rizenfenix wrote:

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/06/emptiness-and-karma-reincarnation.html

...

Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.

...

One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…


5. The Illusion of the "Observer"

You argue that "No-self contradicts lived experience... Even in deep meditation, there’s an observer."

What you are describing ("an observer," "awareness of awareness") is a well-known phase of spiritual realization in contemplative development, but it is not the end. In the Seven Stages of Enlightenment discussed on Awakening to Reality (specifically Thusness’s stages), the stage of the “I AM Realization”/"The Eternal Witness" (Stage 1~2 of https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html) is where one dis-identifies from thoughts, realizes and rests as an all-pervading Presence that is seen as the ultimate “Witness”.

However, Buddhism views this "Witness/Observer" as a subtle reification of a self. It is still dualistic (Subject vs. Object). The realization of Anatta (no-self) is the collapse of the observer/observed duality.

In Anatman, everything is just vibrant spontaneous presence-awareness but no subject or object. There is no "one" looking at the stream; there is just the vibrant presence of the stream itself.


6. Meaning without Identity: The Experiential Reality

Finally, you argue that meaning requires the "evolution of the soul" or "divine individuality." You claim we need a self to "learn" and "become more ourselves."

Buddhism disagrees. Meaning is found in the cessation of suffering. The "experiencer" you cling to is not the vessel of meaning; it is the very knot of suffering. We do not "erase" a real self; we discover that the self was a hallucination all along.

You might fear that losing this "Self" leads to a dry, mechanical, or nihilistic existence. Analysis and experiential contemplative realization reveals the exact opposite. When the delusion of the "Observer" or "Agent" collapses, what remains is not nothingness, but a vivid, boundless, and miraculous aliveness.

Here is what the actual experience of this "no-self" realization is like, as described in the Awakening to Reality guide:

Why awakening is so worth it (Soh)

From time to time, people ask me why should they seek awakening. I say, awakening will be the best thing that happen in your life, I guarantee it. It is worth whatever effort you put into it. You won't regret it. Or as Daniel M. Ingram said, "Would I trade this for anything? Maybe world peace, but I would have to think about it. Until then, this totally rocks, and missing out on it would be barking crazy from my point of view."

What is it like? I can only give a little preview, an excerpt of what I wrote taken from the AtR guide:

"Personally, I can say from direct experience that direct realization is completely direct, immediate, and non-intellectual, it is the most direct and intimate taste of reality beyond the realm of imagination. It far exceeds one’s expectations and is far superior to anything the mind can ever imagine or dream of. It is utter freedom. Can you imagine living every moment in purity and perfection without effort, where grasping at identity does not take hold, where there is not a trace or sense of 'I' as a seer, feeler, thinker, doer, be-er/being, an agent, a 'self' entity residing inside the body somewhere relating to an outside world, and what shines forth and stands out in the absence of a 'self' is a very marvellous, wondrous, vivid, alive world that is full of intense vividness, joy, clarity, vitality, and an intelligence that is operating as every spontaneous action (there is no sense of being a doer), where any bodily actions, speech and thoughts are just as spontaneous as heart beating, fingernails growing, birds singing, air moving gently, breath flowing, sun shining - there is no distinction between ‘you are doing action’/’you are living’ and ‘action is being done to you’/’you are being lived’ (as there is simply no ‘you’ and ‘it’ - only total and boundless spontaneous presencing).

This is a world where nothing can ever sully and touch that purity and perfection, where the whole of universe/whole of mind is always experienced vividly as that very purity and perfection devoid of any kind of sense of self or perceiver whatsoever that is experiencing the world at a distance from a vantagepoint -- life without ‘self’ is a living paradise free of afflictive/painful emotions ... where every color, sound, smell, taste, touch and detail of the world stands out as the very boundless field of pristine awareness, sparkling brilliance/radiance, colorful, high-saturation, HD, luminous, heightened intensity and shining wonderment and magicality... where the world is a fairy-tale like wonderland, revealed anew every moment in its fullest depths as if you are a new-born baby experiencing life for the first time...

You know all the Mahayana Sutras (e.g. Vimalakirti Sutra), old Zen talks about seeing this very earth as pure land and all the Vajrayana talks about the point of tantra as the pure vision of seeing this very world, body, speech and mind in its primordial unfabricated purity as the Buddha field, palace, mandala, mantra and deity? Now you truly get it, you realise everything is really just like that when experienced in its primordial purity and perfection, and that the old sages have not been exaggerating at all. It is as much a literal and precise description of the state of consciousness as it is a metaphor. As I told John Tan before, Amitabha Sutra’s description of pure land resembles my living experience here and now. “To me it just means anatta. When what’s seen, tasted, touched, smelled are in clean purity, everywhere is pure land.” - John Tan, 2019. "If one is free from background self, all manifestations appear in clean purity in taste. Impurities from what I know come from mental constructions." – John Tan, 2020

This is a freedom that is free from any artificially constructed boundaries and limitations. And yet, this boundlessness does not in any way lead to the dissociation from one’s body, instead one feels more alive than ever as one’s very body, one grows ever more somatic, at home and intimate as one’s body. This is not a body normally conceived of, as the boundaries of an artificially solidified body that stands separated from the universe, dissolve into energetic streams of aliveness dancing and pulsating throughout the body in high energy and pleasure, as well as sensations of foot steps, movement, palm touching an object, where the body is no longer conflated with a constructed boundary of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, ‘self’ or ‘other’, where no trace of an ‘inside’ and an ‘outside’ can be found in one’s state of consciousness - there’s only one indivisible, boundless and measureless world/mind - only this infinitude of a dynamic and seamlessly interconnected dance that we call ‘the universe’. ... All these words and descriptions I just wrote came very easily and spontaneously in a very short time as I am simply describing my current state of experience that is experienced every moment. I am not being poetic here but simply being as direct and clear as possible about what is immediately experienced. And this is only a figment that I am describing. If I were to tell you more of what this is like, you would not believe it. But once you enter this gateless realm you shall see that words always pale in comparison."