A reader’s question (paraphrased)

A reader writes to share a spontaneous and profound spiritual realization—a "personal gnosis" involving a healing journey into the unknown. Through this experience, the reader discovered a state beyond words, names, and concepts: a neutral, unlimited "true self" or Spirit that permeates everything.

Based on this direct experience, the reader questions the Buddhist concept of Anatta (non-self). They suggest that while one must indeed empty oneself of the "false self" and its poisons, this does not negate the existence of a True Self or God within. The reader feels that many public teachings (both Hindu and Buddhist) create unnecessary divisions and may miss the full truth of what we truly are.

Specifically, the reader describes their current state as a "median point": retaining uniqueness and individuality beyond the confines of the false body and ego, yet simultaneously realizing that separation is an illusion. They use a powerful metaphor: they are not merely a drop merged into the ocean of God, but rather, "the entire ocean in a single drop."

After reading through some of the shared articles on the blog, the reader noted that their own experience resonated deeply with the descriptions found in the texts. They closed by asking for my perspective on their insights—"I take it that you do not see that there is a self at all?"—and inquired about my own journey and whether I was the author of the writings they had just read.

My Reply

Hi,

Thank you for sharing your experience in such detail. What you described—the realization of a neutral, unlimited true self that permeates all, beyond all words and names—is a very profound and authentic realization.

In the framework I am sharing, this is often called the realization of the "I AM," Pure Presence, or the Eternal Witness. It is a powerful awakening to the "Spirit" or Pure Presence.

To answer your specific question: "I take it that you do not see that there is a self at all?"

It is important to clarify that the further insights into Anatman (Non-Self) are not a denial or rejection of the realization of pure Presence that you had. We are not saying that this luminosity or knowingness does not exist.

Rather, Anatta is a refinement of insight that discovers the empty nature of Presence.

In the initial phase of practice, and even after the initial awakening into I AM/Eternal Witness, the Witnessing Presence seems to be behind all contents as an underlying background or ground of being. That duality of context and content collapses in further realizations. In further realization, it is seen that there is never an Agent, a Watcher, an Observer, apart from moment to moment luminous manifestation.

It shifts the understanding from seeing Presence as a "Background Source" or "Container" (the Ocean) behind phenomena (the waves), to realizing that the waves are the dynamic Presencing ("Impermanence is Buddha-Nature") without an ultimate background behind them.

Here is how this specific progression is viewed in our context, using some quotes from John Tan (Thusness) that address your exact situation:

1. We do not deny the "I AM" / Spirit realization; we refine the View of it.

You mentioned Buddhism might describe it incorrectly as "empty." In this context, "Empty" does not mean a void or nothingness. It means "no inherent existence of its own apart from the moment to moment conditions."

Thusness (2007): "I have always said it is not the denial of eternal witness. But what exactly is that eternal witness? ... There is Witnessing. Witnessing is the manifestation. There is no witness [separate from] witnessing manifestation."

Thusness (2010): "It is not that there is no awareness... can u deny Witnessing? ... can you deny that certainty of being? ... then there is nothing wrong with it... how could you deny your very own existence? ... there is nothing wrong experiencing directly without intermediary the pure sense of existence. After this direct experience, you should refine your understanding, your view, your insights... u do not deny the witness, u refine your insight of it."

2. On your experience of the "Ocean" and the "Drop"

You wrote about being "not just a drop merged into the ocean... but the entire ocean in a single drop." The insight of Anatta takes this one step further to remove the subtle reifications of the "drop" (individuality) and the "ocean" (universal). Buddhist realization does not erase diversity or collapse it into a single substance or universal mind (we do not adopt the view of a universal undifferentiated consciousness).

Regarding this transition from a background view to an empty view, Dr. Greg Goode wrote:

"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..."

I also wrote about this distinction previously:

"Awareness when reified becomes a whole containing everything as its parts, like the ocean and its waves. But when you deconstruct the wave and ocean, the whole and parts, it is just the radiance and clarity of pellucidity of sound, taste, colors of the imputed notion of wave and ocean. Ocean and waves, whole and parts, are mere dependent designations, merely conventional without any self-essence/inherent existence.

Awareness is a name just like weather is a name denoting rain, wind, sunshine, etc., and not a container or singular substance pervading them or transforming or modulating as them. Likewise, awareness is not an eternal singular substance pervading or containing or even modulating as everything. What is seen, heard, sensed are clear and vivid, pellucid and crystal, and 'awareness' is just a name denoting just that, not a diverse manifestation pervaded by a single ontological awareness that is non-dual with everything.

Eventually, awareness is seen through as having its own reality and forgotten into the pellucidity of appearance, not just a state but an insight. As a teacher once said, 'If you see that awareness is none other than everything, and that none of those things are separate "things" at all, why even use the word awareness anymore? All you are left with is the world, your life, the diversity of experience itself.'"

This is echoed in the Zen tradition as well. Ted Biringer commenting on Zen Master Dogen wrote:

"...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature or mind.”

“In Dogen’s view, the only reality is reality that is actually experienced as particular things at specific times. There is no “tile nature” apart from actual “tile forms,” there is no “essential Baso” apart from actual instances of “Baso experience.” When Baso sits in zazen, “zazen” becomes zazen, and “Baso” becomes Baso. Real instances of Baso sitting in zazen is real instances of Baso and real instances of zazen – when Baso eats rice, Baso is really Baso and eating rice is really eating rice.”

And from Zen Master Dogen’s The Great Ocean Samadhi chapter in the Shobogenzo:

"The Buddha once said in verse: Merely of various elements is this body of Mine composed. The time of its arising is merely an arising of elements; The time of its vanishing is merely a vanishing of elements. As these elements arise, I do not speak of the arising of an ‘I’, And as these elements vanish, I do not speak of the vanishing of an ‘I’. Previous instants and succeeding instants are not a series of instants that depend on each other; Previous elements and succeeding elements are not a series of elements that stand against each other. To give all of this a name, I call it ‘the meditative state that bears the seal of the Ocean’.

...The Master’s saying, “One that contains all that exists,” expresses what the Ocean is. The point he is making is not that there is some single thing that contains all that exists, but rather that It is all contained things. And he is not saying that the Great Ocean is what contains all existing things, but rather that what is expressing ‘all contained things’ is simply the Great Ocean. Though we do not know what It is, It is everything that exists for the moment... What we call the Ocean of our Buddha Nature and what we call the Ocean of Vairochana are simply synonymous with ‘all that exists’."

3. Why we move from "True Self" to "No Self"

It is not to negate your "uniqueness" or individuality in the conventional sense (memories, personality, trajectory). It is to see that the "Spirit" is not a static thing hiding behind the flow of life, but is the Flow of self-luminous (self-knowing) and spontaneous manifestation itself.

Thusness (2008): "Practitioners should never mistake this as the true Buddha Mind! "I AMness" is the pristine awareness... But what exactly is this “witness” we are talking about? It is the manifestation itself! It is the appearance itself! There is no Source to fall back [to], the Appearance is the Source!"

It is vital to understand that "No Self" does not mean a rejection or denial of conventional selves:

“Buddha never used the term "self" to refer to an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity. He also never asserted that there was no conventional "self," the subject of transactional discourse. So, it is very clear in the sutras that the Buddha negated an ultimate self and did not negate a conventional self.” – Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith, 2020

“Anatman is the negation of an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity that moves from one temporary body to another. It is not the negation of "Sam," "Fred," or "Jane" used as a conventional designation for a collection of aggregates. Since the Buddha clearly states in many Mahāyāna sūtras, "all phenomena" are not self, and since everything is included there, including buddhahood, therefore, there are no phenomena that can be called a self, and since there are nothing outside of all phenomena, a "self," other than an arbitrary designation, does not exist.” – Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith

As stated in the Vajira Sutta:

“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’? Māra, is this your theory? This is just a pile of conditions, you won’t find a sentient being here. When the parts are assembled we use the word ‘chariot’. So too, when the aggregates are present ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use. But it’s only suffering that comes to be, lasts a while, then disappears. Naught but suffering comes to be, naught but suffering ceases.”

Summary

So, to summarize: We do not deny the luminous, spiritual nature you have realized. We are pointing out that this "True Self" is not separate from the "false flesh body" or the world. The mountains, the rivers, and your very body are that Spirit manifesting. There is no "You" inside looking out at it; You are the happening. And as the great Zen Master Dogen said about his awakening, “I came to realize clearly that the mind is not other than mountains, rivers, the great wide earth, sun, moon, stars”.

As I wrote back in 2010:

"Originally I wrote a long post but I have shortened it to a few points based on what Thusness said, which makes it much clearer...

In short: there is no false self nor true self, there is only 5 aggregates.

Do not think that that there is a problem in the five aggregates. There is no problem with the aggregates, the 'problem' lies only in the illusion that there is a self. The 5 aggregates when experienced without the agent (watcher, thinker, doer, etc) is a completely new dimension. They are the Buddha Nature.

However, when experienced with a sense/illusion of self, whatever arises (all the aggregates and 18 dhatus) appears to be problematic. In truth there are no problems whatsoever, only the wrong understanding that self exist.

It should be noted furthermore, that even while the sense of self is present, there is still in truth no-self/perceiver apart from perceived. No-self is a dharma seal, an ever-present nature of reality.

On the most direct path, there is no one to let go and no-thing to be let go of and hence no 'how to let go'. Reality is 'letting go' at all moments. There is only what arises and subsides (self-liberates) every moment according to conditions, luminous-empty phenomena roll on with no one at the center that can seek nor distant himself (since there is no 'self') from the self-knowing transience.

However if we are unable to arise this insight and with the tendencies still strong, then we have no choice but resort to the gradual path of practice. Resorting to watching the arising and ceasing of the 5 aggregates as if there is a separate watcher but with the right view that there is no self apart from the aggregates. By practicing this way, insight into Anatta can still arise eventually.

But if the path consists of practice without the right view, almost without fail it will result in Advaita sort of experience."

I will leave you with this verse from the Shurangama Sutra which affirms that the five aggregates themselves are the Buddha Nature:

"All floating dust and illusory appearances arise and perish at that very locus. They are falsely named 'appearances,' yet their true nature is the Luminous Essence of Marvelous Awakening. So it is with the Five Skandhas, the Six Entrances, the Twelve Loci, and the Eighteen Realms. The union of causes and conditions generates their illusory arising; their separation results in the illusory name of extinction. One fails to realize that arising and ceasing, coming and going, are fundamentally the Tathāgatagarbha—the Ever-Abiding, Wondrous Clarity, the Unmoved, All-Pervading, Wondrous Nature of True Suchness. Within this True and Constant Nature, seek as you may for coming and going, delusion and enlightenment, or birth and death, they are completely unattainable."

I hope this clarifies that this is not a rejection of your gnosis, but a pointer toward the non-dual and empty nature of that Spirit.

p.s. I'm Soh, and Thusness (John Tan) is my mentor... I've been through similar stages in my journey as the first link (7 stages) with some minor differences (e.g. I didn't go through stage 3).

The three links I passed you above are my mentor's words.

However I have written about my journey here: My E-book/E-journal

And I have written other articles on the blog that may be of interest:

• Different degrees of No-Self / Non-Duality

• Why Awakening is So Worth It

Someone sent me a question which I conveyed to John Tan: 

"I now realize that these obstructions and dharma attachments cannot be eliminated in a day, a month, or even a year. In fact, it seems fundamentally impossible for me to completely uproot all dharma attachments in this lifetime, making it highly unlikely that I will reach what you call 'Phase 7.' Acknowledging the immense difficulty of thoroughly eliminating these attachments, however, allows me to learn with greater humility.

I would also like to share an interesting perspective I recently contemplated: 'Dependent arising does not mean that phenomena arise due to causes and conditions; rather, phenomena are dependent arising, and dependent arising is phenomena.' While this might sound like mere wordplay, I find that 'phenomena arising due to causes and conditions' is closer to inference (anumāna), whereas 'phenomena are dependent arising' aligns more with direct perception (pratyakṣa). Dependent arising is immediate presence. Ultimately, it feels as though I have merely replaced 'relationality' with 'dependent origination. Dependent arising is by no means an abstract concept. It is the living reality; it is the living truth.

Finally, I have a question for John Tan: What is the primary distinction between Phase 5 and Phase 8? In Phase 5, the vivid presence or foreground becomes so real that one is compelled to automatically grasp at the object. After reading one of your articles, it strikes me that Phase 8 represents the most thorough realization of no-self (anatta), as knowledge, concepts, thoughts, viewpoints, and designations do not exist independently; rather, they are all already embodied within the immediate presence. Seen from this angle, immediate presence is itself a self-luminous and self-knowing mandala."

John Tan replied:

"Actually when one allows totality of conditions to present itself, self  presenting and self liberating, he or she is no more attached to luminosity also.

In fact some will lose sight of it.

Which is no good also...lol

But that phase is very crucial"

Soh sent his response back to the person and added:

I remember John Tan wrote something related in 2007 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/05/different-degrees-of-non-duality.html

 Conversation — 18 January 2010

AEN: Hi, did you receive my messages?

Thusness: What messages?

AEN: Quite a few things. "Just now meditating I have a sense that everything is not me, the mind and body are just doing its own things but its not me, they're just impersonal stuff happening in vast space. I now better understand what Kenneth meant when he said the transpersonal self has no stake in whether the body mind lives or dies, a.k.a. no dog." Is this what you mean by impersonality?

Also, Mikael said he wants to try Kundalini because he isn't progressing much with the direct path and I wanted to ask you what you think about it. And also yesterday I wanted to ask you what was wrong with what I wrote... you also said awareness is uncaused right? It seems like classical mapping of stages of enlightenment emphasizes a lot on clearing fetters like different kinds of cravings, pride, etc. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/sammapa2.htm

Have you seen Longchen's recent postings?

Thusness: That is not what I meant by impersonality.

AEN: I see. By the way, is there anything wrong in saying that awareness is uncaused?

Thusness: What do you mean by uncaused? And what do you mean by awareness?

AEN: Uncaused means it isn't created from something else right, and it's always present? No causes and conditions are needed for awareness to be present? Awareness is just vivid clear knowing? Like Guru Padmasambhava said, "This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself."

Thusness: If this is what you meant about uncaused, then you should examine your understanding of 'uncaused'. Do you see awareness as always present?

AEN: Yes.

Thusness: Are you sure?

AEN: Yes.

Thusness: This would mean that you have already experienced the presence of clear luminosity in all three states. Have you?

AEN: No.

Thusness: Then what makes you say you are sure?

AEN: Don't know... awareness doesn't feel like an experience that is gained or lost?

Thusness: Then how can you say you are sure? Next, at this present moment, do you see awareness as free from conditions?

AEN: It seems like awareness is not something that can move or can be lost even though the states change from conscious to non-conscious.

Thusness: I have no idea how you derived that. If you attempt to understand Awareness that way, then you will never understand what Awareness is.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: You do not deduce, induce and think... it is a realization like what I told you about "I AMness." You are perfectly clear of its vivid luminosity, aliveness; there is nothing to derive.

AEN: Awareness feels like the always present ground of being, doesn't move. I see.

Thusness: By saying that, you have not even understood One Mind. First what is non-dual to you?

AEN: Everything is self-knowing awareness? There's no distance or division. Non-dual just means in seeing just forms, no separate seer right?

Thusness: No.

AEN: Don't know.

Thusness: There is no division between subject and object.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Now I have told you that one can experience non-dual—meaning he/she does not experience any split—but have no idea what causes the split, why there is such a split, and the way of dissolving the split. Next, you have to face the question, "If there is no split, then how are you going to dissolve the split?"

AEN: Through insight?

Thusness: Insight is just a word.

AEN: I see. By feeling everything without duality?

Thusness: When Joan Tollifson says there is "no body, only sensations", she understands clearly the power of the 'word' body. How it 'blinds' the mind. She does not mean that 'body' does not exist conventionally.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Similarly when a practitioner speaks of non-dual, he penetrates and has seen through the illusion of 'division'. This is different from just mere non-dual experience.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: But both are of different experiences and realization—"division" and "no body". Same applies to "coming and going". It does not mean that once you experienced non-dual, you will penetrate the meaning of "no coming or going".

AEN: I see. Rupert Spira said, "The idea that there is a mind which contains memories, hopes, fears and desires is itself simply a thought that appears from time to time like any other thought, in Consciousness. There is no mind as such. The existence of a mind is simply an idea, a concept. It is a useful concept but it is not a fact of experience. Likewise, we do not experience the body in the way we normally conceive it. In fact there is no body as such. There is a series of sensations and perceptions appearing in Consciousness. And from time to time, there is a thought or an image of a 'body,' which is considered to be the sum total of all these sensations and perceptions. However, this thought or image appears in Consciousness in exactly the same way as the sensations and perceptions to which it apparently refers. And this apparent body is made of the same substance as a thought. It is made of mind, taking mind in the broadest sense of the term, to include sensing and perceiving as well as thinking. If we stick closely to the actual experience of our bodily sensations, we see that they are shapeless and contourless. We may experience a visual perception of the skin and from several different perceptions conceive a well-defined border which contains all other bodily sensations. However, this conception does not describe the Reality of our experience. The visual perception of the surface of the body is one perception. A bodily sensation is another perception. When one of these perceptions is present the other is not. If they are both present, they are one perception, one experience. One perception cannot appear within another. All perceptions appear within Consciousness. We do not experience a sensation inside the body. What we call the body is in fact the experience of a sensation. We do not experience a sensation within a well defined contour of skin. We experience a sensation within Consciousness and we experience a visual perception within consciousness.

"We can explore this further by imagining what it would be like to draw our actual experience of the body at any given moment, on a piece of paper. Would it look anything like the body we normally conceive? Would it not be a collection of minute, amorphous abstract marks, floating on the page, without a shape or a border? Is not the actual experience of the body a collection of minute, amorphous, tingling sensations free-floating in the space of Consciousness? And if we look at these sensations, are they not permeated and saturated with the presence of Consciousness in which they appear? The continuity and coherence that we normally ascribe to the body in fact belong to Consciousness. In fact our true body is Consciousness. It is Consciousness that houses all sensations that we normally refer to as the body. Our true body is open, transparent, weightless and limitless. It is inherently empty and yet contains all things within itself. That is why such an empty body is also inherently loving. It is the welcoming embrace of all things."

Thusness: A person that experiences this also experiences mind/body drop. However, that is One Mind. Only when you get to there, then we discuss further. I wrote that in one of Dharma Dan forum too. About awareness and sensations.

AEN: I see... Hmm... can't remember but familiar. To Gozen? Oh yes, to Gary: http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/2657969/The+mind+and+the+watcher

Gary: "In walking meditation the "I" appears to place or make sense of the sensory perception. This involves a body image for example foot sensations are perceived to be at the foot, movement is perceived in relation to the previous position. Once in walking meditation I had the body disappear so there was just the feet touch sensations belonging and going nowhere. Does this describe direct without intermediary?"

Yes Gary, what you said is correct. It is only a matter of depth and intensity, ie, how clear, how vivid, how real, how pristine the arising and passing sensations are when compared to the “I AM”. In the case of “I AM”, it is so clear, so real and so pristine that it burns away all traces of doubts. Absolutely certain, still and thoughtless that even Buddha is unable to shake the practitioner from this direct Realization of “I-ness”.

By the way, there should not be any ‘image’ in whatever experienced, thus, direct.

With regards to the “body's disappearance” that you mentioned, it relates to an experience called the “mind-body drop”. There are few more important points that you may want to take note:

1. It is not just due to “concentration on the sensations, the body image had no opportunity to arise”, the insight that mind and body are mere constructs must also arise and the disappearance is also the result of dissolving of these constructs.

2. Mind-body drop must also come with a sense of lightness. In the first few glimpses, you will also feel weightless and when the experience becomes clearer, you will also realize the “weight” of these constructs.

3. From the constructs, you may also want to explore further what happen when the constructs of “in/out” disappears.

Lastly the practice of self enquiry is not without danger. A practitioner can also be led into a state of utter confusions when exploring the ‘I’ through mere analytical process. So practice with care.

Thusness: Not just that. Another one about awareness and sensations. But what Rupert said is exactly what I want to convey to Gary.

AEN: I see... in the post on awareness and sensations? Or the post above?

Thusness: I said if we truly and directly experience sensations as it is, then we will realize sensations share similar nature as awareness, they share the same taste.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: If we ask “Who am I”, does the question already condition the experience from beginning? If we look for a 'who' and enter into the realm of pure, it naturally becomes a pure subject. Is the subject that important in the realm of pure? Similarly when we say 'here and now', has the mind already pre-assumed the existence of space and time?

If for a moment we are able to free ourselves from of all sort of definitions and labellings, feel the bare sensations without words, feel 'aliveness', feel 'existence' then search with our entire being its 'location'. Have the same sort of 'awakeness' for 'location' as we have for “I AM”. Is impermanence a movement from here to there?

If we penetrate deeply, it will reveal that there is nothing here, nothing now, nothing self, yet, there is vivid appearance. There is only always vivid appearance which is the very living presence that dependently originates whenever condition is. And what that dependently originates does not arise, does not cease, does not come, does not go.

We may then have an intuitive glimpse that direct path and vipassana are intimately related. :)

AEN: I see... so transience can only be Presence, it is not a time and space thing.

Thusness: Just now I told about 'body', 'dual', 'coming and going'. Do you know what that means?

AEN: You mean this: it does not mean that once you experienced non-dual, you will penetrate the meaning of "no coming or going"

Thusness: Yes. But there is another important thing, but you pasted me the Rupert passage. So what is seeing dual, body, coming and going mean?

AEN: Imposing an inherent and dualistic framework on experience so it seems there's division and entities?

Thusness: Yes, that is seeing things inherently. So a practitioner goes through one by one and later from the insight of emptiness realizes it is all about seeing things inherently. Then the practitioner progress further.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: You must know what is meant by 'inherent' experientially. It is referring to the 'blinding factor' as in the case of the 'body', 'dual'. Then a practitioner resolve all these into the One Mind, One Awareness, One Consciousness. This too must be dissolved. :)

AEN: I see... By the way, do you see awareness as always present?

Thusness: I see it that way but not as what you think.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: You see awareness and manifestation as separate. You see caused and uncaused as separate.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: My understanding of uncaused is from causes and conditions; my understanding of awareness is from manifestation. But it is difficult to explain to you. At present you only understand what I meant—I see awareness from manifestation—from the insight of anatta.

AEN: I see. Yeah I don't really understand uncaused is from causes and conditions.

Thusness: Think there is a passage in Nonduality by David Loy.

AEN: Sentience cannot be resulted from insentient conditions right. I see. Oh the one I sent you before?

Thusness: Think so.

AEN: I see. David Loy in Nonduality: "The hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe. ...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself..."

Thusness: And you must experience what's said directly as this moment of vivid living presence.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Think through and summarize, don't cut and paste.