Read the English version here (阅读英文版)

轮回、验证，以及那些无法抹去的证据

这一切通常始于一个最不具哲学意味的地方：不是在寺庙，不是在经堂，也不是在学者的办公室，而是在孩子的卧室里。一个蹒跚学步的孩子尖叫着醒来，说他的飞机着火了。一个小女孩路过一个她从未去过的小镇，却坚持说她的家就在附近，而且那里的茶更好喝。另一个孩子指着老照片里一张被遗忘的面孔，以令人不安的笃定口吻说：“那就是我。”对于大多数现代人来说，轮回属于宗教或民间传说的范畴。然而，在半个多世纪的时间里，研究人员收集并调查了大量案例。在这些案例中，年幼的儿童自发地描述了另一段人生，包括名字、地点、人际关系、恐惧以及死亡场景，而这些描述有时似乎与某个已故之人高度吻合。2022年的一项范围综述发现了78项关于前世记忆主张的科学研究，其中大部分聚焦于儿童。

对这些案例的现代科学研究，离不开弗吉尼亚大学的伊恩·史蒂文森（Ian Stevenson）。后来对他工作成果的综述描述了一个跨越不同文化且惊人稳定的模式：孩子们通常在两三岁左右开始讲述，在六七岁时停止，他们描述的是近代且平凡的生活，而非宏大的神话故事，并且在许多案例中，他们特别关注前世那个人的死亡过程。弗吉尼亚大学的一篇综述指出，前世之人死亡与儿童出生之间的中位间隔时间仅为16个月，大约70%被报告的前世死亡皆是非自然原因，且全球范围内已有超过2500个案例接受了调查。这些并非易受暗示的成年人所做的催眠回溯；它们是儿童早期、自发的报告，通常发生在学龄前，而且往往在对该案例有任何“解答”出现之前就已经发生。

当然，严肃的批评并非不存在。批评者常质疑，这类案例可能受到文化预设、家庭暗示、翻译误差、回忆污染，以及调查者确认偏误的影响。这样的质疑并非没有道理，因此最有说服力的案例，通常不是那些只靠多年后口述流传的故事，而是那些在辨认出“前世人格”之前，就已记录下儿童陈述、并且能在事后核验相当多细节的案例。也正因如此，像詹姆斯·雷宁格、香蒂·戴维、斯瓦恩拉塔·米什拉等案例，才会在文献中反复被讨论。

看看美国人詹姆斯·雷宁格（James Leininger）的案例。在三岁之前，他反复做关于飞机坠毁的噩梦。他说这架飞机被日本人击中，起火坠毁，他是从一艘名叫“纳托马”（Natoma）的船上起飞的，当时还有一个叫杰克·拉尔森（Jack Larsen）的人和他在一起。后来，他指着书里的一张硫磺岛图片，说那就是他的飞机被击落的地方。吉姆·塔克（Jim Tucker）发表的案例报告指出，其中的一些陈述在确认已故飞行员身份之前就已经被记录下来。搜寻工作最终指向了美国海军“纳托马湾号”（USS Natoma Bay）护航航空母舰、一个真实的杰克·拉尔森，以及詹姆斯·M·休斯顿（James M. Huston Jr.），一位来自该舰且在硫磺岛战役中阵亡的飞行员。这种吻合并不完美，也不具神话色彩；它是凌乱的、片段式的，但也正因如此，它才更具说服力。它看起来就像是真实的记忆，而非刻意的宣传。

另一个名叫瑞安·哈蒙斯（Ryan Hammons）的美国孩子，在四岁时开始谈论好莱坞、一栋大房子、一个游泳池，以及三个他记不起名字的儿子。他因为记不起他们的名字而感到痛苦。后来，在翻阅一本关于好莱坞的书时，他指着一张旧剧照中的一个人说：“那个人就是我。”这个人最终被确认为马蒂·马丁（Marty Martyn）。塔克并没有简单地把这个结果告诉他的家人就宣布结案；根据弗吉尼亚大学的记录，他用照片对瑞安进行了测试，瑞安准确认出了马丁的妻子。马丁的女儿后来证实了瑞安的几十项陈述，包括他在百老汇跳舞、后来担任经纪人、罗克斯伯里大道（Roxbury Drive）的住址，以及他确实有三个儿子的事实。正是这种密集的吻合点，使得这些最强有力的案例极难被简单地当作随机的童年幻想或虚假记忆来打发。

早期印度案例以其绝对的深度依然令人震惊。香蒂·戴维（Shanti Devi）1926年出生于德里，她开始讲述自己在马图拉（Mathura）的另一段人生，身份是一名名叫卢格迪·乔贝（Lugdi Chaubey）的已婚妇女。她的陈述接受了调查，并在通过这些陈述确认了卢格迪的家人之后，香蒂能够带领人们找到她以前的房子，认出卢格迪的亲属，并展示出对卢格迪生活中私密细节的了解。这个案例引起了圣雄甘地的注意，并得到了广泛的调查。斯瓦恩拉塔·米什拉（Swarnlata Mishra）同样在孩提时代就开始讲述前世，她在路过卡特尼（Katni）时要求被带到“我的家”去。她的早期陈述在她记忆被证实之前就被记录了下来，后来她认出了前世家庭的人，甚至用一种她显然从未学过的语言表演了歌舞。无论你更倾向于哪种解释，像这样的案例显然都不是普通的奇闻轶事。

接下来是物理证据，这一系列的证据往往会让哪怕是持有同情态度的读者感到不安，因为它们听起来太过戏剧性，以至于让人觉得不真实。在1993年的一篇论文中，史蒂文森报告说，在895名据说记得前世的儿童中，有309人拥有归因于前世的胎记或先天缺陷。他和他的同事调查了210个这样的案例。在获得了如尸检报告等医疗文件的49个案例中，据说有43个案例证实了死者身上的致命伤口与儿童身上的胎记或缺陷之间存在对应关系。我们不必立刻由此跃进到确信无疑，但我们必须承认，这远超简单的营火故事。

后续的文献也不支持那种认为这些儿童仅仅是存在心理疾病的草率否定。一项2014年的心理学研究对15名报告有前世记忆的美国儿童进行了分析，发现他们拥有高于平均水平的智力，总体正常的行为清单得分，大多数参与者的解离（dissociative）得分很低，且没有证据表明他们的报告源于精神病理学。一项2024年针对在孩童时期曾报告过此类记忆的美国成年人进行的后续研究发现，他们似乎过着正常且富有成效的生活，拥有较高的学历，并且几乎没有负面的长期影响。一篇2024年来自巴西的案例报告描述了一个孩子，他做出了13项与一位已故舅公生活相符的陈述，其中9项得到证实，4项无法确定；这名儿童还表现出8种与该死者相匹配的不寻常行为，并且拥有一种罕见的颅骨缺陷，被认为与致命伤口相吻合。这在数学意义上并不能证明转世。但这确实表明，这一现象仍然活跃，仍在被调查中，且远远未被轻易解释掉。

讲到这里，我们需要注意到，实证文献仅仅是证据的一个分支。亚洲的禅修传统长期以来一直宣称，在甚深禅定中可以回忆起前世。在早期的佛教经典中，佛陀证悟的记载明确包括了对许多前世的回忆（宿命智），认为这是在甚深禅定中获得的智慧之一，随之而来的便是目睹众生随其业力死此生彼的景象（死生智）。更广泛地说，在佛教出现之前，关于轮回的信仰在印度宗教传统中就已经很普遍了，因此佛教的这一主张并非凭空出现。

这股实修的洪流一直延续到了现代。禅修博客 觉悟真实 (Awakening to Reality) 探讨道，神通（siddhis）并非对世界秩序的“超自然”破坏，而是缘起条件下可能显现的现象。同一篇文章还记录了一位现代修行者的经历，其中描述了 Sim Pern Chong 以异常生动的细节重温前世，包括当下的关系与前世业力纽带之间的联系；在文章的后半部分，这种回忆被明确地与催眠前世回溯区分开来，而是被描述为通过三摩地（定）与禅那产生的，是一种“全身体忆”（whole-body remembering）。无论人们将此类叙述视为证据、证言还是禅修现象学，它们都表明，这种主张并没有从活生生的修行实践中消失。

这也是为什么 John Tan 在 2015 年的一次聊天记录中所说的话显得如此相关。以下引文根据原聊天记录做了轻度英文标准化处理，但未改变原意：

“去读读萨姆·帕尼亚（Sam Parnia）博士的作品吧。”

“他非常优秀，就像伊恩·史蒂文森一样——他是一名每天都在与死亡、心脏骤停以及被宣布临床死亡的病人打交道的医生，也是他所在领域受人尊敬的专家。”

“伊恩·史蒂文森的书是科学研究，而不是浮夸意义上的‘科学’。他是一名科学家，但他明白，除非通过验证，否则科学无法证明这样的事情。”

“除了通过验证，一个人该如何去证明前世的存在呢？”

“怀疑永远存在，因为怀疑论者总是在怀疑。”

“只有三种方法：信任一位受人尊敬的专家、把它当作宗教信仰来接受，或者通过修行去亲自体验。”

“我的方法既不是盲信，也不是单纯的怀疑，而是去实修，并听取受人尊敬的专家的意见。”

这比它初听起来更具理智的严谨性。核心观点在于方法论：如果你正在处理关于死亡、意识和记忆的主张，那么你应该仔细审查那些认真记录案例的人，以及那些直接从事复苏医学工作的人的研究成果，而不仅仅是听取文化怀疑论者或狂热爱好者的意见。

在这一点上，John Tan 对于该把目光投向何处并没有说错。萨姆·帕尼亚目前是纽约大学朗格尼医学中心（NYU Langone）重症监护和复苏研究的主任，他将自己的工作描述为专注于心脏骤停、复苏后综合征，以及与心脏骤停和生命终点相关的心理和认知体验。荷兰心脏病专家皮姆·范·隆梅尔（Pim van Lommel）在《柳叶刀》（Lancet）杂志上发表了一项前瞻性研究，对荷兰10家医院的344名成功复苏的心脏骤停患者进行了调查。彼得·芬威克（Peter Fenwick）是英国的神经精神病学家和神经生理学家，他对大脑功能、心识与大脑的关系以及濒死和生命末期体验有着长期的研究兴趣。这些都不能单独证明转世。但它们确实表明，严肃且受过医学训练的研究人员认为这里有足够的实质内容值得调查，并且他们是在医院里，而不是在奇幻文学中进行这项工作。

阿姜布拉姆在 2001 年 10 月 19 日题为《Buddhism and Science》的演讲中，以一个带有修辞色彩的物理学类比来强调：面对反常证据时，科学不应因为它挑战主流世界观，就将其轻易束之高阁。

阿姜布拉姆说：

“如果有一个被证实医学死亡的人，在被抢救回来后能立刻向医生描述在死亡期间所发生的一切言行，难道这不具有很强的说服力吗？当我从事基本粒子物理学研究时，有一种理论需要证实一种被称为‘W’粒子的存在。在日内瓦的回旋加速器那里，欧洲核子研究中心（CERN）资助了一项庞大的研究计划，用一个巨大的粒子加速器让原子相互碰撞，试图找到其中一个‘W’粒子。他们在这个项目上花费了数亿英镑。他们找到了一个，仅仅找到了一个‘W’粒子。我不认为从那以后他们还找到过第二个。但只要找到了一个‘W’粒子，参与那个项目的研究人员就获得了诺贝尔物理学奖。他们仅仅通过找到这一个‘W’粒子就证实了这个理论。这是优秀的科学。只要一个就足以证明理论。

当涉及到我们不想相信的事情时，他们就把这仅仅一次的经历，一次清晰、符合事实且不可否认的经历，称为‘异常现象’（anomaly）。‘异常现象’在科学界是一个专门用来指代那些令人不安的证据的词汇，我们可以把这些证据塞进档案柜的最深处，再也不去碰它，因为它们威胁到了我们的世界观。它破坏了我们想要相信的东西。它对我们的教条构成了威胁。然而，科学方法中极其重要的一部分在于：为了尊重证据和事实，必须放弃原有的理论。关键在于，证明心智独立于大脑的证据是存在的。但一旦我们承认了这些证据，并遵循科学方法，那么许多我们珍视的理论，也就是那些所谓的‘神圣不可侵犯的信条（sacred cows）’，就不得不被抛弃。

...

如果你想寻找转世的科学证据，去看看伊恩·史蒂文森教授的作品。他在弗吉尼亚大学以坚实的科学为基础，花了一辈子的时间研究转世。[4] 施乐复印术的发明者切斯特·卡尔森（Chester Carlson，在他的妻子鼓励下），提供资金在大学设立了一个捐赠教席，让史蒂文森教授能够全职致力于此类研究。如果不是因为人们从心底里不愿意相信转世，伊恩·史蒂文森博士现在已经是一位世界闻名的科学家了。他甚至在牛津大学当过几年的客座研究员，所以你可以看出这并不是一个古怪的教授；他拥有作为一个受人尊敬的西方学者所应具备的所有资历。

史蒂文森博士的档案里有3000多个案例。一个有趣的例子是一个非常清晰的男人的案例，他记得前世的许多细节，而他根本没有任何途径从其他来源获得这些信息。那个人在转世前几个星期才刚刚去世！这就引出了一个问题：胎儿在子宫里的那几个月，它是谁？就佛教而言，是母亲用她自己的心识之流（stream of consciousness）维持着胎儿的生命。但当另一股心识之流进入时，胎儿就成了新的人。这是一个心识之流在胎儿几乎完全发育时才进入母亲子宫的案例。这种情况是可能发生的。佛教在两千五百年前就已经阐明了这一点。如果心识之流没有入胎，生下来的就是个死婴。有大量的证据支持这一点。”

Reincarnation, verification, and the evidence that refuses to disappear

It usually begins in the least philosophical place imaginable: not in a monastery, not in a scripture hall, not in a scholar’s office, but in a child’s bedroom. A toddler wakes screaming that his plane is on fire. A little girl passing through a town she has never visited insists her house is nearby and that the tea there is better. Another child points to a forgotten face in an old photograph and says, with unnerving certainty, “That’s me.” For most modern people, reincarnation belongs to religion or folklore. Yet for more than half a century, researchers have collected and investigated a large body of cases in which young children spontaneously describe another life with names, places, relationships, fears, and death scenes that sometimes appear to match a deceased person. A 2022 scoping review found 78 scientific studies on claimed past-life memories, with most focused on children.

The modern scientific study of these cases is inseparable from Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia. Later reviews of his work describe a surprisingly stable pattern across cultures: the children usually begin speaking at about ages two or three, stop around six or seven, describe recent and ordinary lives rather than grand mythical ones, and in many cases focus especially on the death of the previous person. One University of Virginia review states that the median interval between the previous person’s death and the child’s birth is only 16 months, that about 70% of the reported previous deaths are by unnatural means, and that more than 2,500 cases had been investigated worldwide. These are not hypnotic regressions in suggestible adults; they are early, spontaneous reports in children, often before school age and often before any “solution” to the case is known.

Of course, serious criticism is not absent. Critics often suggest that such cases might be influenced by cultural presumptions, parental suggestion, translation errors, memory contamination, and confirmation bias on the part of investigators. These concerns are perfectly valid. For this reason, the most persuasive cases are typically not those relying solely on retroactive storytelling, but rather those in which a child’s statements are recorded before the "previous personality" is identified, and where numerous details can be subsequently verified. This is exactly why cases like James Leininger, Shanti Devi, and Swarnlata Mishra are repeatedly discussed in the literature.

Consider the American case of James Leininger. Before age three, he repeatedly had nightmares about an airplane crash. He said the plane had been shot by the Japanese, that it crashed on fire, that he had flown from a boat called Natoma, and that someone named Jack Larsen had been there with him. He later pointed to Iwo Jima in a book image and said that was where his plane had been shot down. Tucker’s published case report notes that some of these statements were documented before the dead pilot was identified. The search eventually led to the USS Natoma Bay, to a real Jack Larsen, and to James M. Huston Jr., the pilot from that ship who was killed in the Iwo Jima operation. The fit was not polished or mythic; it was messy, partial, and therefore more compelling. It looked like memory, not propaganda.

Another American child, Ryan Hammons, began speaking at age four about Hollywood, a big house, a swimming pool, and three sons whose names he could not remember. He became distressed that he could not remember them. Then, while looking through a Hollywood book, he pointed to an old still and said of one man, “That guy’s me.” The man was eventually identified as Marty Martyn. Tucker did not simply tell the family that and call it solved; according to UVA’s account, he tested Ryan with photographs, and Ryan identified Martyn’s wife. Martyn’s daughter later confirmed dozens of Ryan’s statements, including his Broadway dancing, later work as an agent, his Roxbury Drive address, and the fact that he had three sons. This is exactly the sort of clustered correspondence that makes the strongest cases so difficult to dismiss as random childhood fantasy or false memory.

The older Indian cases remain undeniably striking for their sheer depth. Shanti Devi, born in Delhi in 1926, began speaking of another life in Mathura as a married woman named Lugdi Chaubey. Her statements were investigated, and after Lugdi’s family was identified from those statements, Shanti was able to lead people to the former house, recognize Lugdi’s relatives, and display knowledge of intimate details of Lugdi’s life. The case drew the attention of Mahatma Gandhi and was extensively investigated. Swarnlata Mishra similarly began making past-life statements as a small child, asking to be taken to “my house” while passing through Katni. Her earlier statements were written down before her memories were verified, and later she recognized people from the previous family and even performed songs and dances in a language she had apparently never learned. Whatever explanation one prefers, cases like these are plainly not ordinary anecdotes.

Then there is the physical evidence, the line of evidence that tends to unsettle even sympathetic readers because it sounds too dramatic to be true. In a 1993 paper, Stevenson reported that among 895 children said to remember previous lives, 309 had birthmarks or birth defects attributed to the previous life. He and his associates investigated 210 such cases. In 49 cases where a medical document such as a postmortem report was obtained, 43 were said to confirm the correspondence between the wound on the deceased person and the mark or defect on the child. One does not have to leap from that to certainty. But one does have to admit that this is far beyond mere campfire storytelling.

Nor does the later literature support the lazy dismissal that these children are simply pathological. A 2014 psychological study of 15 American children who reported previous-life memories found above-average intelligence, generally normal behavior-checklist scores, low dissociative scores in most participants, and no evidence that their reports arose from psychopathology. A 2024 follow-up of American adults who had reported such memories as children found that they seemed to lead normal, productive lives, with high educational attainment and few negative long-term effects. A 2024 case report from Brazil described a child who made 13 statements corresponding to a deceased granduncle’s life, of which 9 were verified and 4 remained undetermined; the child also showed 8 unusual behaviors matching the deceased man and had a rare skull defect considered compatible with the fatal wound. That does not prove reincarnation in a mathematical sense. But it does show that the phenomenon remains active, investigated, and far from explained away.

At this point, it helps to notice that the empirical literature is only one stream of evidence. The contemplative traditions of Asia have long claimed that past lives can be recalled in deep meditation. In the early Buddhist texts, the Buddha’s awakening narrative explicitly includes recollection of many past lives as one of the knowledges attained in profound concentration, followed by the vision of beings passing away and reappearing according to their actions. More broadly, beliefs in rebirth were already widespread in Indian religious traditions before Buddhism emerged, so the Buddhist claim did not appear in a vacuum.

That contemplative stream continues into modern times. The contemplative blog Awakening to Reality argues that siddhis are not a "supernatural" disruption of the world order, but rather phenomena that manifest under conditions of dependent origination. The same article also records a modern practitioner account in which Sim Pern Chong is described as reliving past lives in unusually vivid detail, including links between present relationships and previous karmic connections; later in the same piece, the recollection is explicitly distinguished from hypnotic past-life regression and instead described as arising through samadhi and jhana, as a kind of “whole-body remembering.” Whether one takes such accounts as evidence, testimony, or contemplative phenomenology, they show that the claim has not vanished from living practice.

This is also where John Tan’s remarks from a 2015 chat exchange become highly relevant. Lightly edited for readability without altering the original meaning, he stated:

“Go read Dr. Sam Parnia.”

“He is very good, like Ian Stevenson — a doctor dealing with death every day, with cardiac arrest and people pronounced clinically dead, and a respected person in his field.”

“Ian Stevenson’s books are scientific studies, not ‘science’ in the grandiose sense. He was a scientist, but he understood that science cannot prove something like this except by verification.”

“How is one to prove a past life except by verification?”

“There will always be doubt because the skeptic will always doubt.”

“There are only three ways: trust a respected expert, take it on religious faith, or practice and experience it yourself.”

“My approach is neither blind faith nor mere skepticism, but practice and listening to respected experts.”

That is more intellectually disciplined than it may sound at first. The core point is methodological: if you are dealing with claims about death, consciousness, and memory, then you should examine the work of those who document cases carefully and those who work directly in resuscitation medicine, not merely the opinions of cultural skeptics or enthusiasts.

And on that point, John Tan was not wrong about where to look. Sam Parnia is currently director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone and describes his work as focused on cardiac arrest, post-resuscitation syndrome, and the mental and cognitive experiences associated with cardiac arrest and end of life. Pim van Lommel, a Dutch cardiologist, published a prospective Lancet study of 344 successfully resuscitated cardiac-arrest patients in 10 Dutch hospitals. Peter Fenwick was a British neuropsychiatrist and neurophysiologist with longstanding research interests in brain function, the mind-brain relationship, and near-death and end-of-life experiences. None of this proves reincarnation by itself. But it does show that serious, medically trained researchers have thought there was enough here to investigate, and to do so in hospitals rather than in fantasy literature.

Ajahn Brahm presses a similar point from the contemplative side. In his October 19, 2001 talk Buddhism and Science, he uses a rhetorical physics analogy to emphasize that science should not dismiss anomalous evidence simply because it challenges the mainstream worldview.

Ajahn Brahmavamso said:

"If you had just one person who had been confirmed as medically dead who could describe to the doctors, as soon as they were revived, what had been said, and done during that period of death, wouldn't that be pretty convincing? When I was doing elementary particle physics there was a theory that required for its proof the existence of what was called the 'W' particle. At the cyclotron in Geneva, CERN funded a huge research project, smashing atoms together with an enormous particle accelerator, to try and find one of these 'W' particles. They spent literally hundreds of millions of pounds on this project. They found one, just one 'W' particle. I don't think they have found another since. But once they found one 'W' particle, the researchers involved in that project were given Nobel prizes for physics. They had proved the theory by just finding the one 'W' particle. That's good science. Just one is enough to prove the theory.

When it comes to things we don't like to believe, they call just one experience, one clear factual undeniable experience, an anomaly. Anomaly is a word in science for disconcerting evidence that we can put in the back of a filing cabinet and not look at again, because it threatens our world view. It undermines what we want to believe. It is threatening to our dogma. However, an essential part of the scientific method is that theories have to be abandoned in favour of the evidence, in respect of the facts. The point is that the evidence for a mind independent of the brain is there. But once we admit that evidence, and follow the scientific method, then many cherished theories, what we call 'sacred cows' will have to be abandoned.

...

If you want to look at the scientific evidence for rebirth, check out Professor Ian Stevenson. He spent his whole life researching rebirth on a solid scientific basis at the University of Virginia.[4] Chester Carlson, the inventor of xerography, (encouraged by his wife) offered funds for an endowed chair at the University to enabled Professor Stevenson to devote himself full-time to such research. If it weren't for the fact that people do not want to believe in rebirth, Dr. Ian Stevenson would be a world famous scientist now. He even spent a couple of years as a visiting fellow at Oxford, so you can see that this is not just some weird professor; he has all of the credentials of a respected Western academic.

Dr. Stevenson has over 3000 cases on his files. One interesting example was the very clear case of a man who remembered many details from his past life, with no way of gaining that information from any other source. That person died only a few weeks before he was reborn! Which raises the question, for all those months that the foetus was in the womb, who was it? As far as Buddhism is concerned, the mother kept that foetus going with her own stream of consciousness. But when another stream of consciousness entered, then the foetus became the new person. That is one case where the stream of consciousness entered the mother's womb when the foetus was almost fully developed. That can happen. That was understood by Buddhism twenty five centuries ago. If the stream of consciousness doesn't enter the mother's womb, the child is a stillborn. There is a heap of evidence supporting that.”

Thusness (2008) on Stage 3:

Associating 'death of I' with vivid luminosity of your experience is far too early. This will lead you into erroneous views because there is also the experience of practitioners by way of complete surrendering or elimination (dropping) like Taoist practitioners. An experience of deep bliss that is beyond that of what you experienced can occur. But the focus is not on luminosity but effortlessness, naturalness and spontaneity. In complete giving up, there is no 'I' ; it is also needless to know anything; in fact 'knowledge' is considered a stumbling block. The practitioner drops away mind, body, knowledge...everything. There is no insight, there is no luminosity there is only total allowing of whatever that happens, happen in its own accord. All senses including consciousness are shut and fully absorbed. Awareness of 'anything' is only after emerging from that state.

One is the experience of vivid luminosity while the other is a state of oblivious. It is therefore not appropriate to relate the complete dissolving of 'I' with what you experienced alone.

Related article on going from I AM to Nothingness: http://www.prahlad.org/disciples/premananda/essays/NISARGADATTA%20CONSCIOUSNESS%20AND%20AWARENESS.htm

Thusness's comments on Stage 3

04 OCTOBER 2008

AEN: Q: Is the "I Am" there all the time, as long as my body is there?
M: The "I Am" is absent only in the state of samadhi, when the self merges into the Self. Otherwise, it will be there. In the state of a realized person the "I Am" is there; he just doesn't give much importance to it. A jnani is not guided by a concept.
Feeling that I am present depends on having a body; I am neither the body nor the conscious presence.
In this body is the subtle principle "I Am"; that principle witnesses all this. You are not the words. Words are the expression of space, they are not yours. Still further, you are not that "I Am"
Q: As an individual can we go back to the source?
M: Not as an individual; the knowledge "I Am" must go back to its own source.
Now, consciousness has identified with a form. Later, it understands that it is not that form and goes further. In a few cases it may reach the space, and very often, there it stops. In a very few cases, it reaches its real source, beyond all conditioning.
It is difficult to give up that inclination of identifying the body as the self. I am not talking to an individual, I am talking to the consciousness. It is consciousness which must seek its source.
Out of that no-being state comes the beingness. It comes as quietly as twilight, with just a feel of "I Am" and then suddenly the space is there. In the space, movement starts with the air, the fire, the water, and the earth. All these five elements are you only. Out of your consciousness all this has happened. There is no individual. There is only you, the total functioning is you, the consciousness is you.
You are the consciousness, all the titles of the Gods are you names, but by clinging to the body you hand yourself over to time and death -- you are imposing it on yourself.
I am the total universe. When I am the total universe I am in need of nothing because I am everything. But I cramped myself into a small thing, a body; I made myself a fragment and became needful. I need so many things as a body. In the absence of a body, do you, and did you, exist? Are you, and were you, there or not? Attain that state which is and was prior to the body. Your true nature is open and free, but you cover it up, you give it various designs.
What he means by in a few cases it may reach the space?

Thusness: Not exactly good in my view.

AEN: I see. What is he trying to say?

Thusness: Trying to experience something like stage 3.

AEN: Yeah, he said about going into oblivion.
M: If you feel that sense of something, can it be the truth? When this consciousness goes into oblivion, who is to say what that state is?
Q: I don't know.
M: Because your "I Amness" is not there, you do not know yourself. When you began knowing that you are, you did a lot of mischief, but when the "I Am" is not there, there is no question of mischief.

Thusness: 'I Am' is not there when sense of self is not imputed on sensate reality.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: When we truly know what awareness is, there is no 'I Am'. That does not require being in a state of oblivion.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: What is important is to experience the one taste of oblivion and presence. Vividly present and gone thoroughly.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: When we see that all forms are emptiness, we have the one taste of all manifested states and no state.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: When we see to see all insubstantiality and essencelessness of forms are vividly luminous, seeing the texture and fabric, we see emptiness as form.

AEN: Oh yeah, Nisargadatta seems to see that dissolving of 'I AM' as a stage isn't it, he said it dissolves in samadhi otherwise it will be there. He said "I am the total universe. When I am the total universe I am in need of nothing because I am everything." This is like nondual right?

Thusness: Yes but that is not necessary. Dissolve in samadhi. A practitioner that experiences the 18 dhatus is buddha nature is in maha every moment. There is no concentration nor attention. Even swallowing saliva is maha. Great and magnificent. No sense of self is imputed, no samadhi to enter. Always Oneness, One Reality. One action. One sunya. :P

AEN: I see. "When you pursue the spiritual path, the path of self-knowing, all your desires, all your attachments, will just drop away, provided you investigate and hold on to that with which you are trying to understand the self. Then what happens? Your 'I-am-ness' is the state 'to be'. You are 'to be' and attached to that state. You love to be. Now, as I said, ... your desires drop off. And what is the primary desire? To be. When you stay put in that beingness for some time, that desire also will drop off. This is very important. When this is dropped off, you are in the Absolute -- a most essential state."
He's saying must drop off conscious presence also?

Thusness: Yes. But that is not the most essential state. It is necessary.

AEN: Necessary or not necessary? Oh you mean necessary but not the most essential state.

Thusness: Yes. That is not the absolute state. That is just another state. That is equally empty. That too will pass due to its emptiness nature and no purer than that 'I AM' state.

---

18 OCTOBER 2008

Thusness: There are different phases. Once the 'I' is gone, this quality of seeing as pure seeing without subject and object separation is non-dual experience. But the holding on to the witness prevents the direct experience of the transience. So rest in phenomena completely. Be phenomena-ing. Don't equate the two. See both as non-dual experiences, but resting completely in the transience, the phenomena-ing, is anatta and path you towards the insight of emptiness and Dependent Origination later. In later phase of your experience, this phase is most difficult to break-through. :) The former always become 'constant' while the later (anatta) is always essenceless, ever manifesting and changing. Although both has no sense of 'I', the former has not dissolved the tendency and the Dependent Origination nature is not seen.

AEN: Is this the difference between the non-dual experience and non-dual insight you mentioned? Like Ken Wilber is still non-dual experience right?

Thusness: Yes. There can be no such thing as changeless consciousness. Changelessness wipes out consciousness immediately. A man deprived of outer and inner sensations blanks out, or goes beyond consciousness and unconsciousness into the birthless and deathless state (Nisargadatta). The former experience will attempt to seek the above state. While Buddhism is not about that. It is to see all states are empty and experience the nirvana of sound, taste, an arising thought and all transience. As well as dream and deep sleep... hehe.

AEN: That is stage 3 right? I mean the go beyond conscious and unconscious.

Thusness: Yes but it is really stage 5. However due to the block of insight of Dependent Origination, the mind can only rest on phase 3. The experience is already stage 5. But misunderstood stage 3 as ultimate.
...
It is without the experience of 'I' but still rest in the Subject. You will see stage 4 onwards is all about resting in transience and nothing on Subject. All those practitioners even after non-dual experience if insight of anatta has not arisen will have the tendency towards the stage 3. All those practitioners even after non-dual experience and still sink back to the Subject, will have the tendency of skewing towards the stage 3.

---

22 APRIL 2018

John Tan: Lately I kept seeing articles and conversations relating to "nothingness" wonder why. The mysterious gate of taoism.

Soh Wei Yu: I see. Maybe you should write something about it..

John Tan: Taoist valley spirit is the opposite of clarity... it attempts to express the depth "source" of life.

Soh Wei Yu: I see. Sounds like Christianity? Was reading some Christian mystic website I think based on Father Thomas Keating. They are aware of I AM and witnessing but states that the goal of Christian contemplation is beyond that, is the source of that and will and doing. Or something like that.

John Tan: Nothingness. Even Nisargadatta. There is nothing to contemplate as it cannot be approached through a known mind. They call it contemplative prayer.

Soh Wei Yu: More like prayer.. or meditation.. don't know what is it. Maybe surrendering.

John Tan: Yes. The tao is the way. The way of always in Union with the "source". Or even yoga. One has to be aware of this dimension but nothing to seek. It is rather only in daily encounter and manifestation.

Soh Wei Yu: Union with source is like divine happening? Not my will but the source.

John Tan: Yes but we cannot approach the "unfathomable depth" through "knowing". Only moment to moment gnosis in seeing, feeling, thinking, tasting, hearing and smelling.

Soh Wei Yu: Knowing as in intellect?

John Tan: Yes intellect. The way to understanding the nature of aliveness and clarity is to fully "live" and "express".

Soh Wei Yu: I see.

John Tan: Taoism is unique in this sense in expressing this dark illumination.

Soh Wei Yu: How is it unique?

John Tan: It is not really interest in presence. But what is behind presence... when in deep sleep, where is awareness? So the valley spirit is often described as dark. How is this different from anatta?

Soh Wei Yu: Anatta does not see something behind presence but source is none other than manifestation.

John Tan: What does source is none other manifestation mean to you?

Soh Wei Yu: Means when hearing sound, I don’t see it arising out of a nothingness but sound springs from right where it is fully aliveness and full expression of life.

John Tan: First you must differentiate between experiential insight that there is nothing behind and directly experiencing presence as the 6 entries and exits. From seeing through conventions and how the mind mistaken. How the mind mistakes and reify conventions. How the mind attempt to fix and fit and explain in a "known" pattern according to its existing paradigm. What are the difference? And only when these 2 insights arise, practitioner can clearly understand and experience.

Soh Wei Yu: Insight that there is nothing behind is realising anatta, directly experience presence is all six senses is just PCE.

---

Nisargadatta on I AM and Stage 3 and 4

Soh Wei Yu: Nisargadatta guides people to I AM realization first, then the emphasis later is on Thusness Stage 3 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-comments.html
Also he had substantiated nondual insight but not anatta.
See: http://srinisargadattamaharaj.com/are-knower-and-witness/

Q: Another question. There is the person. There is the knower of the person. There is the witness. Are the knower and the witness the same, or are they separate states?
M: The knower and the witness are two or one? When the knower is seen as separate from the known, the witness stands alone. When the known and the knower are seen as one, the witness becomes one with them.
Q: Who is the jnani? The witness or the supreme?
M: The jnani is the supreme and also the witness. He is both being and awareness. In relation to consciousness he is awareness. In relation to the universe he is pure being.
Q: And what about the person? What comes first, the person or the knower.
M: The person is a very small thing. Actually it is a composite, it cannot be said to exist by itself. Unperceived, it is just not there. It is but the shadow of the mind, the sum total of memories. Pure being is reflected in the mirror of the mind, as knowing. What is known takes the shape of a person, based on memory and habit. It is but a shadow, or a projection of the knower onto the screen of the mind.
Q: The mirror is there, the reflection is there. But where is the sun?
M: The supreme is the sun.
Q: It must be conscious.
M: It is neither conscious nor unconscious. Don't think of it in terms of consciousness or unconsciousness. It is the life, which contains both and is beyond both.
Q: Life is so intelligent. How can it be unconscious?
M: You talk of the unconscious when there is a lapse in memory. In reality there is only consciousness. All life is conscious, all consciousness -- alive.
Q: Even stones?
M: Even stones are conscious and alive.
Q: The worry with me is that I am prone to denying existence to what I cannot imagine.
M: You would be wiser to deny the existence of what you imagine. It is the imagined that is unreal.
Q: Is all imaginable unreal?
M: Imagination based on memories is unreal. The future is not entirely unreal.
Q: Which part of the future is real and which is not?
M: The unexpected and unpredictable is real.
- Nisargadatta Maharaj - I am That

“...as long as the knower and the known are seen as separate, or believed to be separate, the witness stands apart. When the knower and the known are seen to be one, the witness is one with them and witnessing happens.”
- Nisargadatta Maharaj

http://nirgunjohn.com/The-Knower-and-the-Known-Are
Thusness's Comments on Nisargadatta / Stage 3
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Thusness's Comments on Nisargadatta / Stage 3

Soh Wei Yu: Nisargadatta’s insight into nondual one witnessing undivided by subject and object is like what I said years ago:

“between august 2010 and october 2010, when the observer and observed collapses into one witnessing undivided in terms of subject-object, it still felt like awareness is unchanging but inseparable from phenomena. that seems to be where you are at. that was before my anatta realization, where I clearly realised that seer-seeing-seen never applied to reality, that in seeing, there is just scenery/colors, no seer or seeing besides selfluminous colors, and the same for all other senses”

Also like what John Tan said in 2009:

2009

Thusness: Presence and arising are not separated. What is 'inseparable' here? At the non-dual level, at the anatta level or Dependent Origination level?

AEN: Nondual?

Thusness: You must observe and directly experience every arising in bare, raw and free from labelling first. Then upon analysis, there is still an observer and the observed. Until you are so clear in real time experience that the observer and the observed are one. Then you further investigate this experience if they are always one, why is there any separation in the first place? Why experience occasionally appears split?

AEN: Propensities?

Thusness: Continue this investigation and experience the split as well as the non-dual. Till you are thoroughly clear that observer and observed is merely an assumption. There is always only observation. Just one pure witnessing. This is the non-dual experience that you must have in order to understand the Advaita witnessing. One whole Experience. You do not say it is flowing through the Eye, there is absolutely no difference between the light and everything. The light is the everything. You must have this experience first. After this do not extrapolate, do not reify, do not abstract anything further. Any urge to go beyond, see with clarity it is the tendency... until you are able to rest completely first. I mean you must be able to rest deeply in this non-dual experience first then understand anatta and Dependent Origination from there. There is no denial of this non-dual Witnessing. It is only right understanding of this experience. Because of the inability of going beyond the dualistic framework, there is such "You are me" and "I am you" such erroneous concept by extrapolating an ultimate essence that all shares. This is what I do not want you to get into. But the dissolution of the split is most precious and important. I go to go eat.

AEN: Ok.. see ya.

Thusness: It is most important to realize that this Witnessing is by nature non-dual and has always been so but that has nothing to do with an ultimate nature. Having this non-dual experience has nothing to do with an ultimate nature. So not to extrapolate, reify, abstract anything further but rather allow complete resting in this non-dual state first and allow the tendency to extrapolate to settle. Because if we extrapolate and entertain this tendency, it blinds us further. In fact that is the cause of suffering. Despite this non-dual non-conceptual experience of the witnessing itself, we are still not free from the tendency to reify.

AEN: I see. Extrapolate means think conceptually?

Thusness: Many misunderstood that Dependent Origination denies freedom as it is 'dependent'. This is attempting to understanding Dependent Origination through a dualistic framework. In actual experience, Dependent Origination leads to liberation whereas attachment to an ultimate essence is the cause of suffering despite having clear and direct experience of the non-dual non conceptual aspect of Awareness. Extrapolate means deducing further than what is being actually experienced. I have always told you that "I AM" is a direct experience of Awareness. But you are telling people it does not exist. I am saying it is not the experience of our Buddha nature. I said that this experience is misunderstood. I told you many times that nothing is more precious than a direct touch of this luminous nature but no experience is more dangerous than misinterpreting this experience, this direct touch. When one is able to rest completely in this non-dual clarity then one is able to understand anatta and Dependent Origination more deeply. I didn't tell you that. I said first rest in this non-dual witnessing and not reify further till the tendency subsides. Now when you explain, you must also understand that whether you are using direct experience approach or using Dependent Origination approach, don't anyhow mixed the two. Is experience by nature non-dual?

AEN: Yeah.

Thusness: Then why is there the apparent split at all?

AEN: Due to propensities?

Thusness: So is the illusionary split real?

AEN: No it's just appearance.

Thusness: Then you are having an ultimate view.

AEN: How come?

Thusness: If illusionary split isn't there, then you would not be able to experience the split at all. If non-dual is always the case then how is the illusionary split possible?

AEN: By projection?

Thusness: No. Because whatever arises dependently originates. When you have the wrong views with the tendencies, experience appears divided. If illusion is inherently there, then freedom would not be possible. Similarly for non-dual, if it is inherently there, then illusionary split would not arise.

AEN: I see. But consciousness is by nature non dual right?

Thusness: But if you were talking to practitioners having direct non-dual experiences and when conditions weren't there, it is easier to lead one to the thorough experience of non-dual and later anatta insight.

AEN: I see. By the way if non dual is not inherently there then why do you say consciousness is by nature non dual?

Thusness: I say that is always dependent on one's experience. When it is non-conceptual and directly experienced, it is non-dual. When over-layered with labels and concepts, it always appears dualistic.

AEN: You said 'It is most important to realize that this Witnessing is by nature non-dual and has always been so'

Thusness: Yes witnessing. Not witness. In witnessing, it is always non-dual. When in witness, it is always a witness and object being witness. When there is an observer, there is no such thing as no observed. When you realised that there is only witnessing, there is no observer and observed. It is always non-dual. That is why when Genpo something said there is no witness only witnessing, yet taught the staying back and observed, I commented the path deviates from the view. When you teach experience the witness, you teach that. That is not about no subject-object split. You are teaching one to experience that witness. First stage of insight of the "I AM".

---

30 DECEMBER 2008

AEN: Nisargadatta said: As long as we imagine ourselves to be separate personalities, one quite apart from another, we cannot grasp reality which is essentially impersonal. First we must know ourselves as witnesses only, dimensionless and timeless centres of observation, and then realize that immense ocean of pure awareness, which is both mind and matter and beyond both. Have you felt the all-embracing emptiness in which the universe swims like a cloud in the blue sky? What is the difference between the witness and the ocean of pure awareness?

Thusness: There is no problem being the witness, the problem is only wrong understanding of what witness is. That is seeing duality in Witnessing. Or seeing 'Self' and other, subject-object division. That is the problem. You can call it Witnessing or Awareness, there must be no sense of self. Have you felt the all-embracing emptiness in which the universe swims like a cloud in the blue sky? Don't know what you meant. Do not say all embracing emptiness, it is misleading. As long as we imagine ourselves to be separate personalities, one quite apart from another, we cannot grasp reality which is essentially impersonal. First we must know ourselves as witnesses only --> okie. Dimensionless and timeless centres of observation, --> no good. And then realize that immense ocean of pure awareness -> Be careful with this sort of expression. Whether after the experience of impersonality of awareness, practitioner tend to extrapolate it into a common substratum. Which is both mind and matter and beyond both. -> dualistic way of expression but it is quite true.
...
What is the different between Nisargadatta's teaching and Dzogchen?

AEN: Emptiness?

Thusness: There is actually one very important experience that Nisargadatta kept emphasizing and that experience is very important for during non-meditation and self-liberation but not mentioned in most of the articles you cut and pasted in the forum. Go think about it.

AEN: Dissolving the sense of self?

Thusness: And that lead to what experience? You see many of the Dzogchen articles you pasted spoke of spontaneous arising and self liberation but miss out this experience.

AEN: The experience of oblivion?

Thusness: Nope. It is this experience plays a big role in making a practitioner thinks that we have or come from a common source. Nope.

AEN: Impersonality?

Thusness: What does impersonality lead to? I told you many times and pointed out few times to you.

AEN: A sense of oneness?

Thusness: Yes. 🙂 What is the experience like?

AEN: Don't know.

Thusness: It is a form of samadhi, the experience of maha.

AEN: Is it nonduality?

Thusness: When division and impersonality are dissolved, it is non-dual. Oneness is always experienced. And this oneness when experienced and understood correct will provide insight into our anatta nature. When wrongly understood, it mislead us into the belief of a common ground and source. Which leads to the difference between the idea of 'wave and ocean' and indra-net. Difference.

AEN: I see. But you said one can experience non personality and yet not non dual?

Thusness: Not anatta. Impersonality but not anatta or non-dual insight. Even when the experience of impersonality matures, it does not necessarily lead to the insight of anatta. That Awareness is a verb or a process. There is just One Chanting. There is just One breathing, one breath. Into one action...

AEN: I see.

Thusness: This maha or samadhi like experience appears to be a stage and when wrongly understood mislead one to conclude that we have a common ground. Because of the 'Oneness' experience. Being non-dual and impersonal and with the strength of the dualistic tendency, it is almost natural to draw such a conclusion.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: But when insight arises, it is seen that non-dual experiences are found in the most common and mundane activities. Like carry water and chop wood. Yet in chop wood and carry water, there is the experience of Oneness. And this is expressed in Zen. That in our most ordinary activities, non-dual is experienced.

AEN: The one action is like you said one action?

Thusness: Yes. This is an important aspect of self-liberation too. Or at least my third phase of spontaneous arising. 😛 I think I wrote in your awakeningtoreality blog I did mentioned about it last time.

AEN: Oh I see, when?

Thusness: It is the experience as if the universe is doing the work. This experience must be clear and obvious in what I call the phase of spontaneous arising. One must first have the insight of anatta and emptiness first.

---

21 JUNE 2010

AEN: http://www.naturalstate.us/pointers.html What do you think of this: When consciousness dawns upon arising from sleep, it is simply pure "knowing that I am". It is not individual, and is in fact, impersonal and unlimited. The notion of a limited self or "me" spins up in the subsequent conceptualizing in the mind after consciousness has already arisen. But don't forget that your real position is the ever-present reality on which waking (consciousness) and sleep (unconsciousness) both appear. A lot of people come up to the level of consciousness or recognizing the sense of being and take that as the absolute. Here they get stuck and mistake the dawn for the noon, so to speak. The "knowing that I am" or state of consciousness is the first eruption or modification on the absolute, eternal state. People generally miss the fact that consciousness is an intermittent appearance. It is the first modification on the absolute and the beginning of duality. What people are often expounding as reality is really the root of the illusion! What is prior to consciousness — which is what you really are — cannot properly be named. Whatever term is used is only a pointer. Sure, it may be pointed to as consciousness, awareness, being, emptiness, etc. but these are provisional pointers only. In the end, even these are discarded. Even statements like "I am consciousness", "consciousness is all there is", "there is no one here", etc., are only mental concepts. So don't settle for pointers! Let the pointers go and BE what is being pointed to. "many practitioners cannot know the difference and see the exact cause of arising and simply blah that there is no cause to it... you should be clear about it." - I just found a post that did the exact same thing by saying there is no cause and whatever you do is useless 😛 http://beingisknowing.blogspot.com/2010/06/nothing-works-never-did-never-will.html

Thusness: When we say cause, we are really saying predictable patterns, not a metaphysical something behind.

AEN: Oh I see... yeah, this guy is saying there is no predictable pattern or cause of an insight... and whatever you do is useless 😛 Then I wonder why he wrote that for 😛

Thusness: I see... that is advaita...

AEN: I see. You mean advaita generally teach that? They teach self inquiry right?

Thusness: Yeah... overwhelmed by the taste of presence, we wanted so much to make it 'independent' to suit our 'free will' and 'absolute' model of our dualistic paradigm, that is the mind created such a notion of Absolute Reality. This will only hinder our progress from further experiencing presence.

AEN: I see. By the way did you see this article - Deepak Chopra seems to be talking about the maha experience here http://www.anhglobal.org/en/node/591

Thusness: In my opinion, that is more theoretical then experiential.

AEN: I see. http://www.prahlad.org/disciples/premananda/essays/NISARGADATTA%20CONSCIOUSNESS%20AND%20AWARENESS.htm 

"3. Then I realize that if I subtract all the above, what is left? Only my sense of existing itself, my sense of presence, my sense of being here, the consciousness. I realize that I am that consciousness only, the feeling of existing. I must be THAT. What IS that? It is very subtle. But now I am coming closer. This is the realization of the mystical phrase "I am that I am." And along with this stage of realization comes the realization of my universality. This realization of the "I am" brings with it the explosive understanding that there is no such thing as an individual, the "I am" is universal, everyone and every living thing is feeling it the same way. We don't ourselves create our sense of "I am." Rather we inherit the prior existing sense of presence of the original beingness which spontaneously first appeared on the background of the void, or the object-less pure awareness. 4. When I am thus established in sense of identity with this universal sense of presence, or the "I am," I am at last poised for the final realization. Remember, the realization of the "I am" is already a very high state, and many will simply stop here to enjoy living in the universal personless beingness. This is the knowledge of God and the knowledge that I am God. But some rare ones keep going and keep questioning deeper and come to the breakthrough realization that ALL beingness, even the beingness of "God" is still a form of illusion and duality, and they will realize and move into and "become" the pure awareness only, giving up even that last and very high identity as the universal "I am." The consciousness will continue on no doubt, and the all the activities of life, but the identity of myself will now be fixed back at its original home, the pure awareness which was prior to consciousness. This last step is still incomprehensible to me but I love to think about it again and again. Many can give up the lesser false identifications, casting them off like tattered old clothes and stripping naked down to the singular universal consciousness. But who can give up that very sense of beingness itself? We LOVE to be, and fear terribly not being anymore. It is frightening! Looked at from a lower level the final realization seems like absolute and utter annihilation itself, and who on earth wants to be completely annihilated? Thus, very few rare souls ever realize the final realization! Above all, I WANT TO BE! Buddha became the Void itself and entered into the great nirvana. A friend of mine called it "The Great Suicide." Then one realizes the final incredible and terrifying reality: there is nothing. And though really and truly there is absolutely nothing, at the same time that nothingness is inexplicably filled to fullness with an indescribable "something which is not a thing," the pure awareness, the absolute, unaware of itself. That is the one and only "thing-which-is-not- a-thing" which is truly real. All else is false, a fraud made of spacetime, of things which begin and end and come and go, the Great Maha Maya, the dreams of the universal mind."

Is this talking about transiting from I AM to impersonality?

Thusness: No. This is phase 3 in terms of thoroughness and willingness of giving out even the sense of Presence... a phase to eliminate the ultimate block. Whatever experience that arises becomes secondary... it is an inner development to eliminate the last trace of 'Self/self' or clinging to the sense of 'I' but without any arising insight of non-dual or anatta. That sense of 'Self', that knot, that ultimate clinging, that ultimate attachment... we do not have to do away with it this way, it can be dissolved by the right view of emptiness. With that clinging to Presence, 'effortlessness' will not be truly understood. Any form of clinging, be it Self/self or Presence, will prevent a practitioner from correctly experiencing 'effortlessness'. This is the 4th aspect I want you to realize. However this person only sees the 'void'.

AEN: I see.

AEN: By the way what I pasted just now by John Wheeler on top is also on the void?

Thusness: John Wheeler is speculating with the attachment of Presence. That is, he wants to talk about the 'void' without giving up the sense of Presence.

AEN: I see.

---

Good video by A H Almaas:

24th May 2010 entry of my e-book:

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Your mirror-like awareness has no limitations, has no boundaries and edges. It does not belong to any object that appears on it. It does not belong to the body-mind object that you identify as 'yourself'. It does not belong to anything. But everything arises from that…

…Impersonal/Universal Awareness is animating or ‘powering’ the body and the personality like electricity is powering the TV to show the images on screen. Whatever happens on screen is ‘run’ only by the ‘power’ of the One Mind.

Everything and everyone is the spontaneous functioning of One Mind, there are no individual doers/actors/selves.

Just had a conversation with Thusness about this.

He told me that there is a problem of saying more than what is necessary, and that it comes from a clinging mind. That is, stripping off 'individuality' and 'personality' becoming a 'Universal Mind' is an extrapolation, a deduction. It is not direct experience like "in thinking just thoughts", "in perceptions just perceptions", "in seeing just the seen" - just 'what is'.

Similarly, when I experienced 'impersonality', it is just 'impersonality', but it becomes a 'Universal Mind' due to clinging which prevents seeing. And if I further reinforce this idea, it becomes a made belief and appears true and real.

Therefore, when I said 'impersonality', I am not being blinded as I am merely describing what I have experienced. This Mind is still an individual mindstream, and though impersonality leads one to have the sort of 'Universal Mind' kind of sensation, one must correctly understand it.

Buddhism never denies this mind stream, it simply denies the self-view. It denies separation, it denies an observer, a thinker. It denies a perfect controller, an independent agent. This is what 'Self' means, otherwise why is it a 'Self'? An individual mindstream remains as an individual mindstream, but it is nothing related to a Self.

Hence it is important to understand liberation from the right understanding, otherwise one gets confused. There is the experience of non-duality, Anatta, 'Tada' (https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2010/04/tada.html), Stainlessness (https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2010/04/stainlessness.html), but these have nothing to do with Self. Hence if one wants to understand Presence, then one must clearly and correctly understand Presence.

It is important to refine the understanding of Presence through the four aspects: impersonality, degree of luminosity, dissolving the need to re-confirm and understanding why it is unnecessary, and effortlessness.

These have no extrapolation and are what I am experiencing currently, and these require improvement so that one can progress from "I AM".

There is the experience of impersonality. It is the stripping off of the personality aspect, and it causes one to link to a higher force, as if a cosmic life is functioning within me, like what Casino_King (a forummer who posted many years ago in both the Christian and Buddhist forums) experienced and described - the impersonal life force, which he called Holy Spirit.

It is as if it is all the functioning of a higher power, that life is itself taking the functioning, so dissolving 'personality' somehow allows me to get 'connected'.

I agreed with Thusness and told him that just yesterday I remembered a Christian quote that is very apt in describing this aspect:

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." - Galatians 2:20

Thusness agrees and told me that it is about surrendering to this greater power, that it is not you, but the life in you that is doing the work. It is the key of getting 'connected' to a higher power, to a divine life, to a sacred power - and one wants to lose oneself for this divinity to work through us. And this is what Thusness meant by Thusness Stage 3 experience, the 'I' is the block, because of 'holding' one is unable to 'surrender' completely. When one completely surrenders, the divine will will become your 'will'.

This is not the non-dual sort of experience, nor is it about I AM or the Certainty of Being, nor is it about Anatta.

For example, "I AM" allows you to directly experience 'your' very own existence, the beingness, the innermost essence of 'You'.

A true and genuine practitioner must give rise to all these insights, and understand the causes and conditions that give rise to the experiences and not get mixed up. Many people get mixed up over different 'types' of 'no self'.

For example, no-self of non-dual, no-self of anatta, non-inherent existence and impersonality, are all not referring to the same experience - but rather they are different results of dissolving certain aspects of the tendencies.

Hence a practitioner must be sincere in his practice to clearly see, and not pretend that one knows. Otherwise, practice is simply more mix-up, confusion, and nonsense. It is not that it cannot be known, it is just that the mind isn't clear enough to see the causes and conditions of arising.

---

At my I AM phase, when I started experiencing impersonality, I had this conversation with John Tan:

5 JUNE 2010

Thusness: Certainty of being when you focus on the 4 aspects till the peak and with right understanding, you will also have the same experience as anatta and emptiness. When you felt that the will of the source becomes your will, you become life itself, that is the same experience. Actually all is the same experience except that Buddhism provides the right understanding. In the experience of "I AM" and the article you posted about the divine, what is the peak of experience phase?

AEN: Which article about divine? Hmm I am not sure.

Thusness: The article about the source after "I AM".

AEN: Is it like the 'sacred will of the world'? I mean the peak of experience.

Thusness: After glimpses and realization of the source, when the divine will becomes your will. You must be able to experience every manifestation as the grace of divine will. So must understand this in terms of direct experience and right view. :) I will talk to you when we meet. Do you know why there is the sensation of a 'divine will'?

AEN: Because the sense of self is being let go... and it is seen that everything is spontaneously arising from the source.

Thusness: And what is this 'source' that seems to be doing the work?

AEN: Consciousness, life?

Thusness: Isn't "I AM" the consciousness?

AEN: Yeah, but at the beginning it still feels like an individuated sense of presence... but then later it is seen as more impersonal, like everything is merely the expression of the source.

Thusness: First you must understand the separation is due to dualistic thought, thought separates. Do you know what is the 'divine' will? The sensation due to "the sense of self is being let go... and it is seen that everything is spontaneously arising from the source" causes the 'divine will'.

AEN: I see...

Thusness: What is the divine will?

AEN: It means it is happening due to the divine source, nothing is happening due to an individual will/agent/doer.

Thusness: When someone hit the bell, anything due to divine will?

AEN: It is also divine will because there is ultimately no separate person who acts, and no separate person who experiences... everything is manifested by the divine will... including every action that is spontaneously arising.

Thusness: When someone hit the bell, anything so divine?

AEN: It is a manifestation of consciousness.

Thusness: No good, no good. Because of the lack of understanding of your nature. Your nature is empty. What is this divine will? It is just DO [dependent origination]. Because we think in terms of entity and the 'weight of this dualistic and inherent' tendencies makes us feel separate and inherent. Instead of seeing 'DO', we see it as divine will. Not knowing empty nature, we mistaken DO for divine will. Not knowing no-self nature, we thought we are independent. When no-self is fully experienced and insight of anatta rises, you do not feel source as separated from 'you'. There is merely manifestation, empty luminosity. Empty as in DO and therefore does not require 'divine will', yet all manifests due to empty nature, effortless and spontaneous. There are conditions that are required for manifestations. A 'divine will' is not necessary.

AEN: I see...

Thusness: When a practitioner realizes no-self and anatta insight arises, he clearly sees conditions. There is no divine will to listen to, but whenever condition is, manifestation is. Slowly understand this. Do not see DO as something dead. See it as direct manifestation of your breathe just like you experience everything as the grace of this divine will. Feel this grace of life everywhere. Letting go of yourself completely and feel this life.

AEN: I see... I am writing my experience to lzls lol.

Thusness: Lol. In Chinese. The second experience is more of 天地同根，万物同体. (tian di tong gen, wan wu tong ti: heaven and earth have one root, ten thousand phenomena have the same substance). Clouded by '我相' (wo xiang, self image, egoity).

AEN: What do you mean?

Thusness: Means the second experience is more of a realization on the same source. Much like ?

AEN: I see... Why you said clouded by wo xiang?

Thusness: ? (xiang, image) is simply a construct. That is from a dualistic point of view, being 'connected' must always be the case. When you deconstruct personality, you merely discover. A practitioner must also be aware of the 'weight' of these constructs. From an empty point of view, when the tendency is there, it is also not right to say that the interconnected state is always there, always the case. Obviously 'you' are not 'connected'. When the 'construct' is strong, there is no such experience or when the 'personality' is there, there is no experience of '万物同体' (everything has the same substance/source). Or 'personality' is that very experience of individuality and therefore cannot have any experience of same 'source'. Get it?

AEN: I see... yeah.

Thusness: The former does not realize the causes and conditions for any arising. When we say it is always 'there' we are having 'absolute view'. If we cling to that, then that will prevent clear seeing. So what is the experience of 'individuality' like? It is the very experience of what practitioner before the 'connection' feel and understand. That is a state of reality, cannot be said to be determined or not.

AEN: I see... what you mean by that is a state of reality cannot be said to be determined or not. Hmm I think I get what you mean. So one must deconstruct the individuality otherwise there is no feeling of connection.

Thusness: Yes. For personality is the very state of individuality. What I want you to understand is not to have a pre-determined state.

AEN: I see... that means according to conditions we experience the connection, but it is not always there?

Thusness: Yes it is better to understand that way. Now when you experience certainty of being, you only experience the undeniability of your existence. Doubtless, certain and present. But being connected to the source is different. It will also determine your later phase of practice. If you are attached to the Presence, what happened?

AEN: Hmm. You mean when you are attached to Presence you will have difficulty seeing the connection?

Thusness: You wanted the state of Presence to transcend to the 3 states (waking, dreaming and sleeping) for you are only interested in that Certainty of Being. Whereas when you realized the source, you don't do that. You are surrendering much like the Christian. You are devoting. Nothing is important besides serving the divine. Sustaining the state of presence and devoting to a divine source is different. You sleep when it is time to sleep. Whatever thy will is. In Presence, you still think of control, in surrendering, you realized you are being lived. Awareness is being done. It is almost the opposite, but then there is also the integration.

AEN: I see... Actually I think if we let go of control completely the presence is also naturally there, there is no need to try to control presence.

Thusness: If you think that, that becomes a hindrance.

AEN: I see, how come?

Thusness: Because you are torn in between. You are serving 2 masters. :P Presence and source. But then there is also the integration where divine will becomes your will. Then in Jacob ladder meditation, after realization and experience of the grace, it must be found everywhere. Therefore you return to phase 1 of the ladder with new understanding. You are directly and intuitively experiencing all manifestations as the expression of life. Where you and the divine become one, where phenomena and the divine becomes indistinguishable, as transient, as inner and outer world.

AEN: I see...

Thusness: However that is because we are trying to express and understand this in an inherent and dualistic way. We speak in such a way because we are using a dualistic paradigm. And the experience seems difficult to reconcile and become seamless. So you must arise insight. You realized, what you call Self/self is just a label. This is very difficult to understand. Then you are not trapped in 'reconnection' or surrendering. You realized there is no-self (Soh: Thusness Stage 4 and 5). Whatever experienced is vividly present and aliveness everywhere because what that 'blocks' is no more there through the arising insight. Now how clear are you in directly experiencing sensation? In experiencing sound, color, sight, taste? The mind at present is more interested in the behind reality. So anatta transform the experience of individuality through insight, clear seeing. There is a difference in saying what you call Awareness has always been sight, sound, the scent of fragrance… and there is Awareness and there is sound, sight, taste… when you see and mature your insight of anatta, it is realized that wrong view is what that is causing the problem. However after that, you must practice directly.

AEN: What do you mean practice directly?

Thusness: Means you don't think theoretically too much after the arising insight of anatta, there is a difference between thinking that a Weather truly exist and the changing clouds, the rain exist inside weather. Get it? So when you took that to be real, it creates the problem of reification and intensifying the inherent existence of Self. If there is no-weight to the constructs, then there would be no problem. Unfortunately, constructs are like spells. :)

AEN: I see...

Thusness: Do you get what I meant? Just experience first. Feel this aliveness everywhere. In other words, what you realized is beyond ? (xiang4: [imputed] appearance), but you do not understand the impact of ? (xiang4: [imputed] appearance). Anyway you can send your article to your lzls for comments. :)" - June, 2010