John Tan: Why is he talking about 靈妙覺體 [spiritual and marvellous body of awareness]

Soh Wei Yu: It's just the luminosity? What do you mean

John Tan: There is no denial of clarity or luminosity, it is the singling out of luminosity that is the problem. Why is luminosity luminous? It is an irrelevant question. There is no such [inherently existing] clarity Because of inherent thought, we understand 靈妙覺體 [spiritual and marvellous body of awareness] as standalone, singled out from DO (Dependent Origination) or otherwise we are understanding it as "interaction". Or if conceptuality is a problem then non-conceptuality must be the solution. Or subsuming object into subject or subject into object… It is addressing this way of thinking, of understanding is a misperception. It is not to imply that there is no clarity… but what is clarity when it is not understood using this flawed mode of perception. In Buddhism, it is not how. It's always under what conditions such phenomena arises. So when this cause & condition persists, the phenomena will arise. First is to bring out the point to ask why appearances "arises" in Awareness is the same as asking why is awareness aware in awareness teaching. Why so? For the convention we call awareness is only ever appearances. Then address what is flawed mode of perception… As I have given above. So why does appearances appear to arise in Awareness? Because of ignorance

John Tan: If Buddha asks Ananda, where is mind… if mind is not outside, not inside, not in the middle, not within the body… then is he Ananda going to think that Buddha doesn't dare to affirm where is the mind? Then Ananda will never know the meaning of DO. And the problem of how inherent thought blinds one from seeing and having direct experiential insight of what is meant by freedom from extreme.

John Tan: When you present to 不思, you must not deny 觉 (awareness). But emphasized how 覺 (awareness) is effortlessly and marvelously manifests without the slightest sense of referencing and point of centricity and duality and subsuming… be it here, now, in, out… this can only come from realization of anatta, DO and emptiness so that the spontaneity of 相 (appearance) is realized to one's radiance clarity.

Thusness: Buddhism stresses more on direct experience. There is no-self apart from the arising and ceasing

AEN: I see…

Thusness: And from arising and ceasing one sees the emptiness nature of 'Self' There is Witnessing. Witnessing is the manifestation. There is no witness witnessing manifestation. That is Buddhism. I have always said it is not the denial of eternal witness. But what exactly is that eternal witness? It is the real understanding of eternal witness.

AEN: Yes I thought so So it's something like David Carse right

Thusness: Without the 'seeing' and 'veil' of momentum, of reacting to propensities.

AEN: Emptiness, yet luminous I see.

Thusness: However when one quote what buddha said, does he understand first of all. Is he seeing eternal witness as in the advaita?

AEN: He's probably confused

Thusness: Or is he seeing free from propensities.

AEN: He never explicitly mention but I believe his understanding is something like that

Thusness: So there is no point quoting if it is not seen.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Otherwise it is just saying the atman view again. So you should be very clear by now… and not to be confused.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: What have I told you? You have also written in your blog. What is eternal witness? It is the manifestation… moment to moment of arising Does one see with the propensities and what is really it? That is more important. I have said so many times that the experience is correct but the understanding is wrong. Wrong view. And how perception influence experience and wrong understanding. So don't quote here and there with just a snap shot… Be very very clear and know with wisdom so that you will know what is right and wrong view. Otherwise you will be reading this and get confused with that. It is not to deny the existence of the luminosity The knowingness. But rather to have the correct view of what consciousness is. Like non-dual, I said there is no witness apart from the manifestation, the witness is really the manifestation This is the first part Since the witness is the manifestation, how is it so? How is the one is really the many?

AEN: Conditions?

Thusness: Saying that the one is the many is already wrong. This is using conventional way of expression. For in reality, there is no such thing of the 'one' And the many There is only arising and ceasing due to emptiness nature And the arising and ceasing itself is the clarity. There is no clarity apart from the phenomena If we experience non-dual like Ken Wilber and talk about the atman. Though the experience is true, the understanding is wrong. This is similar to "I AM". Except that it is higher form of experience. It is non-dual.

Thusness: Yes Actually practice is not to deny this 'Jue' (awareness) The way you explained as if 'there is no Awareness'. People at times mistaken what you are trying to convey, but to correctly understand this 'jue' so that it can be experienced from all moments effortlessly. But when a practitioner heard that it is not 'IT', they immediately began to worry because it is their most precious state. All the phases written is about this 'Jue' or Awareness. However what Awareness really is isn't correctly experienced. Because it isn't correctly experienced, we say that 'Awareness that you try to keep' does not exist in such a way. It does not mean there is no Awareness.

Thusness: It is not that there is no awareness. It is understanding awareness not from a subject/object view Not from an inherent view. That is dissolving subject/object understanding into events, action, karma Then we gradually understand that the 'feeling' of someone there is really just a 'sensation' of an inherent view Means a 'sensation', a 'thought' of an inherent view:P How this lead to liberation requires the direct experience So liberation it is not freedom from 'self' but freedom from 'inherent view'

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Get it? But it is important to experience luminosity

Thusness: Not bad for self-enquiry

AEN: I see… By the way what do you think Lucky and Chandrakirti is trying to convey

Thusness: Those quotes weren't really well translated in my opinion. What needs be understood is 'No I' is not to deny Witnessing consciousness. And 'No Phenomena' is not to deny Phenomena It is just for the purpose of 'de-constructing' the mental constructs.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: When you hear sound, you cannot deny it… can you?

AEN: Yes

Thusness: So what are you denying? When you experience the Witness as you described in your thread 'certainty of being', how can you deny this realization? So what is does 'no I' and 'no phenomena' mean?

AEN: Like you said it's only mental constructs that are false… But consciousness can't be denied?

Thusness: No… I am not saying that Buddha never denied the aggregates Just the selfhood The problem is what is meant by 'non-inherent', empty nature, of phenomena and 'I'

Thusness: But understanding it wrongly is another matter can you deny Witnessing? Can you deny that certainty of being?

AEN: No

Thusness: Then there is nothing wrong with it how could you deny your very own existence? How could you deny existence at all 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 Not after the experience, deviate from the right view, re-enforce your wrong view You do not deny the witness, you refine your insight of it what is meant by non-dual What is meant by non-conceptual what is being spontaneous what is the 'impersonality' aspect What is luminosity. You never experience anything unchanging In later phase, when you experience non-dual, there is still this tendency to focus on a background… And that will prevent your progress into the direct insight into the TATA as described in the tata article. And there are still different degree of intensity even you realized to that level.

AEN: Non-dual?

Thusness: tada (an article) is more than non-dual… it is phase 5-7

AEN: I see…

Thusness: It is all about the integration of the insight of anatta and emptiness Vividness into transience, feeling what I called 'the texture and fabric' of Awareness as forms is very important then come emptiness The integration of luminosity and emptiness Do not deny that Witnessing but refine the view, that is very important So far, you have correctly emphasized the importance of witnessing Unlike in the past, you gave people the impression that you are denying this witnessing presence You merely deny the personification, reification and objectification So that you can progress further and realize our empty nature. But don't always post what I told you in MSN In no time, I will become sort of cult leader

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Anatta is no ordinary insight. When we can reach the level of thorough transparency, you will realize the benefits Non-conceptuality, clarity, luminosity, transparency, openness, spaciousness, thoughtlessness, non-locality… all these descriptions become quite meaningless.

Thusness: It is always witnessing… don't get it wrong just whether one understands its emptiness nature or not. There is always luminosity since when there is no witnessing? It is just luminosity and emptiness nature not luminosity alone There is always this witnessing… it is the divided sense that you have to get rid That is why I never deny the witness experience and realization, just the right understanding

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. 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

AEN: I see…

Thusness: 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" Are you denying the "I AMness" experience?

AEN: You mean in the post? No It's more like the nature of 'I am' right

Thusness: What is being denied?

AEN: The dualistic understanding?

Thusness: Yes it is the wrong understanding of that experience. Just like 'redness' of a flower.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: Vivid and seems real and belongs to the flower. It only appears so, it is not so. When we see in terms of subject/object dichotomy, it appears puzzling that there is thoughts, no thinker. There is sound, no hearer and there is rebirth, but no permanent soul being reborn. It is puzzling because of our deeply held view of seeing things inherently where dualism is a subset of this 'inherent' seeing. So what is the problem?

AEN: I see… The deeply held views?

Thusness: Yes What is the problem?

AEN: Back

Thusness: The problem is the root cause of suffering lies in this deeply held view. We search and are attached because these views. This is the relationship between 'view' and 'consciousness'. There is no escape. With inherent view, there is always 'I' and 'Mine'. There is always 'belongs' like the 'redness' belongs to the flower. Therefore despite all transcendental experiences, there is no liberation without right understanding.

Thusness: By the way, you should not tell people about there is no such witness exist.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: It is right understanding of what witness is all about.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: “Today I noticed that trying to remove perceived unclear thoughts and confusion has nothing to do with the unstained awareness that is already so.” what have you understood?

AEN: Awareness is not affected by any particular thoughts?

Thusness: Meaning? There is awareness and there is thoughts? And awareness is not affected by thoughts? By the way what is meant by affected?

AEN: Means it's still present regardless what is arising

Thusness: Means you are referring to the state of presence?

AEN: Yes.. Presence and knowingness

Thusness: What is inseparability to you? Do you understand "inseparable" only at the conceptual level and stop at just the "meaning" of it? Just simply knowing by definition? Or at the non-conceptual level? Is your understanding at the level of direct experience which is non-conceptual or conceptual?

AEN: Think still more towards conceptual

Thusness: Presence and arising are not separated

AEN: I see.

Thusness: What is 'inseparable' here? At the non-dual level, at the anatta level or DO 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

AEN: I see…

Thusness: 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.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: 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.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: 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.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: 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 DO from there. There is no denial of this non-dual Witnessing. It is only right understanding of this experience.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: 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.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: I have to go makan

AEN: Ok.. See you

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.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: 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 the tendency to reify.

AEN: I see… Extrapolate means think conceptually?

Thusness: Many misunderstood that DO denies freedom as it is 'dependent'. This is attempting to understanding DO through a dualistic framework. In actual experience, DO 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

AEN: I see…

Thusness: 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.

John Tan: “In zen though they say there is no mind, they in fact embrace mind more fully than all is mind, until no trace of mind can be detected. Yet [Ven.] Sheng Yen said this is just the entry point of zen because originally there is no mind and this is clearly realized in anatta. So post anatta, mind and phenomena are completely indistinguishable. If both mind and phenomena are completely indistinguishable in experience, then distinctions are nothing more than conventional designation of empty luminous display.

Soh Wei Yu: I see… By the way did Sheng Yen realise anatta?

John Tan: So you must know when we say no awareness, no self, no I, it doesn't mean nothing. It is seeing through the background construct and open the gate to directly taste, experience and effortlessly authenticate clarity. I believe so but he did not talk about his experience except the stanza before his death that is beautiful. “无事忙中老，空里有哭笑，本来没有我，生死皆可抛” 台湾高僧圣严法师圆寂 (Busy with nothing till old. (无事忙中老) In emptiness, there is weeping and laughing. (空里有哭笑) Originally there never was any 'I'. (本来没有我) Thus life and death can be cast aside. (生死皆可抛)) - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/…/differentiate…

Interviewer: "And not only awareness…"

Daniel: "Intelligence. Right, and I also reject from an experiential point of view the people who would make this permanent, something separate from, something different from just the manifestation itself. I don't like the permanence aspect because from a Buddhist technical point of view I do not find anything that stands up as permanent in experience. I find that quality always there *while there is experience.* Because it's something in the nature of experience. But it's not quite the same thing as permanence, if that makes sense. So while there is experience, there is experience. So that means there is awareness, from a certain point of view, manifestation - awareness being intrinsically the same thing, intrinsic to each other. So while there is experience, I would claim that element (awareness) is there - it has to be for there to be experience. And I would claim that the system seems to function very lawfully and it's very easy to feel that there's a sort of intelligence, ok, cool… the feeling of profundity, the feeling of miraculousness, the wondrous component. So as the Tibetans would say, amazing! It all happens by itself! So, there is intrinsically amazing about this. It's very refreshingly amazing that the thing happens, and that things cognize themselves or are aware where they are, manifestation is truly amazing and tuning into that amazingness has something valuable about it from a pragmatic point of view."

John: But experientially same but just the degree of right understanding Not exactly one mind Do you feel everything as Self now? As in that experience of I M powerfully present at this moment

Soh Wei Yu: Yes presence, but as change

John: As if like Awareness clear and open like space, without meditation yet powerfully present and non-dual Where the 4 Aspects of I M are fully experienced in this moment

Soh Wei Yu: Yes I think the four aspects is only fully experienced after nondual and anatta, especially effortlessness and no need to abide

John: This experience will become more and more powerful later yet effortless and uncontrived How so? If it is not correct insights and practice, how is it possible for such complete and total experience of effortless and uncontrived Presence be possible?

Soh Wei Yu: I do not see it is possible without the proper insights and practice In anatta every activity is it, is buddha nature, so no contrivance at all No need to meditate to get anywhere But meditation is still important to cultivate certain aspects like tranquility

John: Indeed and this is being authenticated by the immediate moment of experience. How could there be doubt about it. The last trace of Presence must be released with seeing through the emptiness nature of whatever arises.

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

John: After maturing and integrating your insights into practice, there must be no effort and action… The entire whole is doing the work and arises as this vivid moment of shimmering appearance, this has always been what we always called Presence.

John Tan: By the way, are experiences (appearances), immensely crystal, brilliance and sharp..without any background… so crystal that a sense of transparency arises? It must be a natural and effortless In normal circumstances, having enough rest and relax… without need to meditate… natural and relax Not when you are busy So crystal that there is always this sense of absorption Openness like space, clear and boundless In later phase, it must be even stronger than the initial phase (Soh: of anatta) You need to have enough rest and if possible take more vegetables

Soh Wei Yu: I'm eating durian chendol in malacca Famous shop here very nice The shop is playing jing kong fa shi vcd He talks about an unborn undying ling xing - spirit That which reborns in six realms he says is not the body but the ling xing spirit It is that which goes to pure land Haha

John Tan: His view is more substantial view. Buddhism does not deny luminous clarity, in fact, it is to have total, uncontrived, direct non-referential of clarity in all moments… therefore no-self apart from manifestation. Otherwise one is only holding ghost images. So understanding a spirit traveling in the 6 realms is different from recognizing these realms are nothing more than one's radiance clarity.

John Tan: “The Absolute as separated from the transience is what I have indicated as the 'Background' in my 2 posts to theprisonergreco. 84. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4] Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT Hi theprisonergreco, First is what exactly is the ‘background’? Actually it doesn’t exist. It is only an image of a ‘non-dual’ experience that is already gone. The dualistic mind fabricates a ‘background’ due to the poverty of its dualistic and inherent thinking mechanism. It ‘cannot’ understand or function without something to hold on to. That experience of the ‘I’ is a complete, non-dual foreground experience. When the background subject is understood as an illusion, all transience phenomena reveal themselves as Presence. It is like naturally 'vipassanic' throughout. From the hissing sound of PC, to the vibration of the moving MRT train, to the sensation when the feet touches the ground, all these experiences are crystal clear, no less “I AM” than “I AM”. The Presence is still fully present, nothing is denied. -:) So the “I AM” is just like any other experiences when the subject-object split is gone. No different from an arising sound. It only becomes a static background as an afterthought when our dualistic and inherent tendencies are in action. The first 'I-ness' stage of experiencing awareness face to face is like a point on a sphere which you called it the center. You marked it. Then later you realized that when you marked other points on the surface of a sphere, they have the same characteristics. This is the initial experience of non-dual. Once the insight of No-Self is stabilized, you just freely point to any point on the surface of the sphere -- all points are a center, hence there is no 'the' center. 'The' center does not exist: all points are a center. After then practice move from 'concentrative' to 'effortlessness'. That said, after this initial non-dual insight, 'background' will still surface occasionally for another few years due to latent tendencies… 86. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4] To be more exact, the so called 'background' consciousness is that pristine happening. There is no a 'background' and a 'pristine happening'. During the initial phase of non-dual, there is still habitual attempt to 'fix' this imaginary split that does not exist. It matures when we realized that anatta is a seal, not a stage; in hearing, always only sounds; in seeing always only colors, shapes and forms; in thinking, always only thoughts. Always and already so. -:) Many non-dualists after the intuitive insight of the Absolute hold tightly to the Absolute. This is like attaching to a point on the surface of a sphere and calling it 'the one and only center'. Even for those Advaitins that have clear experiential insight of no-self (no object-subject split), an experience similar to that of anatta (First emptying of subject) are not spared from these tendencies. They continue to sink back to a Source. It is natural to reference back to the Source when we have not sufficiently dissolved the latent disposition but it must be correctly understood for what it is. Is this necessary and how could we rest in the Source when we cannot even locate its whereabout? Where is that resting place? Why sink back? Isn't that another illusion of the mind? The 'Background' is just a thought moment to recall or an attempt to reconfirm the Source. How is this necessary? Can we even be a thought moment apart? The tendency to grasp, to solidify experience into a 'center' is a habitual tendency of the mind at work. It is just a karmic tendency. Realize It! This is what I meant to Adam the difference between One-Mind and No-Mind.” - John Tan, 2009, excerpt from Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience

John: What is "I AM"? Is it a PCE? (Soh: PCE = pure consciousness experience, see glossary at the bottom of this document.) Is there emotion? Is there feeling? Is there thought? Is there division or complete stillness? In hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound! So what is "I AM"?

Soh Wei Yu: It is the same just that pure non-conceptual thought

John: Is there 'being'?

Soh Wei Yu: No, an ultimate identity is created as an afterthought

John: Indeed it is the mis-interpretation after that experience that is causing the confusion that experience itself is pure conscious experience there is nothing that is impure that is why it is a sense of pure existence it is only mistaken due to the 'wrong view' so it is a pure conscious experience in thought. Not sound, taste, touch… etc PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) is about direct and pure experience of whatever we encounter in sight, sound, taste… The quality and depth of experience in sound in contacts in taste in scenery has he truly experienced the immense luminous clarity in the senses? If so, what about 'thought'? When all senses are shut the pure sense of existence as it is when the senses are shut. Then with senses open, have a clear understanding. Do not compare irrationally without clear understanding.

Thusness: You don't think that "I AMness" is low stage of enlightenment The experience is the same. It is just the clarity. In terms of insight. Not experience.

AEN: I see…

Thusness: So a person that has experience "I AMness" and non-dual is the same. Except the insight is different.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Non-dual is every moment there is the experience of presence. Or the insight into the every moment experience of presence. Because what prevents that experience is the illusion of self and "I AM" is that distorted view. The experience is the same. Didn’t you see I always say there is nothing wrong with that experience to longchen, jonls… I only say it is skewed towards the thought realm. So don't differentiate but know what is the problem. I always say it is misinterpretation of the experience of presence. Not the experience itself. But "I AMness" prevents us from seeing.

Thusness: By the way, do you know about Hokai's description and "I AM" being the same experience?

AEN: The watcher right

Thusness: No. I mean the Shingon practice of the body, mind, speech into one.

AEN: Oh that's I am experience?

Thusness: Yes, except that the object of practice is not based on consciousness. What is meant by foreground? It is the disappearance of the background and what's left is it. Similarly the "I AM" is the experience of no background and experiencing consciousness directly. That is why it is just simply "I-I" or "I AM"

AEN: I've heard of the way people describe consciousness as the background consciousness becoming the foreground… So there's only consciousness aware of itself and that's still like I AM experience

Thusness: That is why it is described that way, awareness aware of itself and as itself.

AEN: But you also said I AM people sink to a background?

Thusness: Yes

AEN: Sinking to background = background becoming foreground?

Thusness: That is why I said it is misunderstood. And we treat that as ultimate.

AEN: I see. But what hokai described is also nondual experience right

Thusness: I have told you many times that the experience is right but the understanding is wrong. That is why it is an insight and opening of the wisdom eyes. There is nothing wrong with the experience of I AM". Did I say that there is anything wrong with it?

AEN: Nope

Thusness: Even in stage 4 what did I say?

AEN: It's the same experience except in sound, sight, etc

Thusness: Sound as the exact same experience as "I AM"… As presence.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Yes.

Soh Wei Yu：

所谓“离散而不相连接”，意思是：并没有一个从一刹那被带到下一刹那、或从一刹那持续到下一刹那的底层基质、连接主体或承载媒介。它并不是以否定相互依存的意义来说“离散而不相连接”。

譬如，如果你有一种感觉：“上一个念头来了，这个念头到来了，下一个念头正在到来，但‘我是’始终恒常，或‘当下’始终不动”，那就不是“离散而无所依托”。

但是，虽然它们在本性上是离散、无所依托、无根基的，并非由任何连接主体所产生，一个人还必须进一步透入那个离散的念头、感受或经验的全体作用。随后，还可能看见其中运作的业缘（这一点在新吠檀多圈子里完全被忽略）：

如 Thusness 以前所写：

这个正在生起的念头与前一个念头，是相同还是不同？

这个正在生起的念头与前一个念头，是依存的，还是完全独立的？

超越两边，见到缘起的中道。

……

深入透入以下几个方面：

1. 一个生起之念头如咒般的惊人力量。
   清楚了解这个生起之念头的力量及其含义。这是一切奥秘中最奥秘者。当这个生起之念头以二元、实有的方式看，一切就显得无限分离、彼此隔绝。这就是关键所在。
2. 深入观照由二元与实有之念头所导致的痛苦之因，而不是只说念头自解脱；要透入痛苦的“因与缘”。
   当一个生起之念头以二元方式看时，整个经验如何被塑造。
   当一个生起之念头以实有方式看时，整个经验如何已经改变。
   以此为因时，会发生什么；没有它时，又会发生什么。
3. 并不是以意志把二元与实有之念头关掉；那会是我见。
   如果没有造作者性，是否可能克服？
   由此了解：一个生起之念头不只是一个生起之念头，而是全体作用与整条缘起条件之链都在运作。要以直接经验清楚了解我见与缘起原则之间的差别。所谓克服，并不是通过我见式的方法，而是通过了解缘起原则。

— Thusness

Soh Wei Yu：

如 Thusness 在 2014 年所写：“如果我们继续寻找两个念头刹那之间的承载媒介，对无我（anatta）的深刻洞见就不会生起，非局域性也不会显现。我们的感知模式会被以实有方式理解事物的习性所遮蔽。”

这也关系到许多人提出的轮回问题，因为佛陀教导轮回。在印度教中，jīva（个体灵魂）是死后持续存在并转世的媒介，直到它们通过真我证悟而被梵完全吸纳并融入其中。但如果在佛教中没有灵魂，也完全没有任何小我/大我，那么若没有“承载媒介”，到底是什么在受生？

实际上，只是行动、习气，以及这些行动（业）与习气的显现和反应在相续运作而已；从一刹那到下一刹那如此，从一生到另一生亦如此。这与今生之中刹那刹那正在发生的受生并无不同。

Soh Wei Yu：

在《弥兰王问经》（Milindapañha）中，国王问那先尊者：

“尊者，将会受生的是什么？”

“名色的组合（nāma-rūpa），大王。”

“但是，尊者，如何如此？它是否就是现在这个名色组合？”

“不是，大王。但是现在这个名色组合产生善与不善的业性意志活动；由于这样的业，一个新的名色组合将会受生。”

— 《弥兰王问经》

《清净道论》：

唯有苦而已，不见有受苦者；
诸业存在，却无造业者；
涅槃存在，却无入涅槃之人；
道存在，却不见有行道者。

在一切处、一切存在界中，圣弟子只见到由因果相续所维持的名法与色法。除了业之外，他不见有造作意志行为或业的作者；除了果报之外，也不见有业果的受者。他很清楚：智者们只是使用世俗语言，当他们就业行而说有作者，或就业果而说有受果者。

不见造业者，
亦无受其果者；
空法相续流转：
唯此是正见。

当诸业及其果报，
皆依因缘相续流转，
无有最初的开端可得，
正如种子与树亦然。……

无有神，无有梵天，
可称为此生命之轮的造作者：
空法相续流转，
一切皆依因缘而起。

— 《清净道论》

Soh Wei Yu：

Malcolm 刚写了一篇相关帖子。https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=30102...

Soh Wei Yu：

圣龙树《缘起心要颂》

印度语：pratītyasamutpāda hṛdaya kārikā

藏语：རྟེན་ཅིང་འབྲེལ་པར་འབྱུང་བའི་སྙིང་པོའི་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ།, (rten cing 'brel par 'byung ba'i snying po tshig le'ur byas pa)

顶礼文殊童子！

这些不同的支分，共有十二，
佛陀教导为缘起，
可摄为三类：
烦恼、业与苦。

第一、第八、第九为烦恼，
第二与第十为业，
其余七支为苦。
如是，十二支摄为三。

由三生二，
由二生七，
由七又生三——
如是有轮辗转不息。

一切众生皆由因与果而成，
其中根本没有“众生”可得。
从唯是空的诸法，
只生起空的诸法。
一切事物皆无任何“我”或“我所”。

如诵读、灯烛、镜子、印章，
放大镜、种子、酸味，或声音，
诸蕴的相续亦复如是——
智者应知它们并未转移。

随后，至于极微细的实体，
那些以断灭论看待它们的人，
由于缺乏精确而彻底的了知，
将不会见到缘起的实义。

在此，没有任何一物需要去除，
也没有丝毫一物需要添加。
这是完美地直观实相本身，
而当实相被见到时，即得完全解脱。

由阿阇梨圣龙树所造《缘起心要》诸颂至此圆满。

| Adam Pearcey 译，2008 年。

Soh Wei Yu：

店里正在播放净空法师的 VCD。他谈到一个不生不灭的灵性——spirit（灵）。他说，在六道中轮回/受生的不是身体，而是灵性。往生净土的也是它。哈哈。

John Tan：

他的知见更偏向实体化。

佛教并不否定光明清澈；事实上，它所指向的是在一切时刻中，全然、无造作、直接而无所指涉地体认清澈……因此，并无离显现而别立的自我。

否则，人只是执持幽灵般的影像。

所以，把“一个灵在六道中旅行”这样理解，与认识这些界域不过是自身的明澈光辉，是不同的。

Soh Wei Yu：

是啊。我以前也对 Truth 这么说过，因为他问起。

John Tan：

关于净空法师？

Soh Wei Yu：

明白。是啊，Truth 认为净空法师在误导人，而且是在替魔做事，哈哈。

John Tan：

他以前是净空的追随者，对吧？

Soh Wei Yu：

我告诉他，净空是在从“我是”的角度和一心的角度说话。所以他在所有宗教中都看见同一个神，并且说印度教中的梵与佛教中的佛性是一样的。我不这么认为。

John Tan：

明白。

John Tan: 他为什么在谈靈妙覺體 [spiritual and marvellous body of awareness，灵妙觉体]？

Soh Wei Yu: 这只是明性吗？你的意思是什么？

John Tan: 并不是否定明晰或明性；问题在于把明性单独拎出来。为什么明性是明的？这是一个不相干的问题。并没有这样一个[自性存在的]明晰。由于自性化的思维，我们把靈妙覺體 [spiritual and marvellous body of awareness，灵妙觉体]理解成独立自存、从缘起中被单独拎出来；否则，我们又会把它理解成“互动”。或者，如果概念性是问题，那么无概念性就必定是解决方案。又或者，把客体并入主体，或把主体并入客体……它所要处理的，正是这种思考方式、这种理解方式本身就是误认。它并不是暗示没有明晰……而是问：当不再用这种有缺陷的感知模式来理解时，明晰是什么？在佛教中，重点不是“如何”。重点总是在何种因缘下此现象生起。所以，当这些因与缘持续时，现象就会生起。首先要指出的是：问为什么显现在觉知中“生起”，这与在觉知教法中问为什么觉知在觉知中觉知，是同一类问题。为什么？因为我们约定俗成所称的觉知，从来就只是显现。然后再处理什么是有缺陷的感知模式……如我上面所说。所以，为什么显现看似在觉知中生起？因为无明。

John Tan: 如果佛陀问阿难：心在哪里……如果心不在外、不在内、不在中间、不在身中……那么阿难是不是会以为佛陀不敢肯定心在哪里？那样阿难就永远不会知道缘起的意义，也不会知道自性化思维如何遮蔽一个人，使他不能看见并亲证什么是离边的自由。

John Tan: 当你向不思表达时，你绝不能否定觉（awareness）。但要强调的是，觉（awareness）如何毫不费力、奇妙地显现，而没有丝毫参照、中心点、二元对立与并入——不论是这里、现在、内、外……这只能来自对无我、缘起与空性的证悟，如此，相（显现）的任运性才会被了悟为自身的光明显晰。

Thusness: 佛教更强调直接经验。离开生灭之外，并没有一个自我。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 并且，从生灭之中，一个人看见“自我”的空性。有见证。见证就是显现。并没有一个见证者在见证显现。这就是佛教。我一直说，这并不是在否定永恒见证者。但那个永恒见证者究竟是什么？这是对永恒见证者的真正理解。

AEN: 是的，我也是这样想。所以它有点像 David Carse，对吗？

Thusness: 没有那种“看见”与“遮蔽”的惯性，没有对习气的反应。

AEN: 空性，却又光明。我明白。

Thusness: 然而，当一个人引用佛陀所说的话时，他首先是否理解？他是否是在以 Advaita 的方式看待永恒见证者？

AEN: 他大概是混淆了。

Thusness: 或者，他是否看见了离于习气？

AEN: 他没有明说，但我相信他的理解有点像那样。

Thusness: 所以，如果没有看见，引用来引用去没有意义。

AEN: 我明白。

Thusness: 否则，那只是再次说出阿特曼见。所以你现在应该非常清楚……不要被混淆。

AEN: 我明白。

Thusness: 我告诉过你什么？你也已经写在你的博客里。什么是永恒见证者？它就是显现……一刻一刻的生起。一个人是带着习气来看，还是看见它真正是什么？那才更重要。我已经说过很多次：经验是正确的，但理解是错误的。错误知见。以及感知如何影响经验、错误理解如何影响经验。所以，不要到处引用一些片段……要非常非常清楚，并以智慧知道什么是正确知见、什么是错误知见。否则你读这个又被那个混淆。并不是要否定明性的存在、否定那个能知。相反，是要对“识是什么”有正确知见。就像无二，我说并没有离开显现之外的见证者；见证其实就是显现。这是第一部分。既然见证就是显现，那么它如何如此？“一”如何真的是“多”？

AEN: 因缘？

Thusness: 说“一就是多”已经错了。这是在用约定俗成的表达方式。因为实际上，并没有所谓的“一”，也没有“多”。只有因空性而有的生灭，而生灭本身就是明晰。并没有离开现象之外的明晰。如果我们像 Ken Wilber 那样体验无二，却谈论阿特曼，那么虽然经验是真的，理解却是错误的。这类似于“I AM”。只是它是一种更高形式的经验。它是无二的。

Thusness: 是的。其实修行不是要否定这个“觉”（awareness）。你解释的方式好像是在说“没有觉知”。人们有时会误解你要表达的意思；但真正要点是正确理解这个“觉”，使它能够在一切时中毫不费力地被经验到。可是，当修行人听到它不是“它”时，他们马上开始担心，因为那是他们最珍贵的状态。所有阶段所写的，都是关于这个“觉”或觉知。然而，觉知究竟是什么，并没有被正确地经验。正因为没有被正确经验，我们才说“你试图保持的那个觉知”并不是以那种方式存在。这并不意味着没有觉知。

Thusness: 这不是说没有觉知。它是说，不从主/客体知见、不从自性见来理解觉知。那就是把主/客体的理解融解为事件、行动与业。然后我们逐渐明白，那个“有人在那里”的感觉，其实只是一种自性见的“感受”——也就是说，一种来自自性见的“感受”、一种“念头” :P。至于这如何导向解脱，则需要直接经验。所以，解脱并不是从“自我”中解脱，而是从“自性见”中解脱。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 明白吗？但经验明性很重要。

Thusness: 对自我参究来说还不错。

AEN: 我明白……顺便问一下，你觉得 Lucky 和 Chandrakirti 想表达什么？

Thusness: 这些引文在我看来翻译得并不太好。需要理解的是，“无我”不是否定见证之识；“无现象”也不是否定现象。它只是为了“解构”这些心造构想。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 当你听见声音时，你不能否定它……对吗？

AEN: 是的。

Thusness: 那么你否定的是什么？当你在“certainty of being”（存在的确定性）那篇帖子中描述见证者的经验时，你怎么能否定这个证悟？所以，“无我”和“无现象”是什么意思？

AEN: 就像你说的，只有那些心造构想是虚妄的……但意识不能被否定？

Thusness: 不……我不是说佛陀从未否定五蕴；只是佛陀所否定的是自性我。问题在于：现象和“我”的“无自性”、空性，是什么意思。

Thusness: 但是错误地理解它又是另一回事。你能否定见证吗？你能否定那种存在的确定性吗？

AEN: 不能。

Thusness: 那它本身没有什么错。你怎么能否定你自己的存在？你怎么能否定存在本身？直接地、没有中介地经验纯粹存在感，并没有错。在这个直接经验之后，你应当细化你的理解、你的知见、你的洞见。不是在经验之后偏离正确知见、强化你的错误知见。你不是否定见证者，而是细化你对它的洞见：什么是无二，什么是无概念，什么是任运，什么是“非个人性”这一面向，什么是明性。你从未经验过任何不变之物。在后面的阶段，当你经验到无二时，仍然有一种倾向会去聚焦于一个背景……而这会阻碍你进入《TATA》文章所描述的，对 TATA 的直接洞见。即使你证悟到那个层次，仍然有不同程度的强度。

AEN: 无二？

Thusness: tada（那篇文章）不只是无二……它是第五至第七阶段

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 这一切都是关于无我与空性的洞见如何整合：把鲜活明晰性带入迁流无常之中，感受我所谓的“觉知作为各种形相的质地与肌理”，这一点非常重要；然后才是空性。明性与空性的整合。不要否定那个见证，而是细化知见，这非常重要。到目前为止，你正确强调了见证的重要性。不像过去，你给人的印象是你在否定这个见证临在。你只是要否定人格化、实有化和对象化。这样你才能进一步进展，并了悟我们的空性。但不要总是把我在 MSN 上告诉你的内容发出来。再过不久，我就会变成某种邪教领袖。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 无我不是普通的洞见。当我们能够达到彻底透明的层次时，你会了悟它的利益。无概念性、明晰、明性、透明、开放、宽广、无念、非局部性……所有这些描述都会变得相当无意义。

Thusness: 一直都是见证……不要搞错；只是一个人是否理解它的空性而已。一直都有明性，什么时候没有见证？只是明性与空性，而不是只有明性。一直都有这个见证……你要去除的是那种分裂感。所以我从不否定见证的经验与证悟；重点只是要正确理解。

Thusness: 做见证者本身没有问题；问题只是对见证者是什么的错误理解。那就是在见证中看见二元性，或看见“自我”与他者、主体与客体的分裂。问题在这里。你可以称它为见证或觉知，但其中必须没有自我感。是的，是见证，而不是见证者。在见证中，它总是无二的。当处在“见证者”中时，总是有一个见证者与一个被见证的对象；只要有观察者，就不可能没有被观察者。当你了悟只有见证、没有观察者与被观察者时，它总是无二的。所以当 Genpo 之类的人说没有见证者、只有见证，却又教人退后保持距离去观察，我就评论说，这条路偏离了正确知见。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 当你教导体验见证者时，你是在教人体验那个见证者，而不是在教无主客分裂。这是第一阶段“I AM”的洞见。你是在否定“I AMness”的经验吗？

AEN: 你是说在那篇帖子里吗？没有。那更像是“I am”的性质，对吗？

Thusness: 被否定的是什么？

AEN: 二元的理解？

Thusness: 是的，被否定的是对那个经验的错误理解。就像花的“红色”。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 它鲜明、似乎真实，并且似乎属于花。它只是如此显现，却并非如此。当我们从主客二分来看，就会觉得“有念头、没有思想者；有声音、没有听者；有轮回，却没有一个永恒灵魂在轮回中受生”令人困惑。它之所以令人困惑，是因为我们根深蒂固地以实有方式看事物，而二元性只是这种“实有”观看方式的一个子集。所以问题是什么？

AEN: 我明白……根深蒂固的知见？

Thusness: 是的。问题是什么？

AEN: 回来了。

Thusness: 问题在于，痛苦的根本原因就位于这种根深蒂固的知见。我们寻求并执著，是因为这些知见。这里就是“知见”与“识”之间的关系。无法逃避。只要有实有见，就总是有“我”和“我的”。总是有“属于”，就像“红色”属于花。因此，尽管有种种超越性的经验，没有正确知见就没有解脱。

Thusness: 顺便说，你不应该告诉别人“并不存在这样的见证者”。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 重点是正确理解见证究竟是什么。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: “今天我注意到，试图去除被感知为不清晰的念头和混乱，与本已如此的无染觉知毫无关系。”你理解了什么？

AEN: 觉知不受任何特定念头影响？

Thusness: 意思是？有觉知，也有念头？觉知不受念头影响？顺便问一下，“受影响”是什么意思？

AEN: 意思是不管什么生起，它仍然在场。

Thusness: 意思是你指的是临在的状态？

AEN: 是的……临在和能知。

Thusness: 对你而言，不可分是什么意思？你只是停留在概念层面理解“不可分”，只知道它的“含义”吗？只是按定义知道？还是在无概念层面理解？你的理解是在直接经验、无概念的层次，还是在概念层次？

AEN: 我想还是比较偏向概念。

Thusness: 临在与生起并不分离。

AEN: 我明白。

Thusness: 这里的“不可分”是什么？是在无二层次、无我层次，还是缘起层次？

AEN: 无二？

Thusness: 你必须先观察并直接经验每一个生起，使其未经修饰、原初、离于标签。然后经过分析，仍然有观察者与被观察者。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 直到你在实时经验中如此清楚：观察者与被观察者是一。然后你进一步考察这个经验：如果它们总是一，为什么一开始会有任何分离？为什么经验有时显得分裂？

AEN: 习气？

Thusness: 继续这个考察，并经验分裂以及无二。直到你彻底清楚：观察者与被观察者只是一个假设。始终只有观察。唯有纯粹见证。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 这是你必须具有的无二经验，才能理解 Advaita 的见证。一个整体的经验。你不说它是透过眼流动；光与一切之间绝对没有差别。光就是一切。你必须先有这个经验。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 在此之后，不要外推，不要实有化，不要再抽象出任何东西。任何想要超越的冲动，都要清楚地看见那是倾向……直到你首先能够完全安住。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 直到你首先能够完全安住。=> 我的意思是，你必须先能够深深安住于这个无二经验中，然后从那里理解无我与缘起。并不是否定这个无二见证。只是要正确理解这个经验。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 由于无法超越二元框架，就会出现“你就是我”和“我就是你”这样的错误观念：通过外推，推导出所有人都共有某种究竟本质。这正是我不希望你陷入的东西。但是分裂的消融是最珍贵、最重要的。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 我要去 makan（吃饭）了。

AEN: 好……再见。

Thusness: 最重要的是了悟：这个见证在本质上就是无二的，而且一直如此；但这与某个究竟本性毫无关系。拥有这个无二经验，与某个究竟本性毫无关系。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 所以不要外推、实有化、抽象出任何东西；相反，先允许自己完全安住于这个无二状态，并让那种外推的倾向沉淀下来。因为如果我们外推并纵容这种倾向，它会进一步蒙蔽我们。事实上，这就是痛苦的原因。尽管有这个见证本身的无二、无概念经验，我们仍未摆脱实有化的倾向。

AEN: 我明白……外推的意思是概念性地思考吗？

Thusness: 许多人误解缘起，以为它否定自由，因为它是“依缘而有”的。这是在试图通过二元框架理解缘起。在实际经验中，缘起导向解脱；而执著于究竟本质，即使已经对觉知的无二、无概念面向有清楚直接的经验，仍是痛苦的原因。外推的意思是推演出超过实际所经验到的东西。我一直告诉你，“我是”是对觉知的直接经验。但你却告诉别人它不存在。我说的是，它不是我们佛性的经验。我说这个经验被误解了。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 我告诉过你很多次：没有什么比直接触及这个光明本性更珍贵；但也没有什么经验比误解这个经验、这个直接触及更危险。

John Tan: “在禅宗里，虽然他们说无心，但事实上他们比‘一切唯心’更彻底地拥抱心，直到连一丝心的痕迹都不可得。然而圣严法师说，这只是禅的入门处，因为本来无心，而这在无我中被清楚了悟。所以，无我之后，心与现象在经验中完全不可区分。如果心与现象在经验中完全不可区分，那么种种区分就不过是空而光明的显现之约定假名。”

Soh Wei Yu: 我明白……顺便问一下，圣严法师证悟无我了吗？

John Tan: 所以你必须知道，当我们说“无觉”、“无自我”、“无我”时，并不是说什么都没有。它是看穿背景构造，并打开大门，直接品尝、经验并毫不费力地印证明晰。我相信是的，但他除了临终前那首美丽的偈子之外，并没有谈论自己的经验。“无事忙中老，空里有哭笑，本来没有我，生死皆可抛” 台湾高僧圣严法师圆寂（Busy with nothing till old. 无事忙中老；In emptiness, there is weeping and laughing. 空里有哭笑；Originally there never was any ‘I’. 本来没有我；Thus life and death can be cast aside. 生死皆可抛）- https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/…/differentiate…

采访者: “而且不只是觉知……”

Daniel: “智慧。对；同时，从经验的角度来看，我也拒绝那些会把它说成恒常、说成某种与显现本身分离、不同于显现本身的东西的人。我不喜欢恒常这一面，因为从佛教技术性的角度来看，我在经验中找不到任何能成立为恒常的东西。我发现，只要有经验，这个品质就总是在那里。因为它是经验本性中的某种东西。但它并不完全等同于恒常，如果这样说有意义的话。所以，只要有经验，就有经验。因此，从某个角度来说，就有觉知；显现与觉知在本质上是同一回事，二者相即而不可分。所以，只要有经验，我会说那个元素（觉知）就在——要有经验，它就必须在。我也会说，这个系统似乎以非常有规律的方式运作，很容易让人感觉到有一种智慧。好，酷……那种深邃感、神奇感、奇妙的成分。所以，就像西藏人会说的：奇哉！这一切都自己发生！因此，这件事本身有某种奇妙。这件事情发生，而诸事物就在其所在之处自知自明；显现本身真正令人惊奇；而调谐到那种惊奇性，从实用角度来说是有价值的。”

John: 但在经验上是相同的，只是正确理解的程度不同。不完全是一心。你现在是否感觉一切都是 Self？也就是此刻“I AM”的经验强烈现前？

Soh Wei Yu: 是临在，但作为变化。

John: 好像觉知明晰、开放如虚空，不需禅修，却强烈现前并且无二；“I AM”的四个面向在这一刻被充分经验。

Soh Wei Yu: 是的，我认为四个面向只有在无二和无我之后才被充分经验，尤其是毫不费力和不需要安住。

John: 这个经验之后会变得越来越强烈，却又毫不费力、无造作。它如何可能？如果没有正确的洞见与修行，这样完整而全然的、毫不费力且无造作的临在经验，怎么可能？

Soh Wei Yu: 我看不到没有适当的洞见和修行怎么可能。在无我中，每一个活动就是它，就是佛性，所以完全没有造作。不需要通过禅修去到达某处。但禅修仍然重要，用来培养某些面向，比如寂止。

John: 确实，而且这是由当下这一刻的经验所印证的。对此怎么会有疑？临在的最后一丝痕迹，必须通过看穿凡所生起之空性而释放。

Soh Wei Yu: 我明白……

John: 在你的洞见于修行中成熟并整合之后，必须是没有费力，也没有作为……整个全体在运作，并作为这一鲜活当下的闪耀显现而生起；这一直就是我们所谓的临在。

John Tan: 顺便问一下，经验（显现）是否极其晶莹、明亮而锐利……没有任何背景……晶莹到生起一种透明感？它必须是自然且毫不费力的。在普通情况下，有足够休息、放松……不需要禅修……自然而放松。不是在你忙碌的时候。晶莹到总是有一种定境感。开放如虚空，清明而无边。在后面的阶段，它必须甚至比初始阶段（Soh：无我的初始阶段）更强。你需要有足够休息，如果可以的话，多吃蔬菜。

Soh Wei Yu: 我正在马六甲吃榴莲煎蕊。这里有一家名店，非常好吃。店里正在播放净空法师的 VCD。他谈到一个不生不灭的灵性——spirit。他说在六道中轮回的不是身体，而是灵性、spirit。去净土的也是它。哈哈。

John Tan: 他的知见更偏向实体见。佛教并不否定光明的明晰；事实上，佛教所要的是在一切时中全然、无造作、直接、无参照地经验明晰。因此，离开显现之外没有自我。否则，一个人只是在抓着鬼影。所以，把一个 spirit 在六道中旅行理解为真实，和认出这些境界不过是自身光明显晰的显现，是不同的。

John Tan: “与无常分离的绝对，就是我在给 theprisonergreco 的两篇帖子中指出的‘背景’。84. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4] Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT 嗨 theprisonergreco，首先，‘背景’究竟是什么？实际上它并不存在。它只是一个已经过去的‘无二’经验的影像。二元心由于自身二元且实有化思维机制的贫乏，而制造出一个‘背景’。它‘不能’没有某个东西可以抓住而去理解或运作。那个‘我’的经验，是一个完整的、无二的前景经验。当作为背景的主体被理解为幻相时，一切无常现象都显现为临在。它就像自然地、贯穿始终地成为‘毗婆舍那’。从电脑发出的嘶嘶声，到行驶中的地铁列车的震动，到脚接触地面时的感觉，所有这些经验都晶莹清楚，并不比“I AM”少一点“I AM”。临在仍然完全现前，什么都没有被否定。-:) 所以，当主客分裂消失时，“I AM”就像任何其他经验一样。与一个生起的声音没有不同。只有当我们的二元和实有化倾向在运作时，它才会作为事后之念变成一个静态背景。第一种“I-ness”（我性）阶段，即面对面地经验觉知，就像球面上的一个点，你称它为中心。你标记了它。后来你了悟，当你标记球面上的其他点时，它们具有相同特征。这就是无二的初始经验。一旦无我的洞见稳定下来，你就可以自由地指向球面上的任何一点——所有点都是中心，因此并没有‘那个’中心。‘那个’中心并不存在：所有点都是中心。此后，修行从‘专注式’转向‘毫不费力’。也就是说，在这个初始无二洞见之后，由于潜在习气，‘背景’仍会偶尔浮现几年……86. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4] 更准确地说，所谓的‘背景’意识，就是那个清净发生。并没有一个‘背景’和一个‘清净发生’。在无二的初始阶段，仍有习惯性尝试去‘修补’这个并不存在的想象分裂。当我们了悟无我是法印、不是一个阶段时，它就成熟了；在听中，始终只有声音；在见中，始终只有颜色、形状和形相；在思中，始终只有念头。始终且已经如此。-:) 许多无二论者在对绝对有直觉性洞见之后，会紧紧抓住绝对。这就像执著于球面上的一个点，并称它为‘唯一的中心’。即使是那些对无我（无客体—主体分裂）有清楚经验洞见的 Advaitins，虽然有类似无我（第一次清空主体）的经验，也不能免于这些倾向。他们继续沉回源头。当我们尚未充分融解潜在习性时，自然会参照回源头；但必须正确理解它究竟是什么。这是否必要？当我们甚至无法定位它在哪里时，又怎么能够安住于源头？那个安住处在哪里？为什么沉回？那难道不是心的又一个幻相吗？‘背景’只是一个回忆的念头刹那，或是试图重新确认源头。这样做有什么必要？我们甚至能离开当下一念吗？将经验固化为一个‘中心’的抓取倾向，是心的习惯性倾向在运作。它只是业习。了悟它！这就是我对 Adam 所说的，一心与无心之间的差别。”——John Tan，2009，摘自 《空性作为无见之见与拥抱迁流无常》

John: 什么是“I AM”？它是 PCE 吗？（Soh：PCE = pure consciousness experience，纯意识经验；见本文末尾词汇表。）有情绪吗？有感受吗？有意念吗？有分裂，还是完全的静止？在听中，只有声音，就是声音这完整、直接的明晰！所以什么是“I AM”？

Soh Wei Yu: 它是同一个，只是纯粹、无概念的意念。

John: 有“存在”吗？

Soh Wei Yu: 没有；一个究竟身份是作为事后之念被创造出来的。

John: 确实，造成混淆的是那个经验之后的误解。那个经验本身是纯意识经验；其中没有什么不清净，所以它是一种纯粹存在感。只是由于“错误知见”而被误认。因此，它是在意念中的纯意识经验，不是声音、味道、触觉……等等。PCE（Pure Consciousness Experience，纯意识经验）是关于我们在色、声、味……中所遭遇的任何事物之直接而纯粹的经验。他是否真正经验到感官中——在接触中、在味道中、在景色中——那种巨大的光明明晰，其经验的品质与深度？如果是，那么“意念”又如何？当所有感官关闭时，就是感官关闭时如其所是的纯粹存在感。然后在感官开放时，要有清楚的理解。不要没有清楚理解就非理性地比较。

Thusness: 你不要以为“I AMness”是很低阶段的觉悟。经验是一样的。只是明晰度，是洞见方面的问题，不是经验方面的问题。

AEN: 我明白……

Thusness: 所以，一个经验到“I AMness”的人和经验到无二的人，经验是一样的。只是洞见不同。

AEN: 我明白。

Thusness: 无二就是每一刻都有临在的经验，或者说对每一刻临在经验的洞见。因为阻碍那个经验的是自我的幻相，而“I AM”就是那种扭曲的知见。经验是一样的。你难道没有看到，我总是对 longchen、jonls 等人说，那个经验本身没有错吗？我只是说它偏向意界。所以不要去区分，而要知道问题在哪里。我总是说，它是对临在经验的误解，不是经验本身的问题。但“I AMness”会阻止我们看见。

Thusness: 顺便问一下，你知道 Hokai 的描述和“I AM”是同一个经验吗？

AEN: 是那个观察者，对吗？

Thusness: 不是。我指的是真言宗修持中身、语、意合一。

AEN: 哦，那是 I AM 经验？

Thusness: 是的，只是修持对象不是以意识为基础。所谓前景是什么意思？就是背景消失，剩下的就是它。同样，“I AM”就是没有背景、直接经验意识的经验。所以它只是简单的“I-I”或“I AM”。

AEN: 我听过人们把意识描述成背景意识变成前景……所以只有意识觉知自己，这仍然像 I AM 经验。

Thusness: 所以它才被那样描述：觉知觉知它自己，并作为它自己。

AEN: 但你也说 I AM 的人会沉入背景？

Thusness: 是的。

AEN: 沉入背景 = 背景成为前景？

Thusness: 所以我才说它被误解了。而我们把那当成究竟。

AEN: 我明白。但 Hokai 描述的也是无二经验，对吧？

Thusness: 我告诉过你很多次：经验是对的，但理解是错的。所以这才是洞见，是智慧眼的开启。“I AM”的经验并没有错。我有说它有什么错吗？

AEN: 没有。

Thusness: 即使在第四阶段，我说了什么？

AEN: 是同一个经验，只是在声音、景象等之中。

Thusness: 声音就是与“I AM”完全相同的经验……作为临在。

AEN: 我明白。

Thusness: 是的。