Differentiating I AM, One Mind, No Mind and Anatta
Differentiating I AM, One Mind, No Mind and Anatta
Also See
Beyond Awareness – reflections on identity & awareness
No-Mind & Anatta – focusing on insight
29 MAY 2011
Thusness: Anatta is often not correctly understood. It is common that one progresses from experience of non-dual to no-mind instead of direct realization into anatta. Many focus on the experience and there is a lack of clarity to penetrate the differences so you must be clear of the various phases of insights first and not mistake one for the other. At the same time, refine your experience. These few days... have deeper sleep and exercise more. Balance your body energies.
Conversations with Thusness 2009-2013 on I AM, One Mind, No Mind and Anatta
Thusness: No mind is an experience, it is not an insight. People that have experienced no-mind knows there is such experience and aims towards achieving it again. But insight is different... It is a direct experiential realization. That all along it is so. You may have no-mind as an experience and understood that there is such an experience as simple manifestation or just the radiant world, but still it remains as a stage. You have no idea that it is a wrong view. We do not 'see' that it is the wrong view that 'blinds' a mistaken view shaping our entire experience.
AEN: Dharma dan calls it the knot of perception right.
Thusness: Yes.
AEN: So no mind is a stage?
Thusness: No-mind is the peak of non-dual, the natural state of non-dual, where the background is completely gone. Very often a practitioner in an advanced phase of non-dual and One Mind, will naturally know the importance of no-mind. And that becomes the practice. They know they have to be there. However, to come to this natural state of non-dual where the background is deemed irrelevant, it requires insight of anatta. And say yes, you realized your mistake. Wrote too fast. Awareness is just a label... Some of the texts you quoted are also misleading. When one spoke to others in longchen forum, some is to lead one into non-dual from "I AM" because they can't accept anatta insight but is able to penetrate non-dual. When anatta insight arises, one realizes there is no background. When insight of emptiness arises, then all is just sharing the same taste, luminous yet empty. That is, I do not see Awareness, just a luminous manifestation. There is no sense of Self/self or Awareness. There is always only sound, forms, smell... sweetness... hardness... thoughts... effortlessly manifesting. Non-dually experienced. In terms of actual experience, what that is written in the forum is not enough. The intensity of luminosity isn't there. First you go through the "I AM" for a period first. Later you will understand what I mean. Not by way of non-identification. By realization -- the arising insight that the mirror does not exist. If at the back of one's mind, there is this belief of a self, then will experience of no-mind be intermittent or permanent?
AEN: Intermittent.
Thusness: So how is one without the realization have a permanent experience of no-mind? There is no clarity, no doubtlessness of no-self, is it possible that there is a permanent and effortless experience of all sensate experiences without self? 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. -:)
John Tan: One Mind means consciousness is of true existing like a container. Consciousness is not in the body but the body is in consciousness. Sound arises in consciousness. Therefore consciousness doesn't change. The other (No Mind) is as if consciousness is the substance of matter. When we say sound-consciousness, there is no such thing as sound and sound-consciousness. That sound is the sound-consciousness. There is no such thing as sound, or sound-consciousness, when we say "I hear sound." How do you differentiate One Mind from No Mind to Anatta?
Soh Wei Yu: In no mind there is no subsuming involved. There is only manifestation, but as an experience. In anatta there is insight into no agent in seeing just seen pure manifestation. One mind is subsuming but yet nondual is experienced.
John Tan: One mind is you are always looking at an ultimate mind behind, you are not looking at manifestation.
Soh Wei Yu: But it's not I AM right.
John Tan: Yes it is not.
Soh Wei Yu: It's like integrating foreground as being an aspect of background.
John Tan: Everything is consumed into the source (for One Mind). I AM is just the pure background behind but external objects are not subsumed into it... like separate. I AM I... dualistic. In this case (One Mind) all is being consumed/subsumed into the source. Sound is consciousness is not one mind but no mind. When the hearer is gone and there is only sound, that sound is precisely consciousness. That is the experience of no-mind. No mind is like the mirror becomes transparent and there is just that, but the view is the reflection and the mirror is not the same. Like sky is not the flowing cloud.
2009
Thusness: There is a difference between having non-dual realization yet is unable to go beyond the subject-object view of seeing things. Means there is non-dual experience, there is non dual realization but still the practitioner is unable to understand this experience from a view free from subject-object dichotomy. Unless our experience and mind is so thorough in seeing through the center, the agent, the source, we will still subtly grasp a 'source' and that prevents us from thoroughly experiencing no-self. The truth of anatta is being distorted and understood as non-dual experience.
2009
Thusness: The advaita experience will sort of see awareness as permeating and transcending. That is because the view rests upon subject-object dualism. If it is rest upon DO [dependent origination], there is no such problem. How important is the 'Source' if it is resting on a view that has no source, center, substantiality and inherent essence. It becomes irrelevant and erroneous and nothing to boast about. Only when we rest our view on a 'Source', Ultimate reality seems very special.
22 NOVEMBER 2013
John Tan: But this is also good so that the point that a practitioner may have clear experience of no mind but a view of one mind. Thus view, experience and realization. Anatta is a realization that there isn't a consciousness besides sound, scenery... etc. You see through reification of that agent and get in touch with the base manifestation where the label rely upon, so sound is the actual consciousness is referring to. There is no consciousness other than that. When they see through reification, then phenomena has a different meaning. Seeing everything as awareness is not one mind. Seeing everything as the same unchanging mind is the problem. When you see through reification, you realized "awareness" is just a label point to these manifestations, so there is nothing wrong saying that. Only when we treat awareness to be of true existence then we are deluded because there isn't any. In hearing, there is only sound. Hearing implies the presence of sound. One mind is different. One mind as I told you is the witness is gone but subsume into an overarching Awareness.
Soh Wei Yu: Is there a distinct phase of one mind in your seven stages?
John Tan: Phase 4.
Soh Wei Yu: But you said phase 4 you already realised anatta and experience no mind? So does that mean the insight already arise, but tendency to sink back to one mind is still there.
John Tan: All such gray area is put onto phase 4 insight when view isn't completely clear. There is no way to describe the grey scale. Even in anatta there are so many different degree of refinements. But it is not practical to talk about all.
Soh Wei Yu: You mean not describable.
John Tan: No... Not that it is not describable but not practical to describe. Like AF is part of the deviation looking into purely physical flesh and blood of pure experience... Some went into details some does not.
Soh Wei Yu: What do you mean by went into details.
John Tan: It is like I AM, there are all those experiences you undergone but I do not say they are different phases. When you say "weather", does weather exist?
Soh Wei Yu: No. It's a convention imputed on a seamless activity. Existence and non existence don't apply.
John Tan: What is the basis where this label rely on.
Soh Wei Yu: Rain clouds wind etc.
John Tan: Don't talk prasanga. Directly see. Rain too is a label, but in direct experience, there is no issue but when probed, you realized how one is confused about the reification from language, and from there life/death/creation/cessation arise, and whole lots of attachment, but it does not mean there is no basis... get it?
Soh Wei Yu: The basis is just the experience right.
John Tan: Yes which is plain and simple. When we say the weather is windy. Feel the wind, the blowing... But when we look at language and mistaken verb for nouns, there are big issues, so before we talk about this and that. Understand what consciousness is and awareness is. Get it? When we say weather, feel the sunshine, the wind, the rain. You do not search for weather. Get it? Similarly, when we say awareness, look into scenery, sound, tactile sensations, scents and thoughts.
"So what is one mind, what is no mind and what is original mind in this context? One mind is post non-dual but subsuming leaving trace. No mind is just one mind except that there is evenness till the last trace is gone. Like what explains in the text. Uji... All is time therefore no time. When you go from dual to non dual or one mind to no mind, those are stages and experiences... If you got the condition to get pointed out that originally there never was a mind, there are no stages to climb... That is original mind. This requires insights and wisdom." - John Tan, 2020
(Note by Soh: the original mind spoken here does not mean some unborn metaphysical primordial mind such as the I AM, but the originally, already-is nature of mind -- empty of itself -- "originally there never was a mind", empty of all self/Self)
Soh Wei Yu: I told Nafis: “I personally think in stage 4, should ask people to contemplate the anatta stanzas already instead of waiting for stage 5.” (Soh: on the two stanzas of anatta, see On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection (Available in Languages: AR, DA, DE, EN, ES, FR, HI, ID, IT, JA, KO, NE, PL, PT-BR, PT-PT, RU, SR, TA, TH, VI, ZH).) What do you think? [image omitted] I think it's safer for them to just contemplate anatta straight rather than aim for one mind? To me one mind is the result of the lack of thoroughness of insight into no self, so no need to particularly aim for. Although I think many will go through it inadvertently.
John Tan: Practitioner will almost without fail skewed towards one-mind because both subject and object are non-arisen is not understood. Therefore latching back to a mind and making it more ultimate despite non-dual experiences becomes the default.
Soh Wei Yu: In my case there was a short one mind phase when I was contemplating no self, bahiya sutta, the borderlessness between awareness and manifestation, etc. Not very clear cut. Yeah the nondual is there even before mind is thoroughly deconstructed and seen through. I think one can start contemplating on the two stanzas though soon after I AM. (Soh: on the two stanzas of anatta, see On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection (Available in Languages: AR, DA, DE, EN, ES, FR, HI, ID, IT, JA, KO, NE, PL, PT-BR, PT-PT, RU, SR, TA, TH, VI, ZH).)
John Tan: Yes.
Later on, John Tan made another clarification (in 2020)
John Tan: 1-3 Cessation and dual. Phase 4 insight onwards is non-dual. Cessation is important when you want to rid the Self but no way to do it... lol.
Soh Wei Yu: So one mind is phase 4 onwards? Before phase 4 you also had glimpse of one mind right.
John Tan: One mind doesn't matter dual or non-dual, it is just a subsuming tendency that the mind attempts to explain everything into an ultimate consciousness.
Soh Wei Yu: So stage 2 [also can be stage 1] is also like one mind except dualistic. Stage 4 is like nondual but still have subsuming tendency so might not yet overcome one mind.
John Tan: Yes.
Soh Wei Yu: Yeah I remember during I AM I also had subsuming tendency, but [that I AM sort of one mind was somewhat] different from post nondual [as in, nondual sort of One Mind] but only really overcome subsuming after anatta.
John Tan: Subsuming tendency is always beautiful to an inherent mind. 🤣.
Reader question quoted from Facebook
“Someone wrote on
https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/permalink/3999299513444782/
Hey folks, thanks for allowing me to join this group. I'm currently plowing through the epic tome that is 'Awakening to Reality: A Guide to the Nature of Mind'. Right now I have consistent access to One Mind as an experience and periodic, but not consistent, access to No Mind as an experience. Judging by what I've read so far, the missing piece is deeper insight into anatta to make the flip from 'temporary experience' to 'baseline ground reality'. Over the last few months I've been practising a certain kind of letting go to cause the No Mind experience to arise more consistently, but I guess the AtR view is that this approach is somewhat mistaken and my time would be better spent contemplating anatta?”
Soh replied
Welcome to atr group.
Not exactly mistaken because no mind is important, but should compliment with the two stanzas and bahiya sutta style of contemplation and make sure not to contemplate in a way of making it a state but in a way that addresses the view aspect.
For example in this article Robert explained his earlier mistake was taking bahiya sutta as simply a way to induce a state of no mind rather than contemplating to realize the view aspect:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../Robert%20Dominik
Also these articles should help
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../the-wind-is...
And this, along with comments by PasserBy (thusness) in the comments section
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../ajahn-amaro-on...
John: Anatta is about right view... Means you must have the experience of no-mind and realized no self with right view. Or you have no mind experience and with the help of right view, realization dawns.”
Geovani Geo: Calls my attention the fact that you call the realization of I AM the same as One Mind. I was a kid, didn't read or write yet, when suddenly I realized that "I AM the only one looking out from eyes, all others are seen from outside". But this insight was not accompanied by any notions of One Mind. I still felt as an entity looking out from the body. Nonetheless, this I AM (looking) had something genuine. For it was totally absent of concepts, thoughts.
Soh Wei Yu: I AM and One Mind is different. This link should clarify our terminologies: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../differentiatin... Rupert Spira in recent years had an even more mature insight (he said he realized it spontaneously while answering someone in a talk) into seeing how usually we think objects are seen and awareness is unseen but it's the complete opposite -- objects are never seen, only Awareness is ever seen, heard, touched, etc. This is mature All-Is-Mind insight venturing into No Mind. However I don't think anatta insight has arisen.
Geovani Geo: John Tan: "No mind is like the mirror becomes transparent and there is just that, but the view is the reflection and the mirror is not the same. Like sky is not the flowing cloud." The reflection and the mirror is not the same?
Soh Wei Yu: Means in no-mind, there is the direct experience that that mirror (consciousness) is the substance of reflection (sights/sounds/thoughts/etc), the experience is one of complete non-duality as manifestation, yet the 'view' is still not anatta, still subtly dualistic -- reflection is still seen as not the same as the unchanging mirror. So when analysing and expressing that experience he will use that dualistic framework to express it. Therefore the peak experience is not congruent with the view (the 'conceptual' framework) one holds, there is a desync between view and experience.
Geovani Geo: Ah... is he saying that the view is a smaller realization than No Mind?
Soh Wei Yu: What I mean is that in between one mind and no mind the experience and realization gets refined but not yet the realization of anatta, that in seeing just the seen, 'seeing' (consciousness) is just the seen -- the colors, the manifestation, without a seer, no agent. Same goes for other senses... 'awareness' is a label, empty of its own intrinsic existence that could exist on its own side. When anatta is realized, then the experience of no-mind (as just manifestation) becomes in line or in sync with the anatta view. Then one can further expand that emptiness insight to mind/body, and nature of phenomena. View is the paradigm or framework in how consciousness is viewed in relation to phenomena, and the nature of consciousness and phenomena. One can have a completely nondual experience and yet the 'view' one holds is dualistic, therefore view and experience becomes incongruent/desynchronized, and the peak experience will not be stable and effortless. Also as Thusness pointed out, the view aspect does not just pertain to subject/object duality but more importantly 'inherent existence'. One can overcome subject/object division but cling to 'inherent existence' of various kinds, so still subtly dualistic. Subject/object can be called a subset of the view of 'inherent existence' (pertaining to self, and to phenomena).
Geovani Geo: I just misread thusness statement. I didn't read it as "view" being a stage. I thought he was describing One Mind. That is why I found it strange.
André A. Pais: Geovani Geo, view is not a stage, it's more like a structure, paradigm or even technique. It's the ideological or philosophical framework that supports the practice.
Soh Wei Yu: Yes, view is not the stage but the paradigm. The direct realization of the right view of anatta, dependent origination and emptiness is Thusness Stage 5 and 6, you can say the 'realization' is a new phase or stage. Ultimately the emptiness view is a viewless view, it is not concept to be clung on to just like anatta is not a concept to be held but the negation, penetration or seeing through of a wrongly held framework that allows us to have the direct taste of empty radiance free from any mental proliferations. However one should contemplate dependent origination and emptiness and refine the insight into one's empty radiance. It is an important raft. As Thusness wrote elsewhere:
"In my previous message, I mentioned about anatta and spontaneous perfection as returning to one's natural and authentic condition because I hope you can see it from another angle.
To some, in the seen, just the seen sounded like a perfect state of concentration through long period of training and practice. To me however, the taste of anatta is the birthright, primordial and natural condition of one's clarity.
Seeing is just seen, no seer;
Hearing is just sound, no hearer. It is the gateway to realize the mundane is precisely where one's natural radiance is fully expressed. Nothing hidden, nothing beyond and fully manifested.
What does freedom from reification entail? It is to get rid of all "beyonds", all "backgrounds", all constructs so that we can recognize "face to face" of what seen, heard, touch... etc as one's empty clarity, not to bring us to an unreachable la la Land.
So wherever and whenever I see dependent arising and emptiness, I see one's empty clarity.
Some can through seeing emptiness realized directly one's empty clarity, just like case of the insight of anatta but some can't.
If this isn't obvious, then separate pointing is necessary.
Lastly the true practice is in ceaselessly meeting conditions and situations, without that, there is no genuine actualization."
Soh Wei Yu: Each stage has its own view (Paradigm/structure). Dualistic and inherent - I AM. Nondual but inherent - one mind~no mind. Nondual and non inherent - Anatta, dependent origination and emptiness (stage 5-6).
Geovani Geo: It's the present map. The map changes, though. At least it may. It is where the eagle points his beak - as D. Juan would say. Geovani Geo. Thusness: we do not 'see' that it is the wrong view that 'blinds' a mistaken view shaping our entire experience. This is something so relevant. We are limited by our view! Wanna buy? I have a few shirts left. WE ARE LIMITED BY OUR VIEWS.
André A. Pais: Geovani Geo, that's why right view is the 1st factor in the noble 8fold path; and why it is said that the 5 paramitas are blind in the absence of the 6th (wisdom). We can't experience freedom with a constricted (philosophical and existential) view.
Geovani Geo: Right. I just got the full meaning of the line: "view, experience and realization.” This "route" is repeated in each stage. But it is dynamic. The view evolves, so experience and realization also evolve according to the present view. Something like that...
André A. Pais: Geovani Geo yes, like Soh said above: > Each stage has its own view (Paradigm/structure). Dualistic and inherent - I AM. Nondual but inherent - one mind~no mind. Nondual and non inherent - Anatta, dependent origination and emptiness (stage 5-6).
In early 2010, before I realised anatta
Thusness: You are using stage 4 understanding to explain 6. I am not interested in views, only the insight that allows you to understand the right view. That is in phase 4, 'non-dual' is the insight. In phase 5, that observer is gone... there is no such observer at all. Anatta. That is the 'insight' that must arise. Just like what Dharma Dan said. You do not deny subjective or object reality. They are only provisional and conventional. But when the dualistic and inherent hears the term 'non-dual', they either visualize the 2 becoming one or 'you have become me'... Because this is how a mind that is trapped would think despite the experience. For what that is beyond the four extremes cannot be expressed adequately using language. So what that is important is the insights, and see how one expresses these insights. Like Joan Tollifson... it is the direct experience, there is no view about it. This means a practitioner will only experience hardness, softness, intentions, scenery, sound. No self. Action. Directly. But conventionally, you are still you, I am still me. There is no such thing as you are me, get it? Or there is an awareness that is sound, or all is just this awareness; there is no such concept. There is sound, sight, thoughts. And what you call awareness are just that.
Thusness: Yeah but your mind is thinking some awareness or all are just this awareness. This is a dualistic way of understanding though experience is non-dual. That is phase 4.
AEN: Sorry I mean post #126.
Thusness: That is treating winter as spring and spring as autumn. That is treating fire as becoming ashes. Get it? Although you said that sound is awareness, you are still treating it as that. As if winter becomes spring or winter is spring. Get it? It is different. For example, Dharma Dan said there is just sensations, thoughts... The aggregates. Whether super awareness or awareness. It is different from saying sensation is awareness, thoughts is awareness as if awareness has become thoughts.
Reality, I AM, nondual, anatta, karmic constructs and mental proliferation: a conversation with John Tan
John Tan: Tell me about hire you understand in the past before engaging deeply into Buddhism. What you understand. When you say the tree exist, it is out there... how you feel and experience.
Soh Wei Yu: Feel like a separate observer interacting with an observer independent object out there... everything about the tree including its shapes and colours just exist out there and are intrinsic attributes of the object. Also experience things from a distance as a self before anatta.
John Tan: Yes. Even the sound we hear. We don't actually examine and investigate deeply. What happened in I AM or I-I or just I and post that?
Soh Wei Yu: There’s a doubtless direct immediate taste of luminosity... without concept or intermediary. Just a pure sense of presence, but for I AM just the thought realm and not as sound etc.
John Tan: I am not talking about that. I am talking about trees, separation, objects... as you said earlier... does it change anything.
Soh Wei Yu: At the I AM level up to one mind, all phenomena are like passing clouds floating by from within a vast ground of being... especially at I AM it still feels dualistic. At one mind everything is indistinguishable but there is not the clarity of view and no mind not fully stabilized. Anatta realization dissolves the background observer. At I AM and one mind I feel like the source out of which everything emerges.
John Tan: At I AM, do you feel things are still external?
Soh Wei Yu: Yes and the focus is on the internal sense of background beingness.
John Tan: Just recall your experience even after I AM. Don't mixed up phases of insights and gross through. Do you or do you not feel things are still external?
Soh Wei Yu: There is a sense that they are contained or emerging from and subsiding within a formless container of pure being... So things are in a sense within me but not me, still dualistic. I wrote about how I am not running past objects, the scenery is passing within me.
John Tan: So from before I AM and post I AM, what has changed?
Soh Wei Yu: Before I AM, I am a little person or ego residing inside the body relating to an object out there. After I AM, the body and mind and universe merely emerges and subsides from the source of pure beingness.
John Tan: Ok. Before that, what is reality to you? And after that what do you mean by reality?
Soh Wei Yu: Before that the identity self as well as objective world is reality. After I AM, only the I AM is ultimately real. Everything else is just like projection of a movie on a movie screen.
John Tan: Before that reality is physical reality correct? After that I AM is the Reality.
Soh Wei Yu: Yeah... physical reality plus the sense of being a person relating to physical reality... The person is also seen to be part of that. Yeah.
John Tan: Now from before I AM to I AM, what has changed?
Soh Wei Yu: Before I AM ignorance and karmic propensity projects ego and world as real... After I AM the intense luminosity is so real and overwhelming yet its nature is not understood, the mind with its ignorant mechanism of understanding reality then swaps the sense of identity and imputation onto the I AM. Then it turns into ultimate reality and background.
John Tan: Don't tell me on hindsight, tell me just before and after I AM experience... don't tell me anything other thing... You are not focusing. From things being very physical to I AM spiritual, what has happened? You are turning your attention from external to internal right? So what are the difference from before I AM and After?
Soh Wei Yu: Yes focus on internal, just pure beingness.
John Tan: Until what happened?
Soh Wei Yu: Before I am focus is as a observer focusing outwards but dualistic. Until the four aspects of I am and then nondual insights... The aspect of impersonality is not focused solely on internal but leads to a sense of universality, diffused and being lived. But it's still dual here and attention is still mainly focused on internal and background. What really changed is after nondual and especially anatta.
John Tan: No. What is the most important experience in I AM? What must happen in I AM? There is not even an M, just I... complete stillness, just I correct?
Soh Wei Yu: Realization, certainty of being... yes just stillness and doubtless sense of I/Existence.
John Tan: And what is the complete stillness just I?
Soh Wei Yu: Just I, just presence itself.
John Tan: This stillness absorbs excludes and includes everything into just I. What is that experience called?
Soh Wei Yu: I am everything?
John Tan: That experience is non-dual. And in that experience actually, there is no external nor internal, there is also no observer or observed. Just complete stillness as I.
Soh Wei Yu: Yeah even I AM is nondual.
John Tan: That is your first phase of a non dual experience. We say this is the pure thought experience in stillness. Thought realm, but at that moment we don't know that... we treated that as ultimate reality.
Soh Wei Yu: Yeah. I find it weird at that time when you said it is non conceptual thought. Lol.
John Tan: Yeah. Now I don't want to mix up, but you really do not know what that encounter is... seems mystical. We thought it is damn special right 🤣 🤣 🤣. Now what about non-dual? What leads to non-dual for you before anatta?
Soh Wei Yu: The first breakthrough was when I was dancing on the nightclub... At that time I was a little drunk but because I was dancing and listening to the music, the attention was shifted from background to foreground... then the bahiya sutta came up in my mind and that triggered a vivid nondual experience and I understood that the taste of existence is not just background I amness but in everything... then that nondual experience lasted two days before background witnessing returned. When I went to army in september I was contemplating the border and edge between manifestation and awareness a lot and I became increasingly certain that awareness is nondual and the nondual experience is stabilizing but it is not anatta yet. I realised anatta in october.
John Tan: Now from I AM, is the not just a non-dual experience, you have en-counter clarity directly and without intermediary. Therefore 明心 (apprehending Mind) or 验证本心 (experientially verifying the original Mind). This is the most key insight but it requires a non-dual mode to 验证 (experiential verification)。 So it is what I call 顿悟 (sudden awakening) also. Now Reality in esoteric practice is referring to this reality. When your focus turned internal, you find that without this I, nothing is real, this is more real than real. Correct?
Soh Wei Yu: yeah. Only I AM is more real than real.
John Tan: When you turned from I AM to non-dual, you are dissolving the line or layer that divides, when you dissolve that line, you have sort of non-dual experience. But that dissolving is not effortless, why?
Soh Wei Yu: Yes... I saw in august that the taste of reality and existence is also found in everything... Although the dualistic view and inherent view still hasn’t gone through refinement. Yeah.
John Tan: What exactly is preventing you from have effortless non-dual, what exactly is causing the oscillation to and fro from background to foreground? Don't talk about "inherent view".
Soh Wei Yu: The very strong tendency to view that I AM as eternal witness and ultimate reality is still there... So without a breakthrough in view I returned to witnessing after 2 days until insights into nondual deepen.
John Tan: You don't have to know about "emptiness" or "inherent view", you can just contemplate on certain koans and stanzas. What must happen for effortlessness to happen?
Soh Wei Yu: Insight into anatta leads to effortlessness.
John Tan: What is anatta? What exactly is seen through?
Soh Wei Yu: In seeing just the seen... I saw through the sense of a seer besides seeing or seeing besides seen... The subject-action-object and background/foreground paradigm is seen through and therefore I realise and actualized awareness as pure manifestation.
John Tan: Now there are two important points, seeing through self/Self and seeing through subject-action-object, any difference?
Soh Wei Yu: Subject/object if seen as undivided can still end up in one mind, seeing through self/Self dissolves the construct via realisation into mere luminous manifestation and aggregates. It's a bit like chariot except I wasn't thinking of that analogy at that time, but anatta properly seen dissolves subject-action-object.
John Tan: (Referring to Chariot) This is much more deeper. This seeing through, what did you understand?
Soh Wei Yu: The emptiness of the construct of self/Self and awareness, as well as subject-action-object structure... seeing through the emptiness of awareness as background and realising and actualising luminous taste as manifestation... also at that time no agency and two stanza becoming clearer. One week later the same insight of anatta applied on mind body led to mind body drop.
John Tan: 1. You see through constructs 2. You understand the relationship between constructs and experience 3. What else??? What did I tell you?
Soh Wei Yu: Hmm not sure... after that no mind and luminous taste becomes effortless mode rather than efforting.
John Tan: The power of constructs, how it creates an experience so real and so convincing, how it blinds. You cannot just look at just one side of the coin.
Soh Wei Yu: Yeah I had a better understanding of the power of constructs a year after that.
John Tan: If you do not understand the power of constructs, you are only knowing half. It is the process of forming and dissolving these constructs in relation to consciousness creating all the one mind, no mind, anatta, non-dual experiences. And you are always overcoming those, so know the power and know the way of overcoming and what do you call that?
Soh Wei Yu: Prajna? Wisdom.
John Tan: No.
Soh Wei Yu: Karmic propensities? Bond. Ignorance.
John Tan: You can say all that... But what do you call these constructs in Buddhism?
Soh Wei Yu: Mental proliferation?
John Tan: 造作. Means what? Mental proliferation means what?
Soh Wei Yu: It is the continuous activity of projecting those constructs into reality.
John Tan: It is the continuous activity of projecting those constructs into experience... Now there are 2 one is releasing these constructs, the other is the post releasing... So what are the difference? The actual experience post releasing, and the question is emptiness and DO just seeing through these constructs? Or is there something more? When you see through the background, you don't just experience vivid effortless non-dual experiences. But you always realize all along there isn't any self behind, just this activity of on going proliferation... And the freedom of it. When it is free... what is experience like?
Soh Wei Yu: Btw which year did you realise anatta? Just curious lol... 1997?
John Tan: Yeah around there. Anatta is not just non-dual. Unlike you, I have been stuck in one mind for quite some time. It is not easy to get rid of that trace.
Soh Wei Yu: You were in one mind before 1997?
John Tan: Without guidance, can take many years. Even then one may just be a state of no mind rather than anatta. Yeah 1997 and before no mind also but clarity of view wasn't there. So it remains a form of experience rather than insight and realization. A state I mean. Why?
Soh Wei Yu: Hmm... There is some insight into nondivision but not the emptiness of awareness, not anatta, so you realised through contemplating the first stanza of anatta in 1997 but that was still followed by one mind and no mind for a few years?
John Tan: No... post anatta, the karmic tendency wasn't that strong anymore... maybe 1 year or so for one mind and no mind... Before that overcoming of background is tough. I AM was younger than you... lol. I AM is at the age around 15. 🤣, so you can see how long can one get stuck.
Soh Wei Yu: My impression is that yogacara is idealist because they totally negate external world even conventionally and posit that all phenomena are purely projections of consciousness like it is literally a dream.
John Tan: For me I have my own way of sorting out my view, experience and insights from Buddhist contexts. Where it starts and stops. I am not a follower of faith.
Soh Wei Yu: Whereas certain forms of madhyamika, longchenpa and tsongkhapa don't necessarily buy thus.
John Tan: Prasangika do not care about mind at all. Same for me post anatta...
Soh Wei Yu: Yeah in fact post anatta I resonate more with AF than yogacara 🤣.
John Tan: It is not that mind is not important in practice...
Soh Wei Yu: Except I see in terms of dependent origination and emptiness now.
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 Shen 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: btw 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 effortless authenticate clarity. I believe so but he did not talk about his experience except the stanza before his death that is beautiful.
Soh Wei Yu: didnt see his stanza before. Yeah luminous aggregates. That are also empty.
John Tan: 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 )) -.
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/11/differentiate-wisdom-from-art.html
John Tan: Then you can't say phenomena is empty if you resonate with AF. AF is based on the concreteness of phenomena. If you say you resonate, then emptiness cannot be anywhere resonating at all. In fact just opposite as in the eight similes of illusion.
Soh Wei Yu: I resonate with af in the sense that I do not see an ultimate Self or cosmic mind at all, or one mind or all is mind... I only see luminous aggregates that are totally exerting as infinitude of universe and time, but yet not the same as AF because I see the eight examples of illusion as applying to these luminous aggregates.
John Tan: There is nothing wrong resonating with AF. Just that you need to be clear, you can't be either here or there. Mixing up everything.
Soh Wei Yu: Basically like what ted biringer said about existence time except even that is empty, so I don't see timeless formless absolute.
John Tan: If you see anatta as de-construction of self, then deconstructing further into object is just a natural progression. Unless one is stuck in seeing through self with experience and have insight of no self but did not know the cause of it. Do you know the main different between sutrayana and vajrayana?
Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm says view are the same but path different. Maybe vajrayana deals with energy.
John Tan: That is the main difference. In fact all religions, science, new age or old age... lol ultimately must come to this.
Nick Wilson: Hey Soh, in terms of adopting a view, does what JT say point to "everything has the nature of awareness" over "everything appears in awareness"?
Soh Wei Yu: Nick Wilson, arising "in awareness" is one mind — https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../differentiati.... John Tan said in 2008:
"Do not underestimate the impact of the constant chattering in a dualistic manner. If we continuously repeat “phenomenon arises in awareness” and not “as Awareness”, even though there never was a separation, consciousness will see as if there is a separation. Although it may seem to be a casual expression for communication sake, the impact is subtle. In time to come, the slow and subtle impact will make separation appear amazingly real. This is true even for those that have experienced non-duality; they are not spared from it."
Even when one says everything arises AS awareness, that may not be indicative of anatta realization. It can still be in the one mind~no mind territory.
There is a Mahamudra text which John Tan loved (also, he likes Mahamudra teachings in general) that I think is related to this topic:
The Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra
Composed by
The Lord Protector Rangjung Dorje
The Third Gyalwa Karmapa
Namoguru,
Gurus and yidams, deities of the mandala,
Buddhas of the three times in the ten directions and your sons and daughters,
Please consider us with kindness and understanding, and
Grant your blessing that these aspirations may be accomplished exactly as we ask.
Sprung from the snow mountain of pure intentions and actions
Of myself and all sentient beings without limit,
May the river of accumulated virtue of the threefold purity
Flow into the ocean of the four bodies of the Victorious Ones.
So long as this is not accomplished,
Through all my lifetimes, birth upon birth,
May not even the words "evil deeds" and "suffering" be heard
And may we enjoy the splendour
and goodness of oceans of happiness and virtue.
Having obtained the supreme freedoms
and conjunctions of the precious human existence,
endowed with faith, energy, and intelligence,
Having attended on a worthy spiritual friend
and received the pith of the holy instructions,
May we practice these properly, just as we have received them,
without obstacle or interruption.
In all our lives, may we practice and enjoy the holy dharma.
Hearing and studying the scriptures and
reasonings free us from the obscuration of not knowing,
Contemplating the oral instructions disperses the darkness of doubt.
In the light born of meditation what is shines forth just as it is.
May the brightness of the three prajnas grow in power.
By understanding the meaning of the ground,
which is the two truths free from the extremes of eternalism and nihilism
And by practising the supreme path of the two accumulations,
free from the extremes of exaggeration and denial,
Is attained the fruit of well-being for oneself and others,
free from the extremes of samsara and nirvana.
May all beings meet the dharma which neither errs nor misleads.
The ground of purification is the mind itself,
indivisible cognitive clarity and emptiness.
That which purifies is the great vajra yoga of mahamudra.
What is to be purified are the adventitious,
temporary contaminations of confusion,
May the fruit of purification, the stainless dharmakaya, be manifest.
Resolving doubts about the ground brings conviction in the view.
Then keeping one's awareness unwavering in accordance with the view,
is the subtle pith of meditation.
Putting all aspects of meditation into practice is the supreme action.
The view, the meditation, the action--may there be confidence in these.
All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.
Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind
Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,
manifesting as everything whatsoever.
Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut.
Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self.
By the power of this dualistic fixation, beings wander in the realms of samsaric existence.
May ignorance, the root of confusion, he discovered and cut.
It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.
May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, he realised.
If one says, "This is it," there is nothing to show.
If one says, "This is not it," there is nothing to deny.
The true nature of phenomena,
which transcends conceptual understanding, is unconditioned.
May conviction he gained in the ultimate, perfect truth.
Not realising it, one circles in the ocean of samsara.
If it is realised, buddha is not anything other.
It is completely devoid of any "This is it," or "This is not it."
May this simple secret, this ultimate essence of phenomena,
which is the basis of everything, be realised.
Appearance is mind and emptiness is mind.
Realisation is mind and confusion is mind.
Arising is mind and cessation is mind.
May all doubts about mind be resolved.
Not adulterating meditation with conceptual striving or mentally created meditation,
Unmoved by the winds of everyday busyness,
Knowing how to rest in the uncontrived, natural spontaneous flow,
May the practice of resting in mind's true nature be skilfully sustained.
The waves of subtle and coarse thoughts calm down by themselves in their own place,
And the unmoving waters of mind rest naturally.
Free from dullness, torpor, and, murkiness,
May the ocean of shamatha be unmoving and stable.
Looking again and again at the mind which cannot be looked at,
The meaning which cannot be seen is vividly seen, just as it is.
Thus cutting doubts about how it is or is not,
May the unconfused genuine self-nature he known by self-nature itself.
Looking at objects, the mind devoid of objects is seen;
Looking at mind, its empty nature devoid of mind is seen;
Looking at both of these, dualistic clinging is self-liberated.
May the nature of mind, the clear light nature of what is, be realised.
Free from mental fabrication, it is the great seal, mahamudra.
Free from extremes, it is the great middle way, madhyamika.
The consummation of everything, it is also called the great perfection, dzogchen.
May there be confidence that by understanding one,
the essential meaning of all is realised.
Great bliss free from attachment is unceasing.
Luminosity free from fixation on characteristics is unobscured.
Nonthought transcending conceptual mind is spontaneous presence.
May the effortless enjoyment of these experiences be continuous.
Longing for good and clinging to experiences are self-liberated.
Negative thoughts and confusion purify naturally in ultimate space.
In ordinary mind there is no rejecting and accepting, loss and gain.
May simplicity, the truth of the ultimate essence of everything, be realised.
The true nature of beings is always buddha.
Not realising that, they wander in endless samsara.
For the boundless suffering of sentient beings
May unbearable compassion be conceived in our being.
When the energy of unbearable compassion is unceasing,
In expressions of loving kindness,
the truth of its essential emptiness is nakedly clear.
This unity is the supreme unerring path.
Inseparable from it, may we meditate day and night.
By the power of meditation arise the eyes and supernormal perceptions,
Sentient beings are ripened and buddha fields are perfectly purified,
The aspirations that accomplish the qualities of a buddha are fulfilled.
By bringing these three to utmost fruition-fulfilling,
ripening and purifying-may utmost buddhahood be manifest.
By the power of the compassion of the Victorious Ones of the ten directions
and their sons and daughters,
And by the power of all the pure virtue that exists,
May the pure aspirations of myself and all sentient beings
Be accomplished exactly as we wish.
Update
I told you about 3 points that you must see through in conceptualities
1. Vase is empty of vase
2. Vase is empty of the inherentness of vase
3. Division
Anurag is talking about one of them -- vase is empty of vase. Nagasena told king Milinda that there is no "chariot" that can be found anywhere ultimately but obviously Nagasena is ferried by what we conventionally designated as "chariot". When you look at yourself there is no "Soh" or any identity you can point to yet obviously there is the mere appearances. There is no cause and effect but there is functioning. So what exactly is "de-constructed" here?
Is this same of different from the de-construction of "hearer hearing sound" in anatta? Like "mover and movement", "lightning flashes", "thunder roars".
Lastly, why is life designated as "life" and not the beginning of death? Where exactly is the line of demarcation? Like the question I asked you "this moment ceases as it arises, does it arise or does it cease"? In experience, where exactly is the line that divides subject and object?
The deconstruction on these 3 aspects of conceptualities can yield different experiences and you have to discern them with clarity.
29 DECEMBER 2020 — Source block forwarded by John Tan (from Jax)
Trekchö
Trekchö means to “cut through”. In Dzogchen we are cutting through the totality of karmic mind or sem.
The karmic mind is composed of conceptual constructs and beliefs. These mental constructs concern the subjective side of a self and the objective side as “other than self”.
It is discovered that our self, mind, problems, birth, death, our body, people, creatures and things; meaning our entire world and universe, are composed only our thought constructs and beliefs.
The method is to suspend paying attention to thoughts, actively thinking thoughts and investing belief in any thought.
As the process cuts deeper, all conceptual reference points are cut through and abandoned.
The beliefs in a self, a soul, a being, a spirit, a god, a guru, a path, enlightenment, a Buddha, Brahman, other people, creatures, objects, planets, stars, galaxies and universes, all are seen to be your own conceptual constructs.
When all such beliefs and all other remaining reference points have been cut though, what remains is a pristine and pure Awareness (Dharmakaya) that can’t possibly be understood conceptually or captured in thought.
Samsara is the self and its world created by the mind’s thought constructs and beliefs... all thought constructs must be “cut through” and abandoned.
Professor of Quantum Physics at John Hopkins, Richard Conn Henry wrote:
“We know for a fact that the universe is not “made of” anything. Get it through your heads, physicists! It is sometimes said that the only thing that is real are the observations, but even that is not true: observations are not real either. They, and everything else, are purely mental."
He later states: ".... there are no real monkeys or cats or other humans––the entire universe exists only in YOUR mind."
“In the real ultimate truth that Prasangika philosophers maintain, there is no objectively existent thing or event, even at the level of conventional truth.”
Tenpa Tsering
Lama Zopa on Prasangika Emptiness Teachings:
“The entire world, even the Dharma path, hell, god realm, positive and negative karma, and enlightenment, were made up by your own mind. Your mind projected the hallucination of things existing from their own side.
This hallucination of inherent existence is the foundation. Then, on top of that, you pay attention to certain attributes and label “wonderful,” “horrible,” or “nothing much.” When you think, “He’s awful” and get angry, you label the person an enemy. Not aware that you created the enemy, you believe there is a truly existent one out there and project all sorts of other notions on him. You justify your actions, thinking they are positive, when in fact you created the enemy. In fact, there’s no real enemy there. There’s not the slightest atom of an enemy existing; not even a tiny particle of true existence.”
Dzogchen teacher, Chokyi Nyima explains:
“The most subtle type of obscuration is to simply conceive of something – like simply thinking, “It is.” Any notion we may hold is still a way of conceptualizing the three spheres: subject, object and action. Whenever there is a thought which conceives the three spheres, karma is created. People ask, ‘What is karma? I don’t get it! Where is karma? ” In fact, karma is our mind conceiving something. Karma is the doings of conceptual mind. This subtle forming of a notion of anything is like a web, a haze that obscures our innate Suchness just as mist obscures the sun from being vividly seen.
The great master Nagarjuna said, “There is no samsara apart from your own thoughts.” Samsara is based on thought; samsara is made by thought.”
Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso:
“The aim of the Prasangika is to silence completely the conceptualizing mind, allowing the mind to rest in absolute freedom from concepts. Absolute freedom from concepts is what Prasangikas call Emptiness.”
John Tan: From jax
Soh Wei Yu: what do you think? I think can give the false impression that merely a nonconceptual state is liberation lol.
John Tan: Vase empty of vase is like the semantics, meanings, definitions that are associated with a conventional term. The whole idea of and concept about vase, cause and effect, physicality, existence. For example the whole idea of self/Self is eliminated but will that lead one to the same initial insight and experience of anatta, I doubt so, and non-dual seems to come only much later after maturing of deconstruction. Initially it is the releasing of the mind from the attachments to the "definitions and meanings" of the concepts. Inherentness is like hearer of sound (in my opinion). However they are related. Yet the experiences differ initially but ultimately both insights will align. Empty of inherentness is more intuitive. So vase empty of vase is doing away completely with conceptualities. If practitioner were to start from such a way of practice, will take a long time to give rise to an experiential taste similar to anatta. It must be directed to self/Self first before one looks at phenomena. Like chariot is empty of chariot. If you start from there, it is hard to get to an experiential taste similar to anatta.
Soh Wei Yu: Vase empty of vase is like Atmanananda way of deconstructing objects into consciousness right. It is also taught in tibetan buddhism?
John Tan: Sort of. That is why I cut and paste this part to you. This is vase empty of vase. ==> "to suspend paying attention to thoughts, actively thinking thoughts and investing belief in any thought." This will lead one into dry non-conceptualities without insights. Rather the purpose is to trigger the "insight" to see through and transcend all these man-made constructs and conventions and mistake them as "real" (reifications). So my first question to you is, will such an insight lead to non-dual, collapsing subject and object duality and inherentness? If no, why? If yes, when? ==>"As the process cuts deeper, all conceptual reference points are cut through and abandoned. The beliefs in a self, a soul, a being, a spirit, a god, a guru, a path, enlightenment, a Buddha, Brahman, other people, creatures, objects, planets, stars, galaxies and universes, all are seen to be your own conceptual constructs. When all such beliefs and all other remaining reference points have been cut though, what remains is a pristine and pure Awareness (Dharmakaya) that can’t possibly be understood conceptually or captured in thought. Samsara is the self and its world created by the mind’s thought constructs and beliefs... all thought constructs must be “cut through” and abandoned.".
"When all such beliefs and all other remaining reference points have been cut though, what remains is a pristine and pure Awareness (Dharmakaya) that can’t possibly be understood conceptually or captured in thought."
My second question, is this the purpose like what Jax said? Will this lead to "what remains is pristine, pure Awareness"? If yes how? If no why?
My third question, what is the final result of vase empty of vase?
John Tan: Quite good. (Soh: Referring to my earlier writing:)
Soh Wei Yu: Seeing life and death as mere designation is the seeing through of any inherentness of birth and death by realising that all designated entities undergoing birth/abiding/cessation is by mere designation or the confluence of conditions and designation.
Soh Wei Yu: Not just life and death. There is also the sense that for example meditating here is deeply connected with buddha, there is no buddha and no me, just total exertion. It also makes sense that guan yin has thousand arms. It can mean literal emanations, but in a sense all practitioners can feel the total exertion with guan yin because there is no inherent division of guan yin and oneself. Just like life and death, that division and line is merely designated).
John Tan: Now is www.awakeningtoreality.com?
Soh Wei Yu: Yeah I think both links still work. Happy new year! No need for deconstruction to realise awareness. Just self enquiry is enough, but deconstruction leads to deeper insights... like for the atmananda path there is deconstructing objects after the I AM. Initially the deconstruction of objects does not result in nondual in that path. It's like from opaque to transparent witness. Everything is deconstructed to arisings in awareness... But still dual, then later that duality collapses, but that's for atmananda path. For me I was more like into anatta first. A Very Important Step. I’ve found that the deconstruction of physical objects (including the body) to be the single most important step. People want to rush past this step to get to the sexy things like thoughts, feelings, free will, etc. But here’s the catch. Almost invariably, we think of thoughts and feelings and free will with the help of physical metaphors. We can’t help it. So we attribute positionality, containment and spatial relations to these subtle, non-physical things. (e.g., “thoughts in the mind,” “mind in the body,” “thoughts causing emotional pressure,” etc.) As long as we do this, we will feel limited in an almost physical way by the non-physical. This is unnecessary, and largely a trick of language. The book goes into this in great detail. But if we work with the book in order, and begin by deconstructing physicality completely, we will no longer think or experience in physical terms. We will then no longer think of mental things along the lines of physical things. It is then that we begin to understand witnessing awareness much more clearly, and amazingly enough, witnessing awareness begins to become less and less real and substantial at the same time. Our global experience is much lighter and freer as our notion of physicality and awareness together become thinner and thinner. To help with the deconstruction of physicality, you can read one of the most sustained critiques of physicality ever written: George Berkeley’s Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (1713). A philosophical acquaintance of mine, and former teacher, Jonathan Bennett, has laboriously updated Berkeley’s 18th century English into more contemporary English for modern students. I was rigorously trained on this text with one of the world’s greatest Berkeley scholars, and it really, really worked to make physicality vanish! Here is the collection of his modern renditions of Berkeley:
Soh Wei Yu: But greg goode say before those who want to realise anatta should not do atmanananda direct path, Because it only gets to something like it at the very very end and only like talked about it briefly.
John Tan: Very interesting. Where you get this?
Soh Wei Yu: Greg goode website... The whole article is longer.
John Tan: What is the URL? Seems to deconstruct both mental and physical.
Soh Wei Yu: https://greg-goode.com/article/witnessing-awareness/
John Tan: Greg became a Christian right?
Soh Wei Yu: Last I heard he is into christianity, but he doesn't seem to write about it in his website.
John Tan: Is he still teaching direct path?
Soh Wei Yu: I'm not sure he closed down his facebook group on direct path some years ago.
https://greg-goode.com/.../is-there-creation-in-nonduality/
He explains advaita ajativada here. No creation.
John Tan: Seems like he stopped writing after 2017.
Geovani Geo there is the way of de-construction from analysis where one analyses and understands that "named things" are empty and "non-arisen" but still, one may not directly taste that empty clarity even after clearly understanding it conceptually. We must ask why is it so.
So, my question is:
1. How can the understanding that conceptual notions are empty "SUDDENLY" lead to direct authentication of one's empty "clarity/awareness"? Or it does or does not affect one's "clarity/awareness"?
2. If it does not, then what is the purpose of such contemplations?
3. If we want to authenticate "clarity" directly, don't you find the neti neti way to self enquiry of "who am I" a much more direct and intuitive approach?
4. How do 1 and 3 differ from ATR anatta enquiry of:
In hearing, there is just sound, no hearer;
In seeing, there is just colors and shapes, no seer;
All the above are ways of deconstructing conceptual constructs, but they lead to different results. Clearly understanding which de-constructing technique lead to what "result" is crucial.
*** It has to do with whether we are deconstructing the "SYNTAX/STRUCTURE" or the "SEMANTICS/MEANING" that is associated to conceptual notion but will not go into it.
I replied
Soh Wei Yu: My take 1) In greg goode direct path, the conceptual notions and constructs of physicality and objectivity is deconstructed even at the I AM phase prior to collapse of witness. In this path, objects and physicality become deconstructed into arisings within witnessing awareness, even before witness collapses. This leaves the subjective pole undeconstructed until much later. (Their path: coarse Witnessing (correction: opaque witness) with personality undeconstructed > subtle Witness or opaque witness (correction: transparent witness) with personality and objectivity deconstructed > collapse of witness into pure consciousness (aka one mind) > finally even consciousness dissolve (no mind? )) 3) will lead to dissociation and I AM. But neti neti is needed for self enquiry and I AM realization. 4) deconstructs subjective pole, leading to direct realization and taste of radiance as all manifestations. Aka anatta. As for 2) I think 1) can be a kind of release on mental level even if anatta isn’t realised. Greg goode said that by the time he reached transparent witness he was free of mental suffering.
John Tan: Soh Wei Yu, what is opaque witness? Free of mental suffering is true.
Soh Wei Yu: John Tan, sorry wrote wrong. Opaque witness first followed by transparent witness. He became free from mental suffering at transparent witness.
John Tan: Soh Wei Yu, how does insight of "I AM" get triggered via such method of seeing through "named things"?
Soh Wei Yu: John Tan, to me I AM is triggered from self enquiry, not deconstruction. Seeing through named things is more on deconstruction.
John Tan: Soh Wei Yu, so you are saying 1 will not lead to realization of "clarity" but just mere release of mental suffering?
Soh Wei Yu: John Tan, if the deconstruction of all conceptual notions goes along with meditation into a state of cessation of concepts, there is also a possibility of discovering pure awareness / I AM. Doesn’t have to be self enquiry. Like sim pern chong got there by breathing meditation, some people through psychedelics, some people through yoga, kundalini etc.
John Tan: Soh Wei Yu, yes but not necessarily until total cessation of concepts, however at a much later phase of de-construction. The insight by then will be much clearer and stable in my opinion though it comes at a later phase of de-constructing. I am more interested in how and why.
Soh Wei Yu: Anurag Jain, the Witness collapses after the gestalt of arisings are seen through in Direct Path. Objects, as you have already mentioned, should have been thoroughly deconstructed before. With objects and arisings deconstructed there is nothing to be a Witness of and it collapses.
John Tan: Not true. Object and arising can also collapse through subsuming into an all encompassing awareness.
Soh Wei Yu: Yeah but it's like nondual. Means after the collapse of the Witness and arising, it can be nondual, but still one mind. Right? But then atmananda also said at the end even the notion of consciousness dissolves. I think that's like one mind into no mind but I'm not sure whether it talks about anatta.
John Tan: Yes.
Soh Wei Yu: Anurag Jain, where is the notion of "all encompassing awareness". Sounds like awareness is being reified as a container.
Anurag Jain: Soh Wei Yu, also when you say Consciousness dissolves, you have to first answer how did it ever exist in the first place? 🙂
John Tan: In subsuming there is no container-contained relationship, there is only Awareness.
Soh Wei Yu: Anurag Jain, so how does Awareness "remain"? Where and how?
John Tan: Anyway this is not for unnecessary debates, if he truly understands then just let it be.
"Yes. Subject and object can both collapsed into pure seeing but it is only when this pure seeing is also dropped/exhausted that natural spontaneity and effortlessness can begin to function marvelously. That is why it has to be thorough and all the "emphasis". But I think he gets it, so you don't have to keep nagging 🤣." - John Tan
Soh Wei Yu: This single undifferentiated field (one mind) is simply the luminosity of consciousness that can modulate as this and that like the single ocean of light manifesting as varying waves but never changing its substance. Like h2o appearing as vapor, ice and liquid but never changing its substance.
Anurag Jain: Soh Wei Yu, is this luminosity seen or conceptualized?!
Soh Wei Yu: Realising anatta is realising there is no unchanging substance, and luminosity is none other than appearance in its diversities. There is no ultimate unchanging awareness modulating as this and that.
Anurag Jain: Soh Wei Yu, please answer what is this luminosity you are talking about. What object? Gross or subtle?! Soh Wei Yu, I too say that luminosity is the appearance in the diversities.
Soh Wei Yu: After anatta, luminosity is only ever everything, be it subtle or gross or whatever. In one mind, luminosity is the unchanging ultimate substance that can manifest in various modes like subtle and gross, yet has an unchanging inherent essence that remains unchanging throughout its various modulations (like the h2o analogy).
Anurag Jain: Well I don't disagree to you. I never talked about luminosity as a substance. A substance by its very definition is perceptible. So I am not talking of Awareness as any substance... gross or subtle.
Anurag Jain: Knower and known are one can be either one mind, no mind or anatta. There are different insights. If one realises as TNH says — there is no knowing besides those dynamic phenomena, that is anatta. No lightning besides flash. Soh Wei Yu, why the name "One Mind". One with respect to what? You can call a substance one. Soh Wei Yu, in One Mind, phenomena occur IN awareness. Soh Wei Yu, I am talking about phenomena being Awareness. Soh Wei Yu, lightning is a conceptual label (also Awareness). Flash is not independent of seeing itself and therefore Awareness itself. Soh Wei Yu, in the movie analogy, the light reflected from screen which shows different appearances on the screen is Awareness. Now can you tell me if that light is different from the appearance? Is it one way dependence or two way dependence? Appearances are light and light is appearances.
Soh Wei Yu: Phenomena being Awareness is also in post nondual one mind, to no mind. Anatta is also seeing there is no seeing independent of appearance. There is nothing ultimate about “Awareness”. It is just a convention for luminous empty appearance. Like lightning is just a convention for flash.
Anurag Jain: Soh Wei Yu, can you please say where I am differing from you in your statement above? Not sure I get your analogy right. Are you saying light is none other than the reflection/appearance? Also “causes different appearance” seems to imply a source, some cause effect which you refuted, so I don't think that's your point. There is no one light being refracted into many, otherwise that is one mind.
Soh Wei Yu: Shinshu Roberts wrote the following, “Since our activity is not a progression from delusion to enlightenment made solely by the independent self, Dogen defines the first thought of practice as 'immediate present ultimate Dharma' or genjokoan: the presence and perfection of all dharmas as they are in the here-and-now.' Hee-Jin Kim further explains the meaning of genjokoan: 'It does not suggest an evolutionary ascent from hidden-ness to manifestation, or from imperfection to perfection, or conversely, an emanational descent from one to many, or from reality to appearance. Rather, things, events, beings are already unmistakably what they truly are; what is more, they are vibrant, transparent, and bright in their as-they-are-ness.'”
Anurag Jain: Soh Wei Yu, yes. I am saying light is appearance itself. Sorry for my use of word causes. Please ignore. Wrong choice of words. Then I have no issues with that.
John Tan: Anatta is a realization that there isn't a consciousness besides sound, scenery... etc. You see through reification of that agent and get in touch with the base manifestation where the label rely upon, so sound is the actual consciousness is referring to. There is no consciousness other than that. When they see through reification, then phenomena has a different meaning. Seeing everything as awareness is not one mind. Seeing everything as the same unchanging mind is the problem. When you see through reification, you realized "awareness" is just a label point to these manifestations, so there is nothing wrong saying that. Only when we treat awareness to be of true existence then we are deluded because there isn't any. In hearing, there is only sound. Hearing implies the presence of sound.
Anurag Jain: Soh Wei Yu, good. Thanks for the discussion. It's great to have a friend in you with whom I can discuss these things. There are really few with whom I can 🙂.
John Tan: I think he is quite clear on that. What about mind freeing itself from notions of anything for example existence, physicality, cause and effect? How is this different from the insight of agency-action? I am more interested in the insight, clarity and experiences that come from seeing through notions vs agency. If there is clear insights and experiential tastes that come from seeing through them, then the difference is clearly seen. They are very different sort of de-construction like phases of insights from I AM to spontaneous perfection. This is also very important for you. I do not want to keep asking you also, tired🤣.
Anurag Jain: Soh Wei Yu, agency is not there in me at all. The concrete experience I have at this time is that of "non-abidance." There is no landing point. Only seeing, hearing, tasting. My experience of luminosity and spaciousness/transparency keeps getting refined. It deepens, stabilizes and then becomes normal till the next wave comes.
John Tan: That is good. Insights are to abolish any artificial divisions and constructs (man made) into natural spontaneity. So don't over focus or chase after any states, not even transparency otherwise will result in energy imbalances.
Geovani Geo: The eventual problem I see is that I cannot find a place for Awareness anywhere.
Anurag Jain: I don't disagree with you. I don't find a place for it anywhere either. This is what I was asking Soh. Where does he see Awareness in what I am saying. Which place?
Geovani Geo: Yes, that is pointing to the viewless.
Anurag Jain: I don't like to use the words "objects don't exist on their own side and are therefore empty." That's because I like Advaita. Just about that. My love for the path and preference for its language.
Geovani Geo: Now... let’s check it: Is there some Awareness when all appearances are absent?
Anurag Jain: Geovani Geo, let’s check before that if appearances are ever absent?
Geovani Geo: Yes. That is the point! There never is/was an absence of appearances!
Alessandro Socio Migliori: Geovani Geo, in cessation.
Geovani Geo: But advaitins claim that when all appearances end there is still Awareness there.
Anurag Jain: Geovani Geo, talk to "this" Advaitin.
Geovani Geo: Some, like Darryl, claim they have been there. He says he has been pure Awareness without appearances.
Anurag Jain: Darryl claims many things. He also claims he is pure love. Geovani Geo, he is probably talking of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. The mind is still there in the most subtle form. If it is not there he would not even know that he had that experience.
Geovani Geo: It all clears when the conceptualizing re the nature of what is, stops. Any subtle views are still the continuation of conceptualizing mind.
Anurag Jain: True. Geovani Geo, and no amount of Nirvikalpa Samadhi can do it. Only inquiry can penetrate it.
Geovani Geo: "My experience of luminosity and spaciousness/transparency keeps getting refined. It deepens, stabilizes and then becomes normal till the next wave comes." "Luminosity" is some kind of an appearance?
Anurag Jain: No, it is an experience.
.png)
