Insights on Anatta from Yin Ling and Albert Hong

Here are some insightful recent comments and reflections on anatta (no-self) from Yin Ling and Albert Hong. As Yin Ling noted:

Thanks Soh Wei Yu. He collated all my random posts and Albert’s very nice comment, John’s training the AI , and put it together.
Below is a crucial insight I wish everyone can realize.
When you bath the Buddha, the Buddha is you, the water is you, the temple is you, your hand is you, the ladle is you, and you are the nature of mind.
You are NOT the body, you are mind. You don’t die, don’t change, don’t move, and you are Buddha. Blessed Vesak. May all awaken to their true nature and stop suffering.

Yin Ling on Mind and Meditation

First step of meditation is to ascertain the knowing MIND. Without it there is no realisation. The bird, the sky, the touch, the coffee, are all your MIND. MIND once ascertained and strengthen will take one out of “self view” to realisation & we won’t get lost.

The Satipatthana sutta is a wonderful instruction to reach insight.
“Feel the body in the body”, when practicing, don’t think. Feel.
Truly feel the body FROM inside the body. Feel the sound from the sound itself. (1) tbc

(2) feel the feelings, thoughts and all 6 senses in itself and via itself.
It is as though u Insert ur awareness into the middle of the feelings and feel from inside.

(3) practice satipatthana for months to years, consistently.
The Buddha’s mindfulness practice aim to transform our mind : 1) weaken the central self energy and 2) realising awareness has always infused in the 6 senses, not apart.

(4)satipatthana will bring u to the powerful no-self realisation, if u were taught correctly and if u practice consistently 2 hours a day.
The mind energy WILL transform rapidly in 8-12 months.

I went through vipassana, and then become non dual with strong sense of knowingness, then anatta.

Albert Hong on Consciousness and Sensation

Albert Hong offered this perspective:

it's remarkable that hearing is exactly the sound. there is no distance or gap. seeing is exactly color. feeling is exactly sensation. there is nothing extra. just that arising color, taste, sensation, sound.
and the flavor/texture of that is exactly consciousness.

it's remarkable really. being to extend that sense of consciousness, which we all previously only emphasized as prior to thought, as some localized sensation behind the eyes. we have to notice how that is a very subtle effort, a kind of assumption at play.

the flavor of consciousness is exactly the sensation, the color, the smell, the sensation. like holy shit there is no hearer. no seer. no feeler. it's only ever an assumption.

you go into sensation for example. there is no actual link between sensations. it's only that sensation, which is exactly the flavor of luminosity. and it has no real link to anything else. thoughts don't touch it, smells don't, colors don't. it's remarkable what imputation-thought can assume to glob together a seeming "thingness".

but even between one sensation and another. there is only ever that arising which is exactly the sensation. there is no prior, so you don't even have a contrast. you can never hold two things. just that sensation. how remarkable. everything is contained right there. nothing prior, hence how could there even be a sensation. where is there continuity? there is no room or time or space for continuity. and yet it magically seems like there is.

even the witness. it's just a sensation at the end of the day. nothing prior, which experiences the witness-sensation. feeling is exactly that sensation. or lets extend that as the whole sphere of beingness. again another feeling-sensation. none of this has to disappear. the extra imputation of a feeler, has to be seen as silly. never will be, never has been, just never really examined.

Further Sharings by Yin Ling and John Tan

 

Yin Ling's sharing:

 

 

 

 

 John Tan's conversation with AtR bot:

Thich Nhat Hanh on Observation Meditation and No-Self

Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh explains a crucial point about practice:

"After explaining the sixteen methods of conscious breathing, the Buddha speaks about the Four Establishments of Mindfulness and the Seven Factors of Awakening. Everything that exists can be placed into one of the Four Establishments of Mindfulness—the body, the feelings, the mind, and the objects of the mind. Another way of saying “objects of mind” is “all dharmas,” which means “everything that is.” Therefore, all of the Four Establishments of Mindfulness are objects of the mind. In this sutra, we practice full awareness of the Four Establishments through conscious breathing. For a full understanding of the Four Establishments of Mindfulness, read the Satipatthana Sutta.24

The phrases “observing the body in the body,” “observing the feelings in the feelings,” “observing the mind in the mind,” and “observing the objects of mind in the objects of mind,” appear in the third section of the sutra. The key to “observation meditation” is that the subject of observation and the object of observation not be regarded as separate. A scientist might try to separate herself from the object she is observing and measuring, but students of meditation have to remove the boundary between subject and object. When we observe something, we are that thing. “Nonduality” is the key word. “Observing the body in the body” means that in the process of observing, you don’t stand outside your own body as if you were an independent observer, but you identify yourself one hundred percent with the object being observed. This is the only path that can lead to the penetration and direct experience of reality. In “observation meditation,” the body and mind are one entity, and the subject and object of meditation are one entity also. There is no sword of discrimination that slices reality into many parts. The meditator is a fully engaged participant, not a separate observer."

A contributor shared the following quote from Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh regarding anatman:

"When we say it's raining, we mean that raining is taking place. You don't need someone up above to perform the raining. It's not that there is the rain, and there is the one who causes the rain to fall. In fact, when you say the rain is falling, it's very funny, because if it weren't falling, it wouldn't be rain. In our way of speaking, we're used to having a subject and a verb. That's why we need the word "it" when we say, "it rains." "It" is the subject, the one who makes the rain possible. But, looking deeply, we don't need a "rainer," we just need the rain. Raining and the rain are the same. The formations of birds and the birds are the same -- there's no "self," no boss involved.

There's a mental formation called vitarka, "initial thought." When we use the verb "to think" in English, we need a subject of the verb: I think, you think, he thinks. But, really, you don't need a subject for a thought to be produced. Thinking without a thinker -- it's absolutely possible. To think is to think about something. To perceive is to perceive something. The perceiver and the perceived object that is perceived are one.

When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am," his point was that if I think, there must be an "I" for thinking to be possible. When he made the declaration "I think," he believed that he could demonstrate that the "I" exists. We have the strong habit or believing in a self. But, observing very deeply, we can see that a thought does not need a thinker to be possible. There is no thinker behind the thinking -- there is just the thinking; that's enough.

Now, if Mr. Descartes were here, we might ask him, "Monsieur Descartes, you say, 'You think, therefore you are.' But what are you? You are your thinking. Thinking -- that's enough. Thinking manifests without the need of a self behind it."

Thinking without a thinker. Feeling without a feeler. What is our anger without our 'self'? This is the object of our meditation. All the fifty-one mental formations take place and manifest without a self behind them arranging for this to appear, and then for that to appear. Our mind consciousness is in the habit of basing itself on the idea of self, on manas. But we can meditate to be more aware of our store consciousness, where we keep the seeds of all those mental formations that are not currently manifesting in our mind.

When we meditate, we practice looking deeply in order to bring light and clarity into our way of seeing things. When the vision of no-self is obtained, our delusion is removed. This is what we call transformation. In the Buddhist tradition, transformation is possible with deep understanding. The moment the vision of no-self is there, manas, the elusive notion of 'I am,' disintegrates, and we find ourselves enjoying, in this very moment, freedom and happiness."

And further:

"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

Understanding "In and Of Itself"

The following discussion from a previous Awakening to Reality post sheds light on the phrase "in and of itself," often found in teachings like the Satipatthana Sutta:

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

HARISH (Apr 29, 2010):

Thankyou sir. That quote of Buddha was quite powerful and for the last few days seems to have somehow hit somewhere deep that is making the mindfulness 'easier' than earlier!

"This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself"
Can you guide me on how to understand "in and of itself" that is part of the quote relating to the body?

Soh (Apr 29, 2010):

Hi Buddha Bra, glad it's working for you :)

Regarding "in and of itself", here are some explanations by Thich Nhat Hanh:

"The Satipatthana Sutta, a Buddhist scripture which teaches awareness, uses expressions such as "observing the body in the body," "observing the feelings in the feelings," "observing the mind in the mind," "observing the objects of mind in the objects of mind." Why are the words, body, feelings, mind, and objects of mind repeated? Some masters of the Abhidhamma say that the purpose of this repetition is to underline the importance of these words. I see it otherwise. I think that these words are repeated in order to remind us not to separate the meditator and the object of meditation. We must live with the object, identify with it, merge with it, like a grain of salt entering the sea in order to measure the saltiness of the sea."

Also on a related note... Dr. John Welwood writes,

"We can only perceive the suchness of things through an awareness that opens to them nonconceptualy and unconditionally, allowing them to reveal themselves in their as-it-is-ness. As the poet Basho suggests:

'From the pine tree
Learn of the pine tree
And from the bamboo
of the bamboo.'

Commenting on these lines, the Japanese philosopher Nishitani (1982) explains that Basho does not mean

'That we should ‘observe the pine tree carefully.’ Still less does he mean for us to ‘study the pine tree scientifically.’ He means for us to enter the mode of being where the pine tree is the pine tree itself, and the bamboo is the bamboo itself, and from there to look at the pine tree and the bamboo. He calls on us to betake ourselves to the dimension where things become manifest in their suchness.' (p. 128)

In the same vein, Zen Master Dogen advises: “You should not restrict yourselves to learning to see water from the viewpoints of human beings alone. Know that you must see water in the way water sees water” (Izutsu, 1972, p. 140). “Seeing water in the way water sees water” means recognizing water in its suchness, free of all concepts that spring from an observing mind standing back from experience."

.......
You will see the "in and of itself" stressed throughout the Mahasatipatthana sutta, what I have quoted is only a small portion.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

Yin Ling on Experiential Insight

Yin Ling clarifies what is meant by "experiential insight" in Buddhism:

When we say experiential insight in Buddhism,
It means..
A literal transformation of energetic orientation of the whole being, down to the marrow.

The sound MUST literally hears themselves.
No hearer.
Clean. Clear.
A bondage from the head here to there cut off overnight.
Then gradually the rest of the 5 senses.

Then one can talk about Anatta.

So if for you,
Does sound hear themselves?

If no, not yet. You have to keep going! Inquire and meditate.
You haven’t reach the basic insight requirement for the deeper insights like anatta and emptiness yet!

Realisation is when

This insight goes down to the marrow and you don’t need even a minute amount of effort for sound to hear themselves.

It is like how you live with dualistic perception now, very normal, no effort.

Ppl with Anatta realisation live in Anatta effortlessly, without using thinking to orient. It’s their life.

They cannot even go back to dualistic perception because that is an imputation, it js uprooted

At first you might need to purposely orient with some effort.

Then at one point there is no need.. further along, dreams will become Anatta too.

That’s experiential realisation.

There’s no realisation unless this benchmark is achieved!

Soh Wei Yu on Experiential Realization

Soh Wei Yu summarized a key aspect of experiential realization:

"what is important is that there is experiential realisation that leads to an energetic expansion outwards into all the forms, sounds, radiant universe... such that it is not that you are in here, in the body, looking outwards at the tree, listening the birds chirping from here
it is just the trees are vividly swaying in and of itself, luminously without an observer
the trees sees themselves
the sounds hear itself
there is no location from which they are experienced, no vantage point
the energetic expansion outward into vivid manifestation, boundless, yet it is not an expansion from a center, there is just no center
without such energetic shift it is not really the real experience of no selfxabir Snoovatar"

Update: Advice on Practice for Realizing Stream Entry / Anatta

Here is some advice shared with a redditor regarding practice:

Understanding Stream Entry

First, it's important to understand that the view of stream entry presented in Awakening to Reality (AtR), based on the Pali Suttas, often differs from common interpretations found elsewhere online. As Soh Wei Yu noted on Reddit:

“What Krodha said in this thread is right: "It is quite rare to attain stream entry, I’ve been involved with dharma for over a decade and can count those who are tried and true stream entrants on one hand. That said, contemplate the Bahiya and Kalakarama suttas and cultivate the first dhyāna."

I would add that many people have misunderstood what stream entry is. Maybe 99% on reddit. The only thread on the streamentry subreddit that correctly presents stream entry can be found in https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/ , it is a good read and highly recommended reading.

I would add that despite its rarity, it is very much attainable with the right pointers and practices and I know many more stream enterers than krodha.

——

Glad you liked it. If that interests you, I think this should interest you too. On nondual awareness and its nature and the subtleties of insight:

• https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
• https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
• https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html

🙏 :) p.s. I'm Soh, and Thusness (John Tan) is my mentor... I've been through similar stages in my journey”

Practice Advice

While Self-Enquiry is often recommended first in AtR to realize "I AM," for those preferring Vipassana or seeking to break through to anatman (no-self), the following approach is suggested:

"It is advisable for you to practice vipassana in this way:

• https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/05/nice-advice-and-expression-of-anatta-in.html (This current post)
• https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/thusnesss-vipassana.html

while contemplating on:

• The two stanzas of anatta: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
• Bahiya sutta: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2010/10/my-commentary-on-bahiya-sutta.html

It will lead to the anatman (no-self) realisation and breakthrough "

Self-Enquiry vs. Vipassana

John Tan (Thusness) offered insights into the relationship between Self-Enquiry (often seen as a Direct Path approach focusing on the 'Watcher' or 'I AM') and Vipassana (often seen as a Gradual Path approach) back in 2009:

“Hi Gary,

It appears that there are two groups of practitioners in this forum, one adopting the gradual approach and the other, the direct path. I am quite new here so I may be wrong.

My take is that you are adopting a gradual approach yet you are experiencing something very significant in the direct path, that is, the ‘Watcher’. As what Kenneth said, “You're onto something very big here, Gary. This practice will set you free.” But what Kenneth said would require you to be awaken to this ‘I’. It requires you to have the ‘eureka!’ sort of realization. Awaken to this ‘I’, the path of spirituality becomes clear; it is simply the unfolding of this ‘I’.

On the other hand, what that is described by Yabaxoule is a gradual approach and therefore there is downplaying of the ‘I AM’. You have to gauge your own conditions, if you choose the direct path, you cannot downplay this ‘I’; contrary, you must fully and completely experience the whole of ‘YOU’ as ‘Existence’. Emptiness nature of our pristine nature will step in for the direct path practitioners when they come face to face to the ‘traceless’, ‘centerless’ and ‘effortless’ nature of non-dual awareness.

Perhaps a little on where the two approaches meet will be of help to you.

Awakening to the ‘Watcher’ will at the same time ‘open’ the ‘eye of immediacy’; that is, it is the capacity to immediately penetrate discursive thoughts and sense, feel, perceive without intermediary the perceived. It is a kind of direct knowing. You must be deeply aware of this “direct without intermediary” sort of perception -- too direct to have subject-object gap, too short to have time, too simple to have thoughts. It is the ‘eye’ that can see the whole of ‘sound’ by being ‘sound’. It is the same ‘eye’ that is required when doing vipassana, that is, being ‘bare’. Be it non-dual or vipassana, both require the opening of this 'eye of immediacy'.”

In another comment from 2009, John Tan advised:

"Hi Teck Cheong,

What you described is fine and it can be considered vipassana meditation too but you must be clear what is the main objective of practicing that way. Ironically, the real purpose only becomes obvious after the arising insight of anatta. What I gathered so far from your descriptions are not so much about anatta or empty nature of phenomena but are rather drawn towards Awareness practice. So it will be good to start from understanding what Awareness truly is. All the method of practices that you mentioned will lead to a quality of experience that is non-conceptual. You can have non-conceptual experience of sound, taste...etc...but more importantly in my opinion, you should start from having a direct, non-conceptual experience of Awareness (first glimpse of our luminous essence). Once you have a ‘taste’ of what Awareness is, you can then think of ‘expanding’ this bare awareness and gradually understand what does ‘heightening and expanding’ mean from the perspective of Awareness.

Next, although you hear and see ‘non-dual, anatta and dependent origination’ all over the place in An Eternal Now’s forum (the recent Toni Packer’s books you bought are about non-dual and anatta), there is nothing wrong being ‘dualistic’ for a start. Even after direct non-conceptual experience of Awareness, our view will still continue to be dualistic; so do not have the idea that being dualistic is bad although it prevents thorough experience of liberation.

The comment given by Dharma Dan is very insightful but of late, I realized that it is important to have a first glimpse of our luminous essence directly before proceeding into such understanding. Sometimes understanding something too early will deny oneself from actual realization as it becomes conceptual. Once the conceptual understanding is formed, even qualified masters will find it difficult to lead the practitioner to the actual ‘realization’ as a practitioner mistakes conceptual understanding for realization.

Rgds,
John"

“The anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of no-self. But it must first have an intuitive insight of Presence. Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights.”

This conversation further clarifies what might be lacking in some approaches to Vipassana:

• http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/vipassana-must-go-with-luminous.html

For those interested in the Self-Enquiry approach or wanting a broader overview of AtR practices, the Practice Guide is recommended:

• https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/06/the-awakening-to-reality-practice-guide.html

Labels: Anatta, Yin Ling

Nowadays its very easy to refute disinformation. Happened to check on the actual freedom webpage today and saw that richard is into the whole global warming is not real conspiracy. Then to test how good chatgpt is in combatting disinformation, i put it to test.

Model: GPT-4

Refute this with reasons:

“

RICHARD: As I have been asked to expand upon the mathematics referred to by the words “based

upon unverifiable-in-the-laboratory quantum mathematics” in my 13 

January 2006 response to an online request – (regarding what I did over 

the seven-week

period 02 November to 14 December, 2005, when I was not writing to the 

Actual Freedom Trust mailing list) – this is an apt moment to point out 

how the Anthropogenic

Global Warming hypothesis is based upon flat earth mathematics.

It would appear the guys-n-gals at Quantumville 

recalled the high-school formula for determining the surface area of a 

disc consists of its radius

squared times pi 

    (i.e., r² × π) and 

    how the greater surface area of a sphere consists of its radius squared times pi times four (i.e., r²π × 4).

Thus a disc with a radius of 1 will have a surface 

area of pi (i.e., 3.14) and the same disc converted to a sphere will 

therefore have a surface area

four times more than the original disc (i.e., 12.57). Applying this 

mathematical thinking to the terraqueous planet we all live on their 

abstractive minds effectively

reduced it to a flat disc which has been expanded four times.

Then they mentally painted this flat earth black.

Thereupon they reduced the (measured) insolation of

 the oblate spheroid known as Planet Earth to a quarter of its 

real-world strength – and directed it

to impinge upon every square millimetre of their phantom planet 

twenty-four-seven forever and a day – thereafter applying a radiance 

versus temperature constant and thus

they had their flat earth temperature of -18° Celsius.

As this is at odds with the +15° Celsius real-world temperature they confected the “greenhouse effect”

to account for the missing 33° Celsius.

This is where the weirdity of a blackbody flat 

earth bathed twenty-four-seven with quadruply-weakened sunbeams turns 

into utter bizarrerie as they

deemed some trace gases in the frigid upper troposphere, busily 

absorbing infrared light radiating from the blackbody surface and 

emitting it in all directions, to be

thus radiating some of it back to the heat-source and thereby raising 

its temperature via this ‘back-radiation’ thaumaturgy the requisite thirty-three degrees (from -18°C to +15°C).

Moreover, this sci-fi scenario conveniently ignores

 how the other atmospheric gasses constituting some 99% of the air we 

all breathe – which are heated

at ground-level by conduction and thence by convection as hot air rises 

and cold air sinks to such an extent as to dominate in determining the 

thermal structure of the

lower atmosphere (troposphere) – are also emitting infrared light in all

directions.

Furthermore, no externally heated substance – be it

 heated by conduction (direct transference from the heat source), by 

convection (heated gases rising

and mingling and mixing with sinking cooler gases), or by radiation (via

 the heat source emitting infrared light) – can actually raise the 

temperature of its heat-source 

(let alone to such a precise degree as 33° Celsius, no more and no less,

 provided some specified trace gases remain at pre-industrial 

parts-per-million 

levels).

(Ha! this real-world matter-of-factness does not apply to all the phantom planets in the noncausative

 quantum solar system, of course, which are busily raising the surface 

temperature of its central star – the 

heat-source for all those blackbody flat planets – above 5778° K via a 

massive-scale variant version of this phantasmagorical 

‘back-radiation’).

To summarise: 

1. The physical earth is not flat.

2. The physical earth is not black.

3. The physical earth is not static (it is constantly rotating).

4. The physical earth is not bathed with quadruply-weakened sunbeams.

5. Sunlight does not impinge upon every square millimetre of the physical earth twenty-four-seven (only during daytime).

6. Sunlight does not impinge with equal intensity upon every square millimetre of the daytime hemisphere (most obliquely at 

polar latitudes and dawn-dusk regions).

7. All atmospheric gases are heatable (not just several trace gases).

8. All heated atmospheric gases radiate infrared light (not just several trace gases).

9. The physical atmosphere insulates the daytime hemisphere from heating-up to unliveable temperatures (unlike its nearest 

neighbour the airless moon).

10. The physical atmosphere insulates the nighttime hemisphere from freezing to unliveable temperatures (unlike its nearest 

neighbour the airless moon).

11. In the physical world no externally heated substance can raise the temperature of its heat-source.

12. In the physical world some specified trace 

gases can (as evidenced in notable past eras) exceed by several thousand

parts-per-million those several hundred parts-per-million pre-industrial

 levels deemed sacrosanct by influential doomsayers and/or panicmongers.

tl;dr: there is no “greenhouse effect” in actuality (nor “greenhouse gases” either).”

1 / 1

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

While the author raises some concerns about the assumptions made in simplified climate models, it is important to understand that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based on a vast body of research, including complex climate models, empirical data, and observations. Refuting the claims made in the passage:

1. The physical Earth is not flat: Climate scientists are aware of this fact, and they use models that account for the Earth's shape, rotation, and other factors. Simplified models might use a flat Earth assumption for ease of calculation, but this does not affect the validity of AGW research.

2. The physical Earth is not black: This refers to the blackbody assumption made in some simplified climate models. However, actual climate models take into account the Earth's albedo, which is the fraction of solar energy reflected by the Earth's surface.

3. The physical Earth is not static (it is constantly rotating): Climate models account for the Earth's rotation and the related effects on climate, such as the Coriolis effect.

4. The physical Earth is not bathed with quadruply-weakened sunbeams: This seems to be a misunderstanding. Climate models take into account the variability in solar radiation, both spatially and temporally, to provide accurate estimates of energy inputs.

5. Sunlight does not impinge upon every square millimetre of the physical Earth twenty-four-seven: Climate models incorporate the day-night cycle, including variations in solar radiation due to the Earth's rotation.

6. Sunlight does not impinge with equal intensity upon every square millimetre of the daytime hemisphere: Climate models account for differences in solar radiation intensity based on latitude, time of year, and other factors.

7. All atmospheric gases are heatable: This is true, but some gases are more effective at trapping heat than others. Greenhouse gases, like CO2, are particularly effective at absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.

8. All heated atmospheric gases radiate infrared light: While this is true, greenhouse gases are particularly effective at absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation, which is why they are the focus of climate change research.

9. The physical atmosphere insulates the daytime hemisphere and nighttime hemisphere: The atmosphere does provide insulation, which is partially due to the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases help regulate the Earth's temperature by trapping heat.

10. In the physical world, no externally heated substance can raise the temperature of its heat-source: The greenhouse effect does not violate thermodynamics. Instead, it slows down the rate of heat loss from the Earth's surface, leading to an increase in temperature. This is analogous to a blanket, which does not create heat but rather slows down the rate of heat loss.

11. In the physical world, some specified trace gases can exceed pre-industrial levels: This is true, and it is a major concern for climate scientists. Rising greenhouse gas concentrations are responsible for the observed warming of the Earth's surface.

In conclusion, the scientific consensus on AGW is based on robust research that accounts for the complexities of the Earth's climate system. Simplified models may be used for educational purposes, but they do not form the basis for our understanding of climate change. The greenhouse effect and the role of greenhouse gases are well-established phenomena that have been observed and measured in the real world.

1 / 1

Why do you think Richard Maynard of Actual Freedom Trust recently hold such delusions? Did his philosophy, teachings and experience influenced his views?

1 / 1

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

It's difficult to determine the exact reasons behind Richard Maynard's views on climate change without having more information about his background and beliefs. However, it is possible that his philosophy, teachings, and experiences may have influenced his views. People's opinions are often shaped by a combination of factors, such as personal experiences, education, and exposure to certain ideas or perspectives.

In the case of Richard Maynard, it's possible that his involvement with the Actual Freedom Trust, which focuses on promoting personal freedom and happiness, may have led him to adopt a skeptical view of mainstream science, particularly when it comes to anthropogenic climate change. This skepticism could be a result of a distrust in authority or the belief that mainstream science is overly influenced by politics or other external factors.

Additionally, people sometimes become attached to certain ideas or beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Confirmation bias, the tendency to search for, interpret, and recall information that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs, can play a role in reinforcing such views.

It is important to note that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is based on a vast body of evidence and is supported by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. While it's essential to question and evaluate scientific findings critically, it's also crucial to rely on accurate information and the expertise of the scientific community when forming opinions about complex topics like climate change.

 [8/5/23, 12:36:45 AM] Awakening to Reality Blog : ‎Messages and calls are end-to-end encrypted. No one outside of this chat, not even WhatsApp, can read or listen to them.

[8/5/23, 12:36:45 AM] Awakening to Reality Blog : ‎You created group “Awakening to Reality Blog ”

[8/5/23, 12:36:48 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Hi

[8/5/23, 12:38:13 AM] Yin Ling: Got it! Hi both haha

[8/5/23, 12:38:17 AM] Yin Ling: Thanks

[8/5/23, 12:38:36 AM] Yin Ling: First thing I’m going to do is to delete all the all posts of mine u saved 😂

[8/5/23, 12:38:44 AM] Soh Wei Yu: 🤣🤣🤣

[8/5/23, 12:38:48 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Pls dont hahahah

[8/5/23, 12:39:05 AM] Yin Ling: Long time I want to do that already

[8/5/23, 12:39:07 AM] Yin Ling: Lol

[8/5/23, 12:39:12 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Lol

[8/5/23, 8:33:57 AM] John Tan: I was telling soh to shift those conversations including fb comments into other places.  The current ATR blog is like a dumping ground.🤦

[8/5/23, 12:40:44 PM] Yin Ling: It’s a huge blog haha. But the link of the right should help direct others I guess . 

But my older posts are confusing.😅those need to go lol

[8/5/23, 12:41:13 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Replace with your newer posts then 😂

[8/5/23, 12:42:28 PM] Yin Ling: Lol noooo

[8/5/23, 12:42:41 PM] Yin Ling: Most of what ppl needs to read for guidance have been written

[8/5/23, 12:42:48 PM] Yin Ling: I think they just didn’t go and read it lol

‎[8/5/23, 7:07:07 PM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎<attached: 00000018-PHOTO-2023-05-08-19-07-07.jpg>

[8/5/23, 7:15:51 PM] Yin Ling: Hahaha yeah I sign in using another acc. Is that ok?

[8/5/23, 7:16:13 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah no problem just wanted to check

[8/5/23, 7:16:17 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Later kena hacked lol

[8/5/23, 7:16:31 PM] Yin Ling: Haha 👌

[8/5/23, 8:25:30 PM] John Tan: Jessie?

[8/5/23, 8:25:39 PM] John Tan: Ahha🤦‍♂️

[8/5/23, 8:37:02 PM] Yin Ling: 🤣 my email was created when I was 12 😂 after watching a cowboy show 🤦🏻‍♀️

‎[8/5/23, 8:39:27 PM] Yin Ling: ‎

[8/5/23, 8:40:28 PM] Yin Ling: It’s from a monk I don’t personally know but got added on in fb and then I got emailed 😂amituofo

[8/5/23, 9:46:38 PM] Soh Wei Yu: For these kind of people i just paste them my standard template:

Hi

Thought this might interest you, on nondual awareness and its nature and the subtleties of insight:

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html

[8/5/23, 9:46:41 PM] Soh Wei Yu: 🤣

‎[8/5/23, 9:47:23 PM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎<attached: 00000030-PHOTO-2023-05-08-21-47-23.jpg>

[8/5/23, 10:45:50 PM] Yin Ling: I tried reply once already, but cannot pass through. I think I will stop. Haha. Abit hard for me to talk to monks as Though I know better , just a weird situation

[8/5/23, 10:46:20 PM] Yin Ling: My god so many 😶‍🌫️

[8/5/23, 11:08:15 PM] John Tan: Yin Ling, the shengtong vs rangtong u pasted is from which book?

‎[8/5/23, 11:32:46 PM] Yin Ling: ‎

‎[8/5/23, 11:33:05 PM] Yin Ling: 

[8/5/23, 11:33:25 PM] Yin Ling: I don’t get it 😅

[8/5/23, 11:49:28 PM] John Tan: Lol no wonder

[8/5/23, 11:52:00 PM] John Tan: Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche is Nyingma and champions the shengtong view.  I think Malcolm ever confronted him and said that habouring that sort of view is no different from advaita view.

[8/5/23, 11:52:56 PM] John Tan: Wei yu may have the text since he compiles Malcolm answers and comments

[8/5/23, 11:54:50 PM] Yin Ling: Oooo I see

[8/5/23, 11:56:14 PM] Yin Ling: But describing shentong as “aware and empty” . I find that makes sense no?

[8/5/23, 11:56:32 PM] Yin Ling: But rangtong makes sense too . All makes sense 😅😅😅

[8/5/23, 11:57:39 PM] John Tan: However it is not exactly wrong to emphasize clarity/awareness when one somehow missed the "clarity" aspect when negating inherent ness of refried mental constructs.  In order words, negation involves 2 authentications of critical insights: one is in clear seeing of how refried constructs is mistaken as real,

And 2, the direct recognition that appearances are one's empty clarity.

[8/5/23, 11:58:58 PM] Yin Ling: Yes Rangtong emphasise the former. And sheng tong emphasise the latter. 

But what I don’t understand is how do their experiential insight differs?

[8/5/23, 11:59:22 PM] Yin Ling: Can you have one without the other ? 😅 I can’t imagine

[8/5/23, 11:59:39 PM] John Tan: It is not their experiential insights differ, it is how it unfolds.

[9/5/23, 12:01:33 AM] John Tan: The two can be treated as separate which resulted in 外道 view.  Means direct taste of clarity yet without realizing it's empty nature.  This resulted in self-view.

[9/5/23, 12:03:37 AM] Yin Ling: I see.

[9/5/23, 12:04:11 AM] John Tan: For example, one can have very powerful experiences and authentication of clarity as "I-I" in phase one as in my case or sim's case but still not realized that sound, sensations, thoughts...etc (appearances) as one's radiance claritym

[9/5/23, 12:04:52 AM] John Tan: Then when we authenticate that later in anatta insight it becomes very clear.

[9/5/23, 12:05:46 AM] John Tan: For these practitioners, clarity/presence/awareness is nothing special at all and more often than not, it is missed understood.

[9/5/23, 12:09:13 AM] John Tan: Appearances are treated as external.  Even in the case of non-dual where it is clearly experienced, it is still treated that Self is special and something beyond.  Which is a mis-conception due to our inherent pattern of analysing things.

[9/5/23, 12:09:13 AM] Yin Ling: I see

[9/5/23, 12:11:31 AM] Yin Ling: So is this what Rangtong is trying to put forth?

[9/5/23, 12:13:46 AM] John Tan: These practitioners (shengtong) do not understand "self-aware" as "sounds hear itself" as u wrote or as how u understand satipathanna sutta.  They see "self-aware" as a special Awareness apart from luminous appearances.  Many can't get around that.

[9/5/23, 12:15:52 AM] John Tan: Rangtong is pointing out what u r saying.  Rangtong is not against appearances or union of appearances and emptiness.  Shengtong can be skewed towards pointing some super awareness which is advaita.

[9/5/23, 12:16:19 AM] Yin Ling: Oohh I see. Thanks. Understand now

[9/5/23, 12:16:41 AM] Soh Wei Yu: I skim through mountain doctrine on dolpopa texts before

[9/5/23, 12:16:50 AM] Soh Wei Yu: To me no different from advaita at all lol

[9/5/23, 12:16:53 AM] Soh Wei Yu: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolpopa_Sherab_Gyaltsen#Teachings

‎[9/5/23, 12:16:59 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎

‎[9/5/23, 12:17:00 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎

‎[9/5/23, 12:17:01 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎

[9/5/23, 12:17:10 AM] Soh Wei Yu: But that is the founder of shentong

[9/5/23, 12:17:23 AM] Soh Wei Yu: The modern proponents of shentong, often are clear about anatta and empty clarity

[9/5/23, 12:17:58 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Even thrangu rinpoche taught the view of shentong but instead of the original “empty of everything else but not itself” he taught shentong as even ultimate is empty

[9/5/23, 12:18:12 AM] John Tan: However there r some rangtong practitioners that somehow does not get the clarity part but those are not the teaching of rangtong.

[9/5/23, 12:18:16 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Which imo seems to be different from the original dolpopa teaching but more aligned with anatta

[9/5/23, 12:18:43 AM] John Tan: Yes

[9/5/23, 12:19:38 AM] John Tan: It is simply tradition and sect biasedness to present rangtong as denying clarity.

[9/5/23, 12:19:44 AM] John Tan: 🤣🤦

[9/5/23, 12:20:32 AM] John Tan: Mipham also rejected shengtong.

[9/5/23, 12:21:13 AM] John Tan: Tibetan Buddhism has this problem of stereotyping and present one-sided view.🤣

[9/5/23, 12:21:37 AM] Yin Ling: Yeah to me this book seems to say Shengtong emphasise clarity whilst rangtong emphaisse emptiness of inherent existence (freedom from elaboration) but they know the other insight . 

So I was wondering why do their experiential insight differs and why do they keep arguing lol

[9/5/23, 12:21:47 AM] Yin Ling: Ya

[9/5/23, 12:22:06 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah.. i read even longchenpa anticipated and rejected shentong even if he lived before his times. He rejected the buddha nature is empty of everything else but its own existence kind of view

[9/5/23, 12:22:08 AM] Yin Ling: I see

[9/5/23, 12:24:32 AM] John Tan: In Buddha's time, there is no need to emphasize Presence and clarity.  It is the Orthodox view and taught in the vedas, upanishads, bagavatgita  throughout india.  This do not require the birth of Buddha to point out.

[9/5/23, 12:24:36 AM] Yin Ling: But it feels like an insult to shentong intelligence to say they don’t know Buddha nature is empty?

[9/5/23, 12:25:04 AM] Yin Ling: Yup

[9/5/23, 12:25:13 AM] Yin Ling: Hence he teaches no self

[9/5/23, 12:26:32 AM] Yin Ling: But now I see the point of all these arguments and debates in Tibetan Buddhism 😝

[9/5/23, 12:26:35 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Depends on who the shentong writer is.. some teachers like thrangu and many others are v clear.. still i find most buddhist teachers are also not clear today. Mostly awareness teachings

[9/5/23, 12:26:40 AM] John Tan: There maybe an overemphasis of emptiness without clarity that gave birth to yogacara teaching to bring out this clarity aspect.

[9/5/23, 12:27:49 AM] Yin Ling: Ya there is an opinion that yogscara needs to be combined with madhyamaka to produce insight in this book 🤣

‎[9/5/23, 12:27:55 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎

[9/5/23, 12:28:02 AM] Yin Ling: I forgot who said. Jamgon kongtrul I think

[9/5/23, 12:28:03 AM] Soh Wei Yu: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangtong_and_shentong

[9/5/23, 12:28:37 AM] Soh Wei Yu: This part.. which is the general understanding of shentong from the start shld be criticised.  But ppl like thrangu rinpoche doesnt see that way when explaining shentong

[9/5/23, 12:28:46 AM] John Tan: Shengtong and Rangtong are invention of tibetans inherited from the roots of madhyamaka and yogacara in India.

[9/5/23, 12:28:47 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Also it will fall under same criticism as this:

[9/5/23, 12:29:24 AM] Yin Ling: Ooohhhhh now I see

[9/5/23, 12:29:59 AM] Soh Wei Yu: “

Also, Mipham Rinpoche, one of the most influential masters of the Nyingma school wrote http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/09/madhyamaka-cittamatra-and-true-intent.html :

...Why, then, do the Mādhyamika masters refute the Cittamātra tenet system? Because self-styled proponents of the Cittamātra tenets, when speaking of mind-only, say that there are no external objects but that the mind exists substantially—like a rope that is devoid of snakeness, but not devoid of ropeness. Having failed to understand that such statements are asserted from the conventional point of view, they believe the nondual consciousness to be truly existent on the ultimate level. It is this tenet that the Mādhyamikas repudiate. But, they say, we do not refute the thinking of Ārya Asaṅga, who correctly realized the mind-only path taught by the Buddha...

...So, if this so-called “self-illuminating nondual consciousness” asserted by the Cittamātrins is understood to be a consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses, and it is merely that its subject and object are inexpressible, and if such a consciousness is understood to be truly existent and not intrinsically empty, then it is something that has to be refuted. If, on the other hand, that consciousness is understood to be unborn from the very beginning (i.e. empty), to be directly experienced by reflexive awareness, and to be self-illuminating gnosis without subject or object, it is something to be established. Both the Madhyamaka and Mantrayāna have to accept this...”

[9/5/23, 12:30:16 AM] John Tan: It is not easy to sort out all these and take some time to get use to it.

[9/5/23, 12:30:18 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm says rangtong is totally a strawman by shentong lol

[9/5/23, 12:30:26 AM] Soh Wei Yu: It doesnt actually exist

[9/5/23, 12:30:32 AM] John Tan: Ahahaha

[9/5/23, 12:31:22 AM] John Tan: This is good (Soh: pointing to the Mipham excerpt above)

[9/5/23, 12:31:46 AM] Soh Wei Yu: “Yes, realization of emptiness automatically entails having right view. 

Your next statement presumes that those debating gzhan stong and rang stong have realized emptiness.

Since rang stong is just a strawman set up by gzhan stong pas, there is really no debate between gzhan stong and rang stong since there is no rang stong Madhyamaka except in the imagination of those who call themselves "gzhan stong" Madhyamakas. 

N

Pure because purity has always been a nonexistence.

Sound Tantra, 3:12.5”

“I mean that there is no rang stong at all from a Madhyamaka perspective: Nāgārjuna states:

If there were something subtle not empty, there would be something subtle to be empty, 

as there is nothing not empty, where is there something to be empty?

I mean that there is no rang stong at all, apart from what the gzhan stong pas have fabricated. 

The gzhan stong controversy arose out of a need by Tibetans to reconcile the five treatises of Maitreya with Nāgārjuna's Collection of Reasoning based upon the erroneous historical idea that the five treatises were authored by the bodhisattva Maitreya rather than a human being (who incidentally was probably Asanga's teacher). 

In my opinion, the five treatises were a collection of texts meant to explicate the three main thrusts of Indian Mahāyāna sutras, Prajñāpāramita, Tathāgatagarbha, and Yogacāra. Four of the five are devoted to these three topics independently, with the Abhisamaya-alaṃkara devoted to Prajñāpāramita; Uttaratantra devoted to Tathāgatagarbha; and the two Vibhangas devoted to Yogacāra . The last, the Sutra-alaṃkara is an attempt to unify the thought of these three main trends in Mahāyāna into a single whole, from a Yogacara perspective. 

When these treatises arrived in Tibetan, at the same time, a text attributed tothe original Bhavaviveka, but probably by a later Bhavaviveka, translated under Atisha's encouragement, called Tarkajvala, presented the broad outline of what we know call today " the four tenet systems". 

In this text, the three own natures and so on were presented in a very specific way from a Madhyamaka perspective and labelled "cittamatra".

So, the gzhan stong controversy (with additional input from Vajrayāna exegesis based on a certain way of understand the three bodhisattva commentaries) is about reconciling Madhyamaka with Yogacara. 

Personally, I see no need to attempt to reconcile Madhyamaka and Yogacara. Madhyamaka is the pinnacle of sutra explication. But Tibetans did and still seem to need to do so, and they have passed on this need to their students. 

But from my perspective, one cannot go beyond freedom from extremes. 

N”

[9/5/23, 12:35:28 AM] Yin Ling: Ooooo

[9/5/23, 12:35:31 AM] Yin Ling: Thanks