A few excerpts from 'Clarifying the Natural State' by the great 14th century Mahamudra Master, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal.

(please take note that Mind here does not refer to the 'mind' with the small letter 'm' (a.k.a. thoughts and perceptions) but refers to the true nature of Mind, the true nature of all thoughts and perceptions, which is aware-emptiness)

"Clearing Up Uncertainties About Basis and Expression

This has four points:

Resolving that thoughts are mind
Resolving that perceptions are mind
Investigating the calm and the moving mind
Resolving that all experience is nonarising

Resolving That Thoughts Are Mind

Assume the same posture as before. Let your mind be evenly composed as aware emptiness. From within this state project a vivid thought, such as anger. Look directly into it and thoroughly investigate from what kind of substance or basis it arose.

Perhaps you suppose that it arose from this state of empty and aware mind itself. If so, examine whether it is like a child born from its mother or like light shining from the sun. Or is it the mind that becomes the thought?

Next, observe the way in which it remains. When it appears in the form of anger, examine whether this anger is accompanied by the fetter of intense clinging to things as being real or whether it is simply an appearance of anger, an openness in which there is no identity to take hold of.

Finally, observe how a thought departs. Is the thought stopped or does it dissolve? If it is stopped, who stopped it or what circumstance made it stop? If it dissolves, examine whether it dissolves due to some circumstance or whether it dissolves by itself.

In the same way, a variety of gross and subtle thoughts should be examined to gain some experience. If the meditator holds a wrong understanding, it should be eliminated with a counter-argument and a hint given. After that, the meditator should once more continue examining.

You may not have found that the thought arose from a particular location in a particular way, that it dwells in a particular shape or form or that it departs to a particular place. Nevertheless, your concepts about whether thought are mind are different, whether they are related as inside and outside, or as the body and its limbs and so forth must be destroyed. You must experience that the various thoughts, in whatever form they arise, are an empty appearance and not a definable entity. You must recognize that they arise out of yourself and dissolve into yourself. Since mind is unconfined, you must become certain that it is mind that merely appears or is seen as being thoughts. You must resolve that thoughts and mind are indivisible.

Take the metaphor of a wave on water. The wave is nothing other than the water, and yet it is seen as a wave. Although it appears as a wave, it has never changed from being of the nature of water. In the same way, with the various types of thoughts, from the very moment they appear, they are nothing other than the aware emptiness of unidentifiable mind.

Moreover, since this mind is unconfined, it does appear as a variety of thoughts. Even though it appears as them, it has not changed from being the aware emptiness of the mind that is not a definable entity. You must settle this point decisively. You must gain the experience of certainty in the fact that the various types of thoughts are mind.

Similarly, give rise to a happy or a sad thought and investigate whether there is any difference in their identity. In this way, also become certain in regard to opposing types of thoughts."


Investigating the Calm and the Moving mind

Maintain the same physical posture as mentioned before. Let your mind be serenely calm in the state of aware emptiness. Now, investigate by looking directly into it.

While in this state of serene calm allow a thought to vividly stir. Investigate it too by looking directly into it.

Next, investigate the two instances of calm and thought movement to see if there is any difference in their arrival, remaining and departure or in their definable identity.

If there is a difference between remaining calmly and an abrupt movement of thought, examine to see if their difference consists in being better or worse, empty or not empty, having or not having an identity, and between being or not being identifiable.

If there is no difference, investigate to see if their lack of disparity consists in being identical or in being similar while different.

If identical, investigate how they are identical at the beginning, middle and end. If similar, examine how they are similar. Investigate in this way to gain some experience.

In case an incorrect understanding is held, it should be stopped with a counter-argument, a hint should be given and the investigation resumed.

Turning away from the belief that these two -- serene calm and abrupt thought movement -- are of entirely different substances, you must experience that they are the same mind, the mind that is identical in being rootless and intangible, and in being an aware emptiness that is self-knowing and naturally pure.

This being so, whichever of the two happens, there is no need to accept or reject, repress or encourage. Rather, you should become confident that this aware emptiness is naturally free -- in the very stillness when calm and in the very arising when thoughts occur.


Note: Case 1 ~ 2 of 'Pointing out innate thinking' and 'Pointing out innate perception' is still resting on the Witness, while realising the vividness of thought and perception as aware-emptiness is realisation of non-duality + emptiness (see stage 5 & 6 of Thusness's Six Stages of Experience). But it is a recognition of what 'always is', and should not be mistaken with any passing non-dual experience of fusing.

Steps of Pointing-Out Instruction

This has two parts:

Pointing out innate mind-essence
Pointing out innate thinking
Pointing out innate perception

Pointing Out Innate Mind-Essence
First, when giving the pointing-out instruction, no one else should be present besides the master and disciple. If you prefer, assume the posture as before. Then the master says:

"Let your mind be as it naturally is without trying to correct it. Now, isn't it true that all your thoughts, both subtle and gross, subside in themselves? Rest evenly and look to see if this mind doesn't remain calm in its own natural state."

The master lets the disciple look.

"That's called shamatha."


"During this state, do not become dull, absent-minded or apathetic. Is it not true that you cannot verbally formulate that the identity of this mind is such-and-such, nor can you mentally form a thought of it? Rather, isn't it a totally unidentifiable, aware, unconfined and lucid wakefulness that knows itself by itself?

"Within the state of evenness, look to see whether it isn't an experience without any 'thing' experienced."

The master then lets the disciple look.

"That's called vipashyana."


"Here, these two are mentioned sequentially, but in actuality this kind of shamatha and vipashyana are not separate. Rather, look to see if this shamatha isn't the vipashyana that is an unidentifiable, self-knowing, natural awareness. Also look to see if this vipashyana isn't the shamatha of abiding in the natural state untainted by conceptual attributes. Rest evenly and look!"

The master lets the disciple look.

"That's called the unity of shamatha and vipashyana."


"Both are contained within your present mind. Experiencing and recognizing this is called the birth of meditation practice.

"This is what is given many names, such as buddha-mind, mind-essence of sentient beings, nonarising dharmakaya, basic natural state, innate mind, original wakefulness, Mahamudra, and so forth. And this is what all the sutras and tantras, true treatises and instructions aim at and lead to."


Having said this, if the master prefers, he can inspire further confidence by giving relevant quotations from the scriptures. Otherwise, it may not be necessary to say more than the following, since some people of lesser intelligence may get confused when the explanation is too long.

"The meaning in a nutshell is this: allow your mind to be as it naturally is, and let thoughts dissolve in themselves. This is your innate mind, which is an unidentifiable, self-knowing, natural awareness. Remain one-pointedly in its continuity and do not get distracted.

"During the daily activities between breaks as well, try to keep this kind of mindfulness undistractedly as much as you can.

"It is important to continue training persistently for a couple of days. Otherwise, there may be a danger of this seeing of mind-essence, which you ahve pursued through various means, slipping away."

"The meditator should therefore train in focusing on that for a couple of days.

Pointing Out Innate Thinking

Second, the meditator should now assume the correct posture in front of (the master, and be told the following):

"Let your mind remain in its natural way. When thoughts have subsided, your mind is an intangible, aware emptiness. Be undistracted and look directly into the identity of this naked state!

"At this moment, allow a feisty thought, such as delight, to take form. The very moment it vividly occurs, look directly into its identity from within the state of aware emptiness.

"Now, is this thought the intangible and naked state of aware emptiness? Or is it absolutely no different from the identity of innate mind-essence itself? Look!"

Let the meditator look for a short while.

The meditator may say, "It is the aware emptiness. There seems to be no difference." If so, ask:

"Is it an aware emptiness after the thought has dissolved? Or is it an aware emptiness by driving away the thought from meditation? Or, is the vividness of the thought itself an aware emptiness?"

If the meditator says it is like one of the first two cases, he had not cleared up the former uncertainties and should therefore be set to resolve this for a few days.

On the other hand, if he personally experiences it to be like the latter case, he has seen identity of thought and can therefore be given the following pointing-out instruction:

"When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya.

"Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves.

"This being so, is there any difference between calm and movement?

"Is there any difference between thinking and not thinking?

"Is it better to be serenely calm? Do you need to be elated about it?

"Is it worse when a thought abruptly arises? Do you need to be unhappy about it?

"Unless you perceive this hidden deception, you will suffer the meditation famine. So, from now on, when a thought does not arise you need not deliberately make one arise so as to train in the state of its arising, and when the thought does arise you need not deliberately prevent it, so as to train in the state of its nonarising. Thus, do not be biased toward calm or movement.

"The principle for this thought can be applied to all thoughts. However, the meditator should train for a while in simply making use of thoughts, so when no thoughts arise, conjure one up on purpose and sustain its essence. Otherwise, there is a danger of losing sight of the identity of thoughts.

The meditator should, therefore, be instructed to continue practicing diligently for several days. If it is preferably, bring in some quotations to instill certainty.


Pointing Out Innate Perception

Third, the physical posture and so forth should be kept just as before. Then ask:

"While in the composure of the natural state, allow a visual perception, such as that of a mountain or a house, to be vividly experienced. When looking directly at the experience, is this perception itself an intangible aware emptiness? Or, is it the aware and empty nature of mind? Look for a while to see what the difference between them is."

Let the meditator look. He may say, "There is no difference. It is an intangible, aware emptiness." If so, then ask:

"Is it an aware emptiness after the perceived image has disappeared? Or, is the image an aware emptiness by means of cultivating the aware emptiness? Or, is the perceived image itself an aware emptiness?"

If the answer comes that it is one of the first two cases, the meditator has not thoroughly investigated the above and should therefore once more be sent to meditate and resolve this.

If he does experience that the vividly perceived visual image itself -- unidentifiable in any way other than as a mere presence of unconfined perception -- is an aware emptiness, the master should then give this pointing-out instruction:

"When you vividly perceive a mountain or a house, no matter how this perception appears, it does not need to disappear or be stopped. Rather, while this perception is experienced, it is itself an intangible, empty awareness. This is called seeing the identity of perception."

"Previously you cleared up uncertainties when you looked into the identity of a perception and resolved that perceptions are mind. Accordingly, the perception is not outside and the mind is not inside. It is merely, and nothing other than, this empty and aware mind that appears as a perception. It is exactly like the example of a dream-object and the dreaming mind.

"From the very moment a perception occurs, it is a naturally freed and intangible perceiving emptiness. This perceiving yet intangible and naked state of empty perception is called seeing the natural face of innate perception or perception dawning as dharmakaya.

"This being so, 'empty' isn't something better and 'perceiving' isn't something worse, and perceiving and being empty are not separate entities. So, you can continue training in whatever is experienced. When perceiving, in order to deliberately train in perception, there is no need to arrest it. When empty, in order to deliberately train in emptiness, you do not need to produce it.

"Whenever you recall the mindful presence of practice, all of appearance and existence is the Mahamudra of dharmakaya, without the need to adjust, accept or reject. And so, from now on, continue the training without being biased toward perception or emptiness by repressing or encouraging either of them.

"Nevertheless, for a while allow various kinds of perceptions to take place. While perceiving it is essential to be undistracted from sustaining the unidentifiable essence."

Thus, let the meditator train for several days. If it is preferred, bring in some quotations to instill certainty.
Excerpt from 'The Sun My Heart' by Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh

Sunshine and Green Leaves

Beginning meditators usually think they must suppress all thoughts and feelings (often called "false mind") in order to create conditions favorable to concentration and understanding (called "true mind"). They use methods such as focusing their attention on an object or counting their breathes to try to block out thoughts and feelings. Concentrating on an object and counting the breath are excellent methods, but they should not be used for suppression or repression. We know that as soon as there is repression, there is rebellion -- repression entails rebellion. True mind and false mind are one. Denying one is denying the other. Suppressing one is suppressing the other. Our mind is our self. We cannot suppress it. We must treat it with respect, with gentleness, and absolutely without violence. Since we do not even know what our "self" is, how can we know if it is true or false, and whether or not what to suppress? The only thing we can do is to let the sunlight of awareness shine on our "self" and en-lighten it, so we can look at it directly.

Just as flowers and leaves are only part of a plant, and just as waves are only part of the ocean, perceptions, feelings, and thoughts are only part of the self. Blossoms and leaves are a natural manifestation of plants, and waves are a natural expression of oceans. It is useless to try to repress or stifle them. It is impossible. We can only observe them. Because they exist, we can find their source, which is exactly the same as our own.

The sun of awareness originates in the heart of the self. It enables the self to illuminate the self. It lights not only all thoughts and feelings present. It lights itself as well.

Let us return to the apple juice, quietly "resting." The river of our perceptions continue to flow, but now, in the sunlight of awareness, it flows peacefully, and we are serene. The relation between the river of perceptions and the sun of awareness is not the same as that of an actual river and the actual sun. Whether it is midnight or noon, whether the sun is absent or its penetrating rays are beaming down, the waters of the Mississippi River continue to flow, more or less the same. But when the sun of awareness shines on the river of our perceptions, the mind is transformed. Both river and sun are of the same nature.

Let us consider the relationship between the color of leaves and sunlight, which also have the same nature. At midnight, the starlight and moonlight reveal only the form of the trees and leaves. But if the sun were suddenly to shine, the green color of the leaves would immediately appear. The tender green of the leaves in April exists because the sunlight exists. One day, while sitting in a forest, mimicking the Prajna Paramita Heart Sutra, I wrote:

Sunshine is green leaves
Green leaves are sunshine
Sunshine is not different from green leaves
Green leaves are not different from sunshine
The same is true of all forms and colors.

As soon as the sun of awareness shines, at that very moment a great change takes place. Meditators lets the sun of awareness rise easily, so we can see more clearly. When we meditate, we seem to have two selves. One is the flowing river of thoughts and feelings, and the other is the sun of awareness that shines on them. Which is our own self? Which is true? Which false? Which is good? Which bad? Please calm down, my friend. Lay down your sharp sword of conceptual thinking. Don't be in such a hurry to cut your "self" in two. Both are self. Neither is true. Neither is false. They are both true and both false.

We know that light and color are not separate phenomena. In the same way, the sun of self and the river of self are not different. Sit with me, let a smile form on your lips, let your sun shine, close your eyes, if need be, to see your self more clearly. Your sun of awareness is only part of your river of self, isn't it? It follows the same laws as all psychological phenomena: it arises and vanishes away. To examine something with a microscope, a scientist must shine light on the object being observed. To observe the self, you must shine light on it too, the light of awareness.

I just told you to put down your sword of conceptualization and not cut your self into sections. Actually, you couldn't, even if you wanted to. Do you think you can separate the sunshine from the green color of the leaves? You can no more separate the observing self from the self observed. When the sun of awareness shines, the nature of thoughts and feelings is transformed. It is one with the observing mind, but they remain different, like the green of the leaves and the sunshine. Don't rush from the concept of "two" to the concept of "one." This ever-present sun of awareness is at the same time its own object. When a lamp is turned on, the lamp itself is also brought to light. "I know that I know." "I am conscious of being conscious." When you think, "The sun of awareness has gone out in me," at that moment it re-lights itself, faster than the speed of light.


some other quotations which Thusness/PasserBy liked from the book --

"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."

---------------- Comments by Thusness/PasserBy: "...as a verb, as action, there can be no concept, only experience. Non-dual anatta (no-self) is the experience of subject/Object as verb, as action. There is no mind, only mental activities... ...Source as the passing phenomena... and how non-dual appearance is understood from Dependent Origination perspective."


Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:

"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."












  The wind blows(风在吹),The rain falls(雨在下),The river flows(河在流),在类似这样的句式中,我们可以清楚地看到主语和动词是一体的,相同的。不吹就没有风,不下也就没有雨,不流也就没有河。如果我们仔细观察的话,我们就会发现,行为的主语就在行为当中,行为本身即是主语。

  最一般的动词就是"to be(是),"如"I am (我是)","you are (你是)","the mountain is (山是)","a river is (河是)"。动词"to be(是)"不表达宇宙生机勃勃的动态,如果要表达的话,我们就必须说"become(变成)"。"to be(是)"和"to become(变成)"这两个动词都可以用作名词"being(存在)"、"becoming(正在存在、正在变成某种存在状态)"。但是,"being" 是什么?"becoming" 又是什么?"becoming"意思是"不断地变化",像动词"to be"一样通用。假如主语和动词是相互分立的,那么我们根本无法表达某一现象的"being(存在)"和它的"becoming(正在存在、正在变成某种存在状态)"。在"风"这个例子中,"blowing(吹)"就是风的"being(存在)"和"becoming(正在存在)"。对于"雨"而言,它的"being (存在)"和"becoming(正在存在)"就是"falling(下)"。对于"河"而言,"flowing(流)"就是它的"being(存在)"和"becoming(正在存在)"。”

(Last edit: 28th January 2009, update consists of an excerpt by Judith Blackstone)

(Also see the related post,
The Syncing of View, Path and Fruition)

Spiritual practices come in countless different forms, so what I am covering is limited and general. Also, I have written on the importance of Right View (near the bottom) that is required for the arising of Prajna wisdom, the insight into Emptiness (Stage 6 of Thusness's Six Stages of Experience). Much of the following post is based on what Thusness/PasserBy have said.

Self Inquiry

Some practices are very helpful in giving an initial glimpse of Presence. The I AMness can be experienced through practices where the object of concentration is the Self. One of such practices is self-inquiry. This is most widely practiced throughout Advaita Vedanta but also practiced in some some Zen/Ch'an (as Koan practice), Tibetan (Mahamudra and Dzogchen), Theravada (Thai Forest tradition) traditions of Buddhism. Through this practice the practitioner can experience the I AMness (see Stage 1 of Thusness's Six Stages of Experience, where Thusness experienced I AMness through the Self-Inquiry of "Before Birth, Who am I?"). It can be a question "Who am I" that leads one to the experience of the subject-object becoming one, i.e. attaining absorption. Till a point the practitioner simply experiences a pure sense of existence. This leads to a deep and ultimate conviction, that certainty beyond doubt of your very own existence -- "I AM". Though it is important to have certainty of our luminosity, this pure sense of existence as being ever-present and never lost, such mode of experiencing has no understanding of its non-dual luminous clarity and its nature as Anatta (Buddhist term for No-Self) and Sunyata (Buddhist term for Emptiness.)

Apart from recommending the practice Vipassana (insight meditation), Thusness sometimes (depending on conditions and the practitioners' inclinations) also recommend the practice of self-inquiry to practitioners (sometimes he would ask them to contemplate on questions such as, “Without using any languages, ‘I’, ‘me’ or any signs or symbols, how is ‘I’ experienced?”). However, this practice does not provide further insights into the non-dual and Empty nature of Presence.

Although having glimpses of this Presence is important, it cannot be misunderstood as the final aim. It cannot even be treated as any sort of arising insight that liberates us from suffering. It's nature tends to be misunderstood, and hence appears to the practitioner as a void/formless background witness, an Eternal Witness, or a Self/Atman. It's nature as No-Self and Emptiness (not 'Void', but as Dependent Origination) isn't realised.

(Related: Also see a good youtube video by Vishrant on the downside of self inquiry -- Satsang with Vishrant self inquiry. He too implied that Self-Inquiry can lead to the I AM experience (he calls it awareness turning on itself) but that realisation/experience of "awareness aware of itself is really only the beginning, it is not the end, it is only the first day in kindergarten". Yes, of course, because that is only Stage 1 of Thusness's Six Stages of Experience. He also talks of the downside of Self-Inquiry as potentially being misused into avoiding painful/unpleasant experiences by turning awareness upon itself and avoid/escape everything, and also on the 'technique' he prefer -- the 'surrendering to/allowing' whatever appearing, and thus dissolving the self.)

Dropping/Dissolving and Mindfulness/Naked Awareness/Bare Attention

The key point about the practice of mindful awareness (see Chapter 13: Mindfulness (Sati) of 'Mindfulness In Plain English' by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana, on the practice of Mindfulness and its relation to Vipassana/Insight Meditation) is there is no keeping of the mind on anything (including on the I AM as in the case of self inquiry) and by not resting on anything, it fuses into everything; therefore it cannot be concentrated; rather it is to relax into nothingness empty of self, empty of any artificial doing so that the natural luminosity can take its own course. There is no focusing, there is only allowing the mirror bright clarity to shine with its natural radiance. In essence there is no one there, only the phenomenon arising and ceasing according to conditions, telling their stories.

As Longchen/Simpo wrote, "No subject-object division is the true nature of existence. The method of realising this insight lies in the dissolving of the 'sense of self'. This often involves the continual and correct letting go of mental grasping." (The misconceptions surrounding Transcendental Non duality)

So, drop and dissolve away into vivid non-dual luminosity. Dissolve completely and arise as the scenery, sound, taste, smell, thoughts, touch sensations.

The ultimate purpose of dropping is to allow non-dual experience to arise.

There are certain types of people who advocate on the uselessness of practice (particularly the Neo-Advaitins), and that asking people to 'do practices' simply strengthens their sense of self. However, what is being spoken here is essentially not a 'doing'. It can more accurately be known as a 'non-doing'.

Nothing needs to be done here, as every single moment is it, and so there is no striving towards a 'better state' -- every state is equally pure, equally the expression of Buddha-Nature. This is It! Hence, as Longchen/Simpo wrote,

...However, there can be no progressing from a dualistic state into a non-dual state. Every single moment is it! There is no one state better than the rest! Every moment is as it is.

There is absolutely no need to do anything. Even if the efforting or anything arise, let it be! The effort arises automatically too... no-self there too!

By doing nothing, everything arises and passes away on its own accord.

Actually, there cannot be a 'doing nothing'... There can only be 'what is' at any single moment."

Thusness/PasserBy said,

"...it seems that lots of effort need to be put in -- which is really not the case. The entire practice turns out to an undoing process. It is a process of gradually understanding the workings of our nature that is from beginning liberated but clouded by this sense of ‘self’ that is always trying to preserve, protect and ever attached. The entire sense of self is a ‘doing’. Whatever we do, positive or negative, is still doing. Ultimately there is not-even a letting go or let be, as there is already continuous dissolving and arising and this ever dissolving and arising turns out to be self-liberating. Without this ‘self’ or ‘Self’, there is no ‘doing’, there is only spontaneous arising.

(source: Non-dual and karmic patterns)

As mentioned earlier, this is not a form of exercise in concentration or focused attention, but dropping and only Dharma spontaneously arising. (Also see
Six Stages of Dropping by Thusness)

Awareness or Buddha-Nature is not the same as focused attention or concentration. Awareness is effortlessly happening right now, whether you like it or not, and whether you are paying attention or not. When causes and conditions is, manifestation is, when manifestation is, Awareness is. Naturally, sounds are
effortlessly being heard, smells are effortlessly being smelled, even if the smell or sound is unpleasant and you try to avoid it, it's being awared. While paying attention to the breath, something still hears sounds. That is Buddha-Nature. It is the sum of all our parts, that which sees, hears, feels and tastes all at once as One Reality. Before you think that this awareness is a 'thing' -- a Mirror or a Witness, it's not separate -- it's just sound hearing, scenery seeing, it's not a something tangible (a Mirror or a Witness) yet is vividly manifesting.

So as Toni Packer said, "There is no need for awareness to turn anywhere. It's here! Everything is here in awareness! When there is a waking up from fantasy, there is no one who does it. Awareness and the sound of a plane are here with no one in the middle trying to "do" them or bring them together. They are here together! The only thing that keeps things (and people) apart is the "me"-circuit with its separative thinking. When that is quiet, divisions do not exist."

Joan Tollifson ("student" of Toni), "This open being is not something to be practiced methodically. Toni points out that it takes no effort to hear the sounds in the room; it's all here. There's no "me" (and no problem) until thought comes in and says: "Am I doing it right? Is this 'Awareness'? Am I enlightened?" Suddenly the spaciousness is gone—the mind is occupied with a story and the emotions it generates."

As John Welwood says: "This larger awareness is self-existing: it cannot be fabricated or manufactured because it is always present, whether we notice it or not."

To reiterate my previous statement that Awareness is not the result of an effort put in concentration or focused attention, is not constructed, is unborn, self-existing and ever-present, and becomes 'apparent' through letting go of fixation, Judith Blackstone nicely puts it:
"Nondual consciousness is not a state of attention. It is experienced without effort of any kind. It is the mind completely at rest. In fact, there is not even a sense that the mind is resting, for that is still an activity of sorts. Rather, one experiences a simple lucid openness in which the phenomena of the world appear, and through which experiences such as thoughts, emotions, and sensations move without obstruction.

There is also a sense that one's consciousness is pervading all of the content of one's experience. Rather than an encounter between one's own head and the objects outside of one's head, as experienced in intentional, dualistic consciousness states, nondual consciousness is experienced globally. It pervades and subsumes one's whole body and everything in one's environment at the same time. "Consciousness is encountered as something more like a field than a localized point, a field that transcends the body and yet somehow interacts with it" (Forman, in Gallagher & Shear, 1999, p. 373).

One of the main characteristics of nondual realization is that it is discovered, rather than created, as rigid subjective organizations are released. Constructivists may insist that nondual consicousness is itself a conceptual construct. Speaking both from my own experience as well as from traditional accounts, I can attest that nondual realization is a process of gradually letting go of one's grip on oneself and one's environment -- as if opening a clenched fist. It does require concentrated effort and time to achieve a certain degree of letting go. But the expanse of nondual consciousness, pervading oneself and one's environment as a unified whole, appears of its own accord as a result of this letting go, and continues to appear, without any effort on one's own part."

~ "The Empathic Ground" by Judith Blackstone (a book that Thusness thinks is very good and recommended me, contains many practical techniques and pointers to nondual awareness)

Also very helpful in the practice of mindful awareness is to contemplate (means, to experience in direct awareness) on certain pointers and instructions that the Buddha gave. For example, one can meditate based on the Bahiya Sutta (see
The Buddha on Non-Duality),

In seeing, there is only the seen,
In hearing, there is only sound
In sensing, there is only sensation
In thinking, there is only thought

By contemplating as such, insight into Anatta (No-Self) can arise.
What should be noted also is that whatever said is really “already is”. In seeing, there is always only the seen. In hearing there is always only the sound. Never was there a seer or hearer. All “already is”. Anatta is not just a non-dual experience, it must be regarded as a dharma seal, the ever-present nature of reality. That all along the dichotomy of a observer and observed duality is an illusion created by due to our deeply rooted inherent and dualistic tendency of seeing things.

From the comments section in
Thusness's Six Stages of Experience,

...If a practitioner were to feel that he has gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’ or takes that ‘there is just mere sound’, then this experience is again distorted. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so...

....This is the seal of no-self and can be realized and experienced in all moments; not just a mere concept...

Next, in thinking, only thought: but what is thought? In your direct awareness you can notice that it is a kind of phenomena just like sound, sight, etc, but a different kind of phenomena. In Buddhism, there are 6 senses instead of the commonly accepted 5 senses within Science. Everything is the same, except that we include 'mind' in it. Thought is not seen with eyes, it is not heard with ears, yet the thought is undeniably present when it arises. Images are recalled, mental reasoning arises, relating, pondering, mental images and words appearing and then disappearing and then another appearing. But what is more important is that it is a 'knowing' or 'luminous' phenomenon. All along the transience rolls and knows; no watcher is real or needed. This thought, and another thought, and another thought, each thought is a complete and luminous manifestation of Buddha-Nature.

If we fail to see that each thought is a self-luminous/'knowing' manifestation, the tendency is to push, to relate to a 'center', a Self, a source, a background Knower/Witness, a void and limitless container. We think that Buddha Nature is not a thought, it is not the transience, it is the invisible Witness of thoughts, the void background wherein thoughts arise from and return to, itself unchanging. And that is a mistake. When we fail to see that there is no separation, we choose to stay as a Witness/Source, not realising All Appearances are the equally the Source/Witness, there is nothing to choose. So this 'practice' is really about 'choiceless awareness'.

See: Choiceless Awareness and Non-Fixation by Aaron

Choiceless awareness means to rest in whatever is present, understanding the conditioned nature of its arising and that whatever has arisen is an expression of the pure heart/mind, an expression of God. Seeing that, you cease to take a dual stance against that which has arisen, but let it point you back into the ground of your being, the divine core. Here equanimity is present, equanimity with arising, neither grasping or pushing away. For this "choiceless awareness" to be truly choiceless, everything that arises must be seen as divine play, divine expression. No exceptions. The difficulty is that you do make exceptions, taking stance against that which you judge as "other-than," the fear, anger, desire. Even this "other-than" judgment is not what fogs in your peace. Delusion grows from the belief that this arising thought is true and from the contractions that form about it.

When we know our nature as empty-luminosity, we'll see all as "ME". The "I AM" is not more "ME" than a passing thought, a passing sound, a moment of sensation when the feet touches the ground. There is no Self apart from phenomena arising and passing.

So one must feel the difference between "In thinking just thought" and the "Eternal Witness" -- the "Eternal Witness" is just a tendency to relate back and sink to a source and refuse to 'see' what is. Every arising of a thought carries with it deeply rooted imprints that 'blinds'.

Yet not only must the non-dual (no subject-object, no thinker/thought division) luminosity be experienced, it must also be experienced that each thought is unsupported, disjoint/discrete and complete yet... and hence there is no chaining of one thought to another. Same goes to sight, sound, taste, smell, touch sensations. Hence Bahiya Sutta is deeply profound.
Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.

This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

~ Zen Master Dogen Zenji

Also see
The Mystique of Enlightenment (Part Two) by U.G. Krishnamurti: http://www.well.com/user/jct/mystiq2.htm

Is there in you an entity which you call the 'I' or the 'mind' or the 'self'? Is there a co- ordinator who is co-ordinating what you are looking at with what you are listening to, what you are smelling with what you are tasting, and so on? Or is there anything which links together the various sensations originating from a single sense -- the flow of impulses from the eyes, for example? Actually, there is always a gap between any two sensations. The co-ordinator bridges that gap: he establishes himself as an illusion of continuity.

In the natural state there is no entity who is co-ordinating the messages from the different senses. Each sense is functioning independently in its own way. When there is a demand from outside which makes it necessary to co-ordinate one or two or all of the senses and come up with a response, still there is no co-ordinator, but there is a temporary state of co- ordination. There is no continuity; when the demand has been met, again there is only the unco-ordinated, disconnected, disjointed functioning of the senses. This is always the case. Once the continuity is blown apart -- not that it was ever there; but the illusory continuity -- it's finished once and for all.


Your movement of thought interferes with the process of touch, just as it does with the other senses. Anything you touch is always translated as 'hard', 'soft', 'warm', 'cold', 'wet', 'dry', and so on.

You do not realize it, but it is your thinking that creates your own body. Without this thought process there is no body consciousness -- which is to say there is no body at all. My body exists for other people; it does not exist for me; there are only isolated points of contact, impulses of touch which are not tied together by thought. So the body is not different from the objects around it; it is a set of sensations like any others. Your body does not belong to you.

Perhaps I can give you the 'feel' of this. I sleep four hours at night, no matter what time I go to bed. Then I lie in bed until morning fully awake. I don't know what is lying there in the bed; I don't know whether I'm lying on my left side or my right side -- for hours and hours I lie like this. If there is any noise outside -- a bird or something -- it just echoes in me. I listen to the "flub-dub-flub-dub" of my heart and don't know what it is. There is no body between the two sheets -- the form of the body is not there. If the question is asked, "What is in there?" there is only an awareness of the points of contact, where the body is in contact with the bed and the sheets, and where it is in contact with itself, at the crossing of the legs, for example. There are only the sensations of touch from these points of contact, and the rest of the body is not there. There is some kind of heaviness, probably the gravitational pull, something very vague. There is nothing inside which links up these things. Even if the eyes are open and looking at the whole body, there are still only the points of contact, and they have no connection with what I am looking at. If I want to try to link up these points of contact into the shape of my own body, probably I will succeed, but by the time it is completed the body is back in the same situation of different points of contact. The linkage cannot stay. It is the same sort of thing when I'm sitting or standing. There is no body.

Can you tell me how mango juice tastes? I can't. You also cannot; but you try to relive the memory of mango juice now -- you create for yourself some kind of an experience of how it tastes -- which I cannot do. I must have mango juice on my tongue -- seeing or smelling it is not enough -- in order to be able to bring that past knowledge into operation and to say "Yes, this is what mango juice tastes like." This does not mean that personal preferences and 'tastes' change. In a market my hand automatically reaches out for the same items that I have liked all my life. But because I cannot conjure up a mental experience, there can be no craving for foods which are not there.

Smell plays a greater part in your daily life than does taste. The olfactory organs are constantly open to odors. But if you do not interfere with the sense of smell, what is there is only an irritation in the nose. It makes no difference whether you are smelling cow dung or an expensive French perfume -- you rub the nose and move on.


You have a feeling that there is a 'cameraman' who is directing the eyes. But left to themselves -- when there is no 'cameraman' -- the eyes do not linger, but are moving all the time. They are drawn by the things outside. Movement attracts them, or brightness or a color which stands out from whatever is around it. There is no 'I' looking; mountains, flowers, trees, cows, all look at me. The consciousness is like a mirror, reflecting whatever is there outside. The depth, the distance, the color, everything is there, but there is nobody who is translating these things. Unless there is a demand for knowledge about what I am looking at, there is no separation, no distance from what is there. It may not actually be possible to count the hairs on the head of someone sitting across the room, but there is a kind of clarity which seems as if I could.

Furthermore Thusness have also said:

...as stated in the Bahiya Sutta,

In seeing, (there is always) just the seen.
In hearing, (there is always) just sound.

The seen, sound are the non-dual luminous experience; but direct experience of non-dual luminosity is not suffcient. Though perfectly clear and vividly present as in non-dual experience, the 'seen' is radically different from the 'sound' -- this is its emptiness nature. This viewless view must be fused into our non-dual insight. When views are firmly established and non-dual experience thoroughly authenticated, a practitioner will see everything as Awareness without conflict in both views and experiences. Not bounded within an inherent and dualistic paradigm, he will not be confused. When the real cause and the empty nature of our pristine awareness are understood, this ‘Emptiness’ view too must be discarded.

(More on Right View later)

Also one can contemplate on the pointing out instructions by Guru Padmasambhava wrote in Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness,

7.Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness), the method for entering into it involves three considerations:

Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind.

Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything.

And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything, awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary.

And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),

Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;

only a naked manifest awareness is present.

(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever.

It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.

It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.

However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.

It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.

(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.

This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.

This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things.

Tejananda (a current Buddhist teacher) wrote:

(Excerpt from http://tejanandajohnwakeman.googlepages.com/pureawareness -- a good and recommended article on 'Pure Awareness', also see some comments by Thusness/Passerby on this article here: http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/331569)

Padmasambhava says ‘there is only this pure observing’ – in other words ‘in the seen there is just the seen, in the heard there is just the heard, in the sensed there is just the sensed, in the cognised there is just the cognised’. There is nothing added, nothing extra – just what is sensed by any of the six senses in this instant. No added concepts about it.

So he continues ‘there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer’. There is a clear cognition of whatever is arising to the sense fields, but no sense of a ‘me’ who is ‘having’ this ‘experience’. In the seen there is just the seen’ – not the seen plus you seeing it! Only a naked manifest awareness is present. There is just awareness, ‘naked’ (devoid) of any ‘egoing’. That’s all there is.

Right View

Right View is indispensible in Buddhism, it is the 1st of the 8 fold path. And that view essentially, is Emptiness/Dependent Origination.

In Buddhism, the path (naked awareness of everything as it is) alone cannot lead to fruition (liberation), having right view (Emptiness) is necessary and crucial. That is, only through having the right view with the right practices (path) then fruition of liberation can arise.

Even after the arising of non-dual insight, there is a period of desync between what is experienced and the existing paradigm we used to orientate the world. It is a de-synchronization between views and meditative experience. That is, a practitioner will find great difficulties when trying to express the experience based on a subject/object dichotomy. It can be quite frustrating and the practitioner may get himself confused during the process.

In Buddhism there is a complete system of thought to orientate ourselves non-dually, that is, the viewless-view of Emptiness. It is a raft but it is the antidote for the conventional mind to orientate itself in a non-dual and non-local context. It also led to the amazing insight that ‘duality’ is really the result of seeing and taking things ‘inherently’.

In the practice of non-conceptuality, the firm establishment of right view is not a problem.
In the practice of thoughtlessness, thought is not a problem.
In the practice of selflessness, self is not a problem.

Experiences of our non-dual nature can still surface intermittently even when the tendency to see things dualistically is still strong. At times when the layer that divides is temporary suspended, non-dual is most vivid and clear and practitioners may wrongly conclude that ‘concepts’ are the problem because the presence of ‘concepts’ divides and prevent the non-dual experience. This seems logical and reasonable only to a mind that is deeply root in a subject/object dichotomy. Very quickly ‘non-conceptuality’ becomes an object of practice. The process of objectification is the result of the tendency in action perpetually repeating itself taking different forms like an endless loop. This can continue to the extent that a practitioner can even ‘fear’ to establish concepts without knowing it. On the other hand, the continuous enquiry can also lead an inquirer into a situation of utter confusion to the extent that he/she doubts even his/her own existence.

It is not uncommon to find practitioners totally giving up this attempt to synchronize "views" and experience and conclude that it is an absolute futile endeavor to do that. They prefer to rest fully in naked awareness.

By doing so, the practitioner will miss something valuable -- the insight of the importance of "non inherent existence".

In fact, dualistic view is merely a subset of seeing things 'inherently'. Further understanding will also reveal that the bad habit of 'searching' is the result of seeing things 'inherently'. Our inability to sustain a non-dual experience is also the result of it. The formation of a 'center' that we are so unwilling to give up is merely a natural phenomenon of our deeply held 'inherent' views.

Like a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front of an observer, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an attribute of the mind... and in Buddhism we recognise that there are other realms' beings who can see something completely different. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere Appearances without inherent/objective existence. What gives rise to the differences of colours and experiences in each of us? Dependent arising... hence empty of inherent existence. This is the nature of all phenomena. They are empty of any inherent objective existence in a 'really-out-there' kind of way.

As you've seen, there is no ‘The Flowerness’ seen by a dog, an insect or us, or beings from other realms (which really may have a completely different mode of perception). ‘'The Flowerness' is an illusion that does not stay even for a moment, merely an aggregate of causes and conditions. Analogous to the example of ‘flowerness’, there is no ‘selfness’ serving as a background witnessing either -- pristine awareness is not the witnessing background. Rather, the entire whole of the moment of manifestation is our pristine awareness; lucidly clear, yet empty of inherent existence. This is the way of ‘seeing’ the one as many, the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is also the meaning of formlessness and attributelessness of our nature. But this does not mean that awareness is void or nothing, it is full of forms, full of colours, as Emptiness is Form... just empty of 'inherent existence'. So Emptiness, in Buddhism, strictly means Dependent Arising.

There is something well written related to this topic:


...Apophaticism rests on the idea that ultimate nature is somewhere else, than the realm in which we live. Utterly removed from, and different from, the realm of experience, ultimacy can then only be accessed through a step by step process which disengages me from this realm in which I dwell. In other words, apophaticism and mysticism are dualistic, creating a division in existence, minimally between the conceptual and ultimacy, and in extreme cases between ultimacy and everything which I experience.

My understanding of the Dharma does not regard the realm in which I dwell as removed from the ultimate nature of Interdependent Transformation. Ultimacy does not exist somewhere else. It is not a matter of contacting some other domain in order to access ultimacy. Rather it is a matter of shifting our attention so that I can perceive and comprehend the actuality of things. From this perspective, my understanding of existence is misconstrued and my perception of things is askew. The purpose of Dharma study and practice is to correct these misunderstandings, both conceptually and perceptually, to overcome ignorance and the habits that give rise to this ignorance. When that is done, the ultimate nature of all existing things and existence itself, stands forth as the Interdependent Transformation nature which permeates all of existence, unlocated, ever present, never far.

I realize that this way of comprehending the Dharma sets me at odds with those traditions which regard the ultimate nature of existence, Buddha Nature, Nirvana, as something which can not be accessed through study and thinking. I can only say that at one time I agreed with this view, but that my undersanding has now moved to a view which encompasses thought, conceptuality, study, and thinking within the domain of ultimacy without ejecting anything else from that domain. To set thought aside, from the perspective of Interdependent Transformation, makes no more sense than asking someone to set aside hearing, or to set aside seeing. Just as all visual phenomena have the nature of Interdependent Transformation, just as all sonic phenomena have the nature of Interdependent Transformation, so also all thoughts, all concepts, also have the nature of Interdependent Transformation. For this reason rejecting thoughts and concepts means limiting the extent of the play of ultimate nature. But Buddha Nautre as Interdependent Transformation marks all existing things. Marking all existing things, this nature marks all thoughts. Marking all thoughts and concepts, thoughts and concepts, when comprehended in their totality, and as Interdependent Transformations, graciously display the true nature of all existing things. Words also have a luminously clear nature. Thoughts also sparkle with elemental transformative energy. Concepts also shimmer with the ever flowing and present energy of all things. Rejecting nothing, the words of the Dharma compassionately guide me to ultimate realization...

Because liberation is empty of the four extremes (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), it is difficult to see. It is better and safer to practice with the firm establishment of right view as taught by Buddha. When we practice, the path of practice should be non-conceptual whether in bare attention or surrendering or dropping. When we have certain direct and transcendental experience, the experience must be validated with the right view. If both views and practices coincide and liberation is experienced from moment to moment, the holding of ‘right view’ will naturally dissolve in its own accord as it is fully authenticated in real time from moment to moment.

When the view and experience are harmonized, the practitioner can progress further. He rests neither in concepts nor non-conceptuality.

Of course, having the right view without right practice will also not bear fruit and simply remains an intellectual view/understanding. Right view (1st of the 8 Fold Path), right practice (remaining 7 of the 8 Fold Path), then fruition.

(Also see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/02/thusnesss-reply-to-longchen-at.html)