Eric wrote:

This begs the question 'What is discriminating supreme knowledge?'. How does one look straight at appearance-emptiness, sound-emptiness, and awareness-emptiness in order to be directly released?

Thank you for sharing, and I hope to hear a reply from you.


My reply:

First realise anatta. No thinker or seer besides self luminous thought, sight and sound. Subject action object is seen through like rainer rains the rain is seen through.

In that moment of immediate and nondual perception of manifestation

Look at its nature, where has that appearance come from? Does it come from somewhere? Does it come from itself? Does it arise causelessly? And if not, what is the mechanism that allows for the appearing of appearances? If what arises, arises via dependencies, does it have any existence of its own? Does it arise, abide or subside?

By investing in such a manner the nature of vivid mind/appearances becomes clear

Staring into at the reflection of my face on the screen

It is obvious the reflection on the screen is dependent on my eyes, the lights, and the movement of my hands

It is obvious that the reflection does not amount to a truly existing face being created or arising inside the iphone

It is obvious that none of these elements exist separately or independently

Even though each of these do not meet, they are intimately connected in a seamless movement or activity

None of these domains have an independent existence in and of its own

Each appearance, being nondual and luminously clear, the vivid reality/display of pure presence/luminous mind, is at once in seamless connection as a seamless activity with all (conditions) that is

And yet although I said the reflection is dependent on eye and so on

I do not mean that the conditions such as The Eye has an independent existence

We are used to thinking of causes and effects as pre existing things that can effect or cause something else to come into existence

In truth the principle of conditionality is not compatible with such flawed and common understandings of causation

For example, have we considered the fact that an eye is not an eye? Or that The Eye is empty of eye or eye-ness of eye? And likewise consciousness is empty of consciousness?

For an eye (or, visual consciousness) is dependently designated on the function of seeing


On the vividness of red colour of the rose

And the vividness of the red colour of the rose makes eyes what it is

For what we call eye is simply a convenient label for an organ that makes sight possible

And what is an eye if not for its function of seeing?

So whatever we defined such as an eye cannot be understood apart from the other conventions that make the convention “eye” meaningful

It is not an entity which exists in and of itself apart from the conditions, parts and functionalities and other conventions that defines it

Whatever we refer to, such as an eye, a rose, and so forth cannot be found or pinned down as an entity besides its parts, functionality, dependencies, appearances, designating consciousness

There is not a (truly existing) originating cause or condition of an effect

For the cause defines the effect and the effect defines the cause

Cause is not before and effect is not after

The cause is cause because the effect is effect

The Son makes the Father a Father, it’s not that Father came first before Son, in the act of co-dependent origination, no originator nor origination can be found

nothing has truly originated, arisen, been created, nor is there a creator in an appearance and no true cause or condition can be found to exist in and of its own

Whatever appearance we encounter, meet, is a seamlessly (dependently originating) originating non-originated appearance

Just like reflections, mirages, dreams, nothing truly existing can be found in the reflections

Like a reflection, nothing truly arising (coming into existence) could be found despite the moon vividly showing on the surface of the lake

Neither the reflection of the moon nor the moon in the sky could be found to exist in and of itself apart from all the conditions, functions, and dependent designations that define it

None of them infers an entity that is created or arising anywhere Nor a “that which originates”

Vivid appearances ceaselessly manifest without amounting to something arising, abiding or ceasing

Like painting on the surface of the lake with your fingers, vividly appearing yet not leaving traces

Like the endless stream of images dependently originating with the fingers scrolling on the screen of this iPhone through Facebook, not ever amounting to something truly arising, coming into being, abiding somewhere and going somewhere. No cat has came from the top and left from the bottom of the screen on your iPhone nor exist inside your iPhone. It does not come into existence of its own accord and cannot be separated from your act of seeing it.

What does not arise from other, from itself, nor causelessly, does not truly arise or come into being. They are like reflections, mirages and dreams. Vividly present yet absent, and the whole field of experience is equal to empty space, not in the sense that nothing is seen but nothing is tangible, nothing seen or heard actually amounts to “something”.

Wisdom arise by getting acquainted with right view through learning and meditative contemplation, and it will be counter productive to fall into seeking a state of non conceptuality. Yet when the wisdom of the nature of appearance arises.. there is no longer a need to conceptualise emptiness and instead one simply rests in the flow of empty clarity in vivid appearance. Dependently originating appearance arises as unborn wisdom

H.H. The 8th Karmapa, Mikyo Dorje:
"From the perspective of both analysis and the seeing of noble ones, mere dependent origination and also the completely releasing liberation that is based on it are inexpressible as something other than perfect nirvana. Hence, neither something to be attained, nor the means to attain it, nor any attainment are established.
However, at this point, it is also not said that “these do not exist.” Nor are they expressed as being both existent and nonexistent or being neither.
Thus, without thinking or apprehending anything and without any effort, one evenly rests in just this uncontrived and relaxed great ease in which there is nothing to do. Then, no matter what inner and outer appearances of the six collections [of consciousness] and their objects (the bearers of the nature [of phenomena]) emerge, through discriminating supreme knowledge and mindfulness, all of them are realized as their true nature, the natural state of emptiness.
Just like snowflakes falling [and melting] on a hot stone, one looks straight at appearance-emptiness, sound-emptiness, and awareness-emptiness and is directly released."

Wrote a comment to someone posting about non-meditation who emphasized the point "How ridiculous and deluded to think that practices, meditation, study or realizations can improve the perfect awareness that is always what you already are."

I wrote:

"On the one extreme is the view that through practices one can somehow reach Buddha-nature in the future, which comes with the sense of distance, time, separation, and sense of self. Buddha-nature is all-pervasive and whole in its immediacy, how can it be reached in the future through practice?

On the other extreme is of a static, immobile Buddha-nature separate from the ordinary activities of sitting, walking, sleeping, chopping wood and carrying water. Nothing is clearer and more direct than these simple activities when subject and object is severed. We walk not in order to achieve enlightenment but as a manifestation of our true nature.

When sitting, sitting is sitting, not me sitting. Recently I visited a Zen master. He asked a group of students, (pointing at a bell) what is this? Some said it's a bell, he replied you are attached to name and form. If you only hit the floor or remain mute, he says you are attached to emptiness. I simply picked it up and rang it. He said "Correct!" So, a "zen" answer will be just ring it -- there is just the ringing, no subject and object, only spontaneous action, only sound. Non-meditation and non-practice is not lazing all day doing nothing, but severing the delusion of subject and object. When the gap between actor and action is refined till none, that is non-action, non-meditation and that non-action is at the same time total action.

In that act of ringing, is the ringing, and mind two or one? Again if we say they are one or two, we fall into dualism or concepts. Just ring it - that's enough. That total action reveals the true face of mind, the true face of the bell, the true face of ringing. If there is still a sense of an actor achieving a goal through an action, that is not non-meditation or practice-enlightenment.

Dogen:

"Zen master Baoche of Mt. Mayu was fanning himself. A monk approached and said, "Master, the nature of wind is permanent and there is no place it does not reach. When, then, do you fan yourself?"

"Although you understand that the nature of the wind is permanent," Baoche replied, "you do not understand the meaning of its reaching everywhere."

"What is the meaning of its reaching everywhere?" asked the monk again. The master just kept fanning himself. The monk bowed deeply.

The actualization of the buddha-dharma, the vital path of its correct transmission, is like this. If you say that you do not need to fan yourself because the nature of wind is permanent and you can have wind without fanning, you will understand neither permanence nor the nature of wind. The nature of wind is permanent; because of that, the wind of the buddha's house brings forth the gold of the earth and makes fragrant the cream of the long river."

....

A monk said to Chao Chou, “I have just entered this monastery. Please teach me.”
Chao Chou said, “Have you eaten your rice gruel?”
The monk said, “Yes, I have.”
Chao Chou said, “Wash your bowl.”
The monk understood."

Someone told me about having been through insights of no self and then progressing to a realisation of the ground of being.

I replied:

Hi ____

Thanks for the sharing.

This is the I AM realization. Had that realisation after contemplating Before birth, who am I? For two years. It’s an important realization. Many people had insights into certain aspects of no self, impersonality, and “dry non dual experience” without doubtless realization of Presence. Therefore I AM realisation is a progression for them.

Similarly in Zen, asking who am I is to directly experience presence. How about asking a koan of what is the cup? What is the chirping bird, the thunder clap? What is its purpose?

When I talked about anatta, it is a direct insight of Presence and recognizing what we called background presence, is in the forms and colours, sounds and sensations, clean and pure. Authentication is be authenticated by all things. Also there is no presence other than that. What we call background is really just an image of foreground Presence, even when Presence is assuming its subtle formless all pervasiveness.

However due to ignorance, we have a very inherent and dual view, if we do see through the nature of presence, the mind continues to be influenced by dualistic and inherent tendencies. Many teach to overcome it through mere non conceptuality but this is highly misleading.

Thusness also wrote:

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

Wrote on facebook:

Without awareness there can be no objects, (there is no “unheard sound”) and without objects there can be no awareness, (seeing is dependently designated with “sight”) not because there are two distinctly existing things depending or interacting with each other but because they are merely dependently designated and have no existence of its own to speak of. For example you cannot speak of a sun without sunlight or a computer screen without the images, they are dependently designated and without any intrinsic existence. Just like a computer screen that doesn’t display images is not a computer screen, a knowing is labelled as such in dependence on the known, so both subject and object are severed - nondual clarity is vividly presencing as all appearances without needing to collapse subject into object or object into subject.

There is no denial of knowing known or “you” like there is no need to deny a conventional car. But if “you” or “knowing known” is just a label for vroomyumouch, just like car is merely imputed based on the parts and functions, then there is also no intrinsically (independent, changelessly) existing “you” or “car”. So you or car is not denied but simply a convenient label, so you can still use conventions but are not bound by them, just like when you talk about weather you don’t think of an entity but directly experience the rain falling wind blowing clouds forming and parting and so forth. When we say sensing we don’t get bound by subject action or object but directly sense the coolness, heat, softness and so forth.

The realisation of true mind, the luminous vivid presence is also important. But mind is no mind - empty of intrinsically existing entity. And being empty of mind, it is as dogen said,

“And just what is this wondrously pure, bright mind? It is the great earth with its mountains and rivers, along with the sun, the moon, and all the stars.”

....

Objects are merely conventionally and dependently designated as such. It cannot be understood apart from or excluding other conventions that make them meaningful otherwise it becomes erroneous (the same goes for everything - from self, to cars, to awareness, to whatever). A sound is not an object besides hearing, besides awareness - there is no such thing as an unheard sound. This part I believe you agree, the other part however in Buddhadharma's emptiness teaching is that awareness is also dependently designated in relation to what's experienced. So it's a two-way dependence unlike the one way dependence in Advaita. Hearer and hearing is only meaningful in reference to sound (and vice versa) - in truth there is no hearer, no hearing, no sound, the bell ringing has no subject or object -- direct immediacy of just this awareness as ringing.

But you'll interject, what about the formless consciousness that underlies and exists beneath, and in the absence of, thoughts and sensations? That pure infinite formless sense of Existence which is a mere formless sense that I AM? I too have realised that through self-inquiry a long time ago. But now I see that too is also another manifestation of consciousness, another face of Presence, no more and no less Presence than a sound, a sight, etc. It cannot be understood apart from manifestation, and apart from the conditions that defines it.

...

In my experience, manifestation is limitless. When walking, it's not legs walking, the entirety of everything is walking. Any sort of abiding, be it in the fiction of a subject or an object, even in a grasped image of 'infinite formless consciousness', is still limitations

...

You're saying there is an ocean independent of its wave (a limitation) reflecting back on itself without investment in wave. I'm saying the wave is none other than the entirety of the ocean, including the conditions that makes it wave - the wind, etc

To me, the latter is 'more' 'limitless'