Posted to https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/
  • John Ahn said (I'm putting this here so Soh can comment):
    I don't really recognize the people in the group anymore. But I've been studying in a way with Wei Yu and John Tan's stuff for the past 11 years. I don't anymore, actually I haven't for sometime. And I'll sort of explain why here.
    (Wei Yu has me blocked so if someone can post this to him it'd be good or whatever). For some reason this morning I felt like writing this.
    First of all the I AM that's often pointed out by the blog is just the ego. It's certainly not the I AM that's taught by masters in other tradtions. If you look at the actual teachings of I AM, the sense of background is rarely mentioned other than the sky and cloud example which just points to the metaphor of something already present and things that cloud it.
    The ego is the sense of a solid background, separation, and centainty. Or in the words of a teacher I know, the "refusal to participate in phenomena." If you ask your self "who am I" in the conventional sense, it will lead to this sense of center, background, because the ego is our usual sense of self located within and withdrawn within the body. It can be localized or conceptually widened as if a container of phenomena.
    The anatta mentioned by the blog is when you see that this pullback "self" is not real but manufactured by the mind. So the realization brings the person into more involvement and activity with the world, thereby creating a sense of immediacy with phenomena. You become more active by default.
    Buddhist philosophy of depedent arising is constantly invoked to stabilize the externalization.
    And...that's all it is.
    In my experience to conflate this as any spiritual realization or experience is so shortcoming. Please don't waste your precious lives believing that having a externalized outlook in day to day living is the extent of spirituality.
    One thing you will notice is that the externalization of intention, which is all that anatta is, does not bring bliss or love. I asked thusness some years ago and he confirmed that himself. It does bring clarity and more energy because there is no longer extra effort in rerelgating every experience back to the self (less looping, less clinging). But to say it is some enligthened state, let alone saying things like 98% of masters don't understand what it is, is very limiting and ludicrous.
    Comments
    • André A. Pais I removed the original post, so we don't have a double post (and thread). Hope that's fine with John Ahn.
      1
    • John Ahn cool thanks!
  • Arthur Deller I remember John from back in the Hall of Mirrors days.
    • André A. Pais Arthur Deller I remember him too from different groups. He's even quoted somewhat frequently in Soh's journals - always positively, if I recall correctly.

      I'll be interested in hearing John Ahn 's views and how they can help us refine our own understanding.
  • Soh Wei Yu Arthur Deller john mirra is not john ahn. Different persons
  • Arthur Deller I know he’s not Empty. But he (John Ahn) was in the group.
    1
  • Write a reply...





  • John Ahn Another thing I will add is that the blog is dismissive of any teachings it categorizes as I AM or Presence teachings, saying how many teachers are "stuck" there. But this is a great error of equating I AM with basic ego sense.

    Hence if you take the blog in good faith, you might also find yourself becoming dismissive of many many great teachings and methods that can have amazing benefits. I regret very much how I invested in the blog so much in my earlier years of practicing as it burdened my sadhana and unnecessarily challenged my faith in other traditions.


    • André A. Pais John Ahn I don't know if it's a sensible request, but could you summarize your view and how it contrasts with the one of the AtR's blog?

      Soh usually says that I Am is important, but one has to move on. I don't think that's dismissive. If his I Am is just the ego, I find a bit implausible, but it's not a crucial thing to me.

      Anatta seems a pretty robust insight and experience, although we all agree it is to be further developed.

      More than John Tan's 7 stage model, I appreciate the 4 stage model of 1) I Am 2) Non-dual 3) Anatta and 4) Shunyata.

      What are your disagreements concerning these two models?
  • John Ahn I'm not denying any of the experiences described in the blog. I disagree with the categorization of them to equate with spiritual experiences of other traditions.

    I Am in the blog is just ego sense. The ego sense is powerful if you pullback solely on it as a literal background of everything. That's what the ego is anyway, a background. I'm sure a lot of seekers, especially mentally oriented seekers like most modern day people who do not engage much in practice, mistake this as realization because the language seems to fit and the experience is easily accessible.

    But genuine spiritual states are not that easily accessible on one's own. I learned this when I met masters and teachers who could give tastes of awareness and bliss that I could not imagine beforehand. I'm not saying these things are not innate to everyone. It is surely. But for most normal people, and that includes most of us here, tasting states of being beyond our mundane limitations is unlikely on our own, especially without strong committment to sadhana.

    So to me the blog is not really what it claims, as in it's far from the potentials of enlightenment. And that's the true shortcoming. If you become mentally convinced that this model is the end all method, then it will hinder deepening of practice due to subjugating everything into spontaneous dependent arising.
    1
  • John Ahn One major contrast between the blog's description of I AM and other masters' description of I AM is actually there is no certainty at all in realization of Self as per their words. No certainty of being.

    It's often said it is more of a complete unknowing.

    Certainty of being however is a very accurate way to describe the ego sense. Everyone goes around really certain of their individuality.
    2
  • André A. Pais John Ahn what lies in store in the spiritual process in your view? What is the full spectrum of the spiritual journey in your view and experience? For instance, spontaneous dependent origination seems pretty good and deep. What lies further ahead?
  • André A. Pais J Tan and Soh always say that the 7 stages are not the whole journey, that the 7th is just the beginning of an ever evolving process.
  • John Ahn I think it's important not to ask those kind of questions at all. To make a mental map of experiences that we have no clue about is a sure way to limit any potentialities and make mistakes. How can I know the full spectrum of sometheing I have yet to experience?

    But a good mark of progress is bliss and silence. Because you can lie about everything except bliss/love/silence.

    If a seeker is satisfied and happy at whatever stage they are at, then I think that is completely fine. But to write about it as if it is enlightenment and saying these teachers are here and those teachers are there is inviting a challenge.

    The blog is pretty suggestive that the 7 stages are enlightenment. But not only that but actually better than "98%" of all teachings out there.
    1
  • John Ahn I will add one more thing.

    The blog is akin to several no-self teachings out there like LU, AF, or whatever. The core emphasis is realizing no-self. One thing you will notice is that eventually once a person has this realization of no-self, they just end up living lives centered around mundane sensual pleasures. They won't meditate much as they see that there isn't much point to committed practice. Rather just natural living is advocated. It makes sense because now the stress of self isn't there and there is nothing much to do except, well, do whatever one feels like.

    Words are so very deceiving when we learn spirituality through them. One person writes as if they are living an amazing life of "purity, vividness, liveliness" or whatever but that's a subjective measurement. One person's aliviness is not the same as another's based on past experience. If one day some more magnificent thing happens, then that past aliveness now seems pale in comparison. And there is no way to tell by mere words the true extent of that practitioner's state.

    One way to tell is via conduct. Is that person still hankering for mundane physical pleasures even when talking about the wonders of day to day, moment to moment aliveness, beauty, and wonder? Well, then there is clearly a rift there between the words and actions. There are some core spiritual ideas that should be held as anchors in my experience and one of them is whether a person is self sufficiently joyful without stimuli. If that's not the case, that that person is just another materialistic person disguised as a spiritual master.
    3
  • André A. Pais John Ahn yes, that makes a lot of sense.
  • Hale Oh John Ahn I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The stages and maps and heavy intellectual stuff can be a huge sidetrack and provide lots of ground for grasping and laying subtle conceptualizations over our basic nature. That’s why Dzogchen and Zen are appealing to me.

    Also agree and the stirring of doubt in authentic teachers and that slowing down progress.
    1
  • William Lim André A. Pais do you have a summary of the 4 stages?
  • André A. Pais William Lim well, actually, I always thought those 4 stages were a Soh thing, but then ended up searching his blog and journal and couldn't find it. Although it's implicit in Tan's 7 stages.

    I did write about it myself, right at the beginning of the following article. It's a draft, especially the last section on shunyata.

    https://m.facebook.com/notes/andr%C3%A9-a-pais/beyond-awareness/10156462662080225/
    1
  • William Lim André A. Pais Very good and succinct writing! You should lend your sharpness to help edit AtR. The Anatta Bot is a data hoarder and needs a debugger ;-|
    1
  • Soh Wei Yu The reason i created Awakening to Reality group is so that people who have similar realizations like I AM and anatta can take off my load.

    I have no time to argue with people with ill intents and negative energy. There is a reason why John Tan blocked John Ahn by merely sensing his negative energy without even john ahn speaking further. I blocked john ahn only much later.

    Enough said. I will never speak again to John Ahn. I welcome others to discuss with John Ahn, but i have no time to waste here, i have a very busy life
    1
  • Soh Wei Yu One more thing: john ahn has never had any I AM realization. He only had I AM experiences. That is not even the first phase of Thusness Stage 1. Hence he will never understand what direct realization through self enquiry is about
  • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Well that’s a case closed if ever I saw one.

    I understand the sentiments, Soh, but be careful not to be another Peterson?
    3
    • Soh Wei Yu Stian Gudmundsen Høiland peterson and i have little in common

      I have no interest in being a teacher of a tradition, or even being a teacher for that matter. I am sort of anti authoritarian and not into guru system.

      However i have no time to engage in unconstructive speech and hence i have chosen to block john ahn more than a year ago

      Just as i see nothing wrong that jax has chosen to block me

      It is all good. Life is short, don’t waste time on internet

      (later clarification in another post:

      Soh Wei Yu Edmond Cigale to be frank i was on pretty good terms with jax until one day when he was basically saying how stupid the others were and i pointed out that they are actually sharper and wiser than him, he blocked me. Totally expected due to his great ego lol)
  • Soh Wei Yu Ok, i kicked him out of this group
  • Soh Wei Yu André A. Pais after some consideration, since I have blocked him and cannot moderate his posts proper, I have decided to remove him
  • Soh Wei Yu I've blocked him for maybe 1 year.. how did he come into this group? By invitation?
  • Write a reply...





  • Soh Wei Yu John Ahn said, "One thing you will notice is that the externalization of intention, which is all that anatta is, does not bring bliss or love. I asked thusness some years ago and he confirmed that himself."

    I can say that this is patently false - Thusness describes it as "incredible bliss" and has never said it does not bring bliss. It is just obviously untrue, anyone who realised anatta and stabilized it will be able to experience great bliss.

    2004:

    [23:46] <^john^> Buddhism is nothing but replacing the 'Self' in Hinduism with Condition Arising.
    [23:46] <^john^> Keep the clarity, the presence, the luminosity and eliminate The ultimate 'Self', the controller, the supreme.
    [23:46] <^john^> Still u must taste, sense, eat, hear and see Pure Awareness in every authentication.
    [23:46] <^john^> And every authentication is Bliss.

    2006:

    (6:09 PM) John: if longchen can stabilize [anatta] in 3 yrs time, he will be able to enter incredible bliss at will.
    (6:09 PM) AEN: what incredible bliss
    (6:10 PM) John: beyond description
    (6:10 PM) AEN: oic
    (6:10 PM) John: not a form of mundane samadhi

    2008:

    John Tan: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../direct-seal-of...

    Great and wonderful insight!
    Just a 2 cents from a PasserBy, nothing intense.

    It is pointless to know the nature of mind is luminous and empty,
    If there is no insight that this innate nature is the direct seal of Great Bliss.

    After insight of anatta, emptiness and non-dual luminosity,
    It is advisable not to retract to practices that made mind contrive.

    Never underestimate this direct path of great ease,
    Even aeons lives of practices cannot touch the depth of its profundity.

    Deeply experience this luminous yet empty nature, its thorough effortlessness and spontaneity.
    It is the heart of Mahamudra, the great art that simply be.

    Deep bow and reverent to Naropa for this view concisely put and,
    Homage to the ground, this natural state of Great Bliss.

    Happy Journey!

    2007:

    "The ‘who’, ‘where’ and ‘when’, the ‘I’, ‘here’ and ‘now’ must ultimately give way to the experience of total transparency. Do not fall back to a source, just the manifestation is sufficient. This will become so clear that total transparency is experienced. When total transparency is stabilized, transcendental body is experienced and dharmakaya is seen everywhere. This is the samadhi bliss of Bodhisattva. This is the fruition of practice."

    2005:

    [15:49] <^john^> bliss is complete clarity.
    [15:50] complete clarity?
    [15:50] <^john^> when u experience the luminosity without boundary, joy will flow from all directions.
    [15:50] <^john^> yes
    [15:50] <^john^> :)
    [15:50] if bliss is complete clarity, then why do we experience bliss without clarity also?
    [15:50] <^john^> that is because it is not bliss. :P
    [15:51] then what is it?
    [15:51] joy that is not bliss?
    [15:52] <^john^> it is just a mental state that is created.
    [15:53] icic...
    [15:53] then is the bliss experienced through complete clarity, a mental state?
    [15:53] <^john^> Pure awareness is nothing of that sort.
    [15:53] <^john^> so how do we know?
    [15:54] <^john^> :)
    [15:54] bcos pure awareness is simply aware ?
    [15:54] <^john^> and what is it like?
    [15:55] dunnu
    [15:55] <^john^> the greatest joy in absorption is?
    [15:56] dunnu :P
    [15:56] <^john^> forgetting the 'self'.
    [15:56] oic...
    [15:57] <^john^> when object and subject becomes one.
    [15:57] <^john^> but then there is no clarity.
    [15:57] <^john^> the luminosity isn't there. :)
    [15:57] then what is the clarity?
    [15:58] <^john^> it is the Total Presence, Reality.
    [15:58] <^john^> u know how a mirror reflect?
    [15:58] the light reflects
    [15:59] <^john^> when u feel, sense, taste, see without a layer
    [16:00] <^john^> a layer of thought, belief, words, name, label..etc
    [16:00] <^john^> without an 'I'
    [16:00] <^john^> don't even think of it...
    [16:00] <^john^> some will tell u it is like that.

    2005:

    [23:58] <^john^> pure awareness, clarity, presence...etc
    [23:58] <^john^> thoughts, self, ego...etc
    [23:58] <^john^> when there is too strong of 'ego', experience more suffering.
    [23:58] <^john^> so is 'self'
    [23:59] <^john^> when u experience everything as pure awareness, there is complete blissfulness
    [23:59] <^john^> everything arising becomes bliss.
  • Direct Seal of Great Bliss
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    Direct Seal of Great Bliss
    Direct Seal of Great Bliss
  • Soh Wei Yu John Tan, 2007:
    "Like samatha meditation, each jhana state represents a stage of bliss associated with certain level of concentration; the bliss experienced from insight into our nature differs.

    The happiness and pleasure experience by a dualistic mind is different from that experienced by a practitioner. “I AMness” is a higher form of happiness as compared to a dualistic mind that continuously chatters. It is a level of bliss associated with a state of ‘transcendence’ – a state of bliss resulting from the experience of “formlessness, odorless, colorless, attributes and thoughtlessness’. No-self or non-dual is higher form of bliss resulted from the direct experience of Oneness and no-separation. It is related to the dropping of the ‘I’. When non-dual is free from perceptions, that bliss is a form transcendence-oneness. It is what I called transparency of non-duality."
  • Soh Wei Yu 2006:

    (6:01 PM) John: the bond is loosen to a great extend, the energy is released.
    (6:02 PM) John: i said i almost floated. :P
    (6:02 PM) AEN: oo.. icic
    (6:03 PM) John: but i did not write about other experiences...coz many of them in the forum, the mind aren't mature yet.
    (6:03 PM) John: it is not really good to write about certain experiences
    (6:04 PM) AEN: oic..
    (6:04 PM) AEN: what kind of other experience?
    (6:04 PM) John: and i do not want JonLS to experience it too until total transparency is stabilized.
    (6:04 PM) AEN: oic
    (6:04 PM) AEN: wat kind of experience
    (6:04 PM) John: cannot tell.
    (6:04 PM) AEN: hahaha
    (6:04 PM) AEN: ok
    (6:04 PM) John: just focus on the Bliss. :)
    (6:04 PM) John: we will not want anything else.
    (6:04 PM) AEN: oic..
    (6:05 PM) John: in fact i refused to enter into it before fetters are cleared. :)
    (6:05 PM) AEN: oic.. u mean.. bliss?
    (6:05 PM) John: bliss of course must experience lah
    (6:05 PM) John: lol
    (6:05 PM) AEN: hahaha icic
    (6:05 PM) John: the next step is to let him take this idea of 'bond' seriously.
    (6:05 PM) AEN: icic..
    (6:06 PM) John: coz many western spiritual masters tend to over emphasize luminosity
  • Soh Wei Yu 2006:

    (11:36 PM) Thusness: being open isn't that difficult so it's okie to educate.
    (11:37 PM) AEN: icic..
    (11:37 PM) Thusness: it is not like an intuitive experience
    (11:37 PM) Thusness: esp non-duality and emptiness nature
    (11:37 PM) Thusness: then the conditions must be there
    (11:37 PM) Thusness: if not that there is no way one can understand it.
    (11:38 PM) Thusness: after experiencing it, we will have no doubt
    (11:38 PM) AEN: oic..
    (11:38 PM) Thusness: and the experience of the joy and bliss will carry the practitioner forward
    (11:38 PM) AEN: icic..
    (11:41 PM) Thusness: wah...longchen like dharma protector like that. :P
    (11:41 PM) AEN: hahaha yea
    (11:42 PM) Thusness: that is the faith that one has after direct experience.
  • Soh Wei Yu 2007:

    (11:31 PM) Thusness: there is a level of non-dual that longchen have not experienced yet
    (11:31 PM) Thusness: it is the finer level of experience
    (11:32 PM) Thusness: i call it a state of transparency
    (11:32 PM) Thusness: i will always tell ppl to experience transparency
    (11:32 PM) Thusness: and feel the bliss
    (11:33 PM) Thusness: but they might not know what i meant
    (11:33 PM) Thusness: only when the level of non-dual is up to a certain level then one will experience it
    (11:34 PM) Thusness: after this then when one tok about DO and emptiness, then has a bit of weight.
    (11:34 PM) Thusness: otherwise u may say all is spontaneous arising, but really it is karmic propensities in action.
    (11:35 PM) Thusness: mistaken what that is mechanical and routineness for our boundless luminous nature that is miraculously spontaneous
    (11:35 PM) Thusness: this we have to know
  • Soh Wei Yu 2007:

    (1:06 AM) Thusness: not that there is no understanding of One Reality
    (1:07 AM) Thusness: there is but the depth differs.
    (1:07 AM) Thusness: and the experience differs in depth when the emptiness nature is experienced.
    (1:08 AM) Thusness: this has to do with the intensity of the 7 factors of enlightenment
    (1:08 AM) Thusness: every intuitive experience will intensify these factors
    (1:08 AM) Thusness: and experience different level of bliss and joy
    (1:09 AM) AEN: oo icic
    (1:09 AM) Thusness: when one is beyond the conceptual level
    (1:10 AM) Thusness: the understanding becomes like a mixture of the factors of enlightenment
    (1:10 AM) Thusness: it is these factors that creates the "knowing" as a form of fruition
    (1:10 AM) Thusness: brightness, bliss, joy...etc
    (1:11 AM) Thusness: clarity
    (1:11 AM) Thusness: these are the form of "knowing" that one has
    (1:11 AM) AEN: oic..
    (1:14 AM) Thusness: there is no confusion, they are always these factors that bring the practitioner moves forward and understand more
    (1:14 AM) Thusness: not because buddha said so, these factors are just there
    (1:14 AM) Thusness: and one naturally knows he is in the correct path
    (1:14 AM) Thusness: just like one felt the presence, he knows
    (1:15 AM) Thusness: when one experience the Eternal Witness, the experience is so unique and clear that he knows
    (1:15 AM) Thusness: but the experience is misinterpreted
    (1:15 AM) Thusness: and lost
  • Soh Wei Yu 2007:

    (12:30 AM) Thusness: after one experiences non-dual, he should be very thorough in eliminating the background and deconstructing symbols till complete nakedness.
    (12:30 AM) Thusness: the more i experience, the more respect i have for Buddha. :)
    (12:30 AM) AEN: icic..
    (12:32 AM) Thusness: u must practice till u find tremendous joy and bliss in no-self.
    (12:32 AM) Thusness: then practice will become effortless.
  • Soh Wei Yu 2007:

    (7:34 PM) Thusness: when one is able to experience our nature as it is, the bliss experienced is different.
    (7:35 PM) AEN: oic
    (7:35 PM) Thusness: The experience and bliss of an eternal witness observing the transient and the full experience of just the transient is different.
    (7:36 PM) Thusness: the bliss and clarity of no-self is of a different dimension.
    1
  • Soh Wei Yu 2008:
    (11:09 PM) Thusness: stage 1 can be very blissful too.
    (11:09 PM) AEN: icic..
    (11:09 PM) Thusness: when the meditative strength is there.
    (11:09 PM) Thusness: but there is no understanding of the 'forms'
    (11:09 PM) Thusness: only the pure sense of existence
    (11:09 PM) Thusness: in thought realm.
    (11:10 PM) Thusness: not in the 'forms'.
    (11:10 PM) Thusness: u should know by now.
    1
  • Soh Wei Yu John Tan wrote to Sim Pern Chong (longchen/simpo) in 2006:

    Haha...the intuitive experience of non-duality must have made u appreciate deeply the profound teaching of anatta and emptiness.The joy and bliss of total transparency will make us drop from our chairs (it can take few years)...Happy Journey. :)
  • Soh Wei Yu And now you see why I like to meditate in parks? haha
    1
  • Soh Wei Yu Sim also wrote in 2007:

    "Also, there are various depths of non-duality. There are levels where there is perception but there is no expereincer... one is ONE with perception. However, there are level that sensorial perception is deconstructed. At this level, cognition of things, environments, objects, person is also deconstructed... what remained is an inconcievable depthless brilliance.... a most blissful brilliance. "
    1
  • Soh Wei Yu John Tan, 2007

    "4. Only one tremendous spontaneous clarity flows, there is no differentiation between what that spins the earth or what that pumps your heart beats or what that makes the plants grow. When you eat an apple, it is the entire universe that eats the apple. Just one whole clarity spontaneity flow. Continual experience of transcendence joy and bliss."

    - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../different...
  • The Different Degrees of Non-Duality
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    The Different Degrees of Non-Duality
    The Different Degrees of Non-Duality
    1
  • Soh Wei Yu I was just telling another friend the other day that they can sense my radiance and joy and my mere presence is able to alter their mood. I'm psychotropic. 😂

    Many times, and many - not just one - people that meet me ask me why I look so blissful for seemingly no reasons.
    1
  • Soh Wei Yu 2008:

    (11:56 AM) Thusness: longchen is like entering the 18 dhatus.
    (11:56 AM) AEN: icic..
    (11:57 AM) Thusness: or into DO (dependent origination)
    (11:57 AM) Thusness: just the arising and passing away
    (11:57 AM) Thusness: without the need for a center, a locality in a non-conceptual mode. :)
    (11:58 AM) AEN: oic..
    (11:59 AM) Thusness: depending on the depth of clarity and the ability to drop, there is a very deep joy in whatever arises in a normal condition.
    (12:00 PM) Thusness: it is a sort of bliss of luminous presence without the sense of self, division, locality and conceptuality
    (12:00 PM) Thusness: it can also turn into a sort of absorption.
    (12:00 PM) Thusness: that is the result of clear insight of our empty luminosity.
    (12:00 PM) Thusness: not the result of deep concentration.
    (12:01 PM) Thusness: this is very difficult to understand.
    (12:01 PM) Thusness: it is an effortless absorption.
  • Soh Wei Yu 2009:

    (2:00 AM) Thusness: i wrote in luminousemptiness
    (2:01 AM) Thusness: that if luminosity and emptiness is taught but there is no realisation that it is the great bliss
    (2:01 AM) Thusness: then one has not realised anything
    (2:02 AM) Thusness: but chodpa said, not that it is pointless but just a step along the path
    (2:02 AM) Thusness: so what is it the geat bliss?
    (2:03 AM) AEN: absorption in luminosity?
    clarity?
    i dunno
    (2:03 AM) AEN: i have experience of bliss but dunnu if its wat u mean
    (2:04 AM) Thusness: it is actually a sort of absorption
    (2:04 AM) AEN: ya i notice theres bliss when theres absorption
    (2:04 AM) Thusness: will talk about that next time
    i think i will write about anatta
    (2:04 AM) AEN: icic..
    (2:04 AM) Thusness: so that u don't
    get confused
    (2:05 AM) Thusness: with non-dual
    (2:05 AM) AEN: oic..
    (2:05 AM) Thusness: anatta is about no agent
    (2:05 AM) Thusness: clarity that there is no agent
    (2:05 AM) AEN: icic..
    (2:05 AM) Thusness: and because there is no agent, it has to be direct
    (2:06 AM) AEN: oic
    means in the sound just the sound
    (2:06 AM) Thusness: it is naturally non dual
  • Soh Wei Yu 2009:

    (3:48 PM) Thusness: initially he wanted to go into shamatha
    (3:49 PM) Thusness: that is why i spoke of the great bliss and the practice of the great ease
    (3:49 PM) AEN: icic..
    (3:49 PM) Thusness: and also emphasize that all is mind.
    (3:49 PM) Thusness: but now after emptiness, he must also see another stuff.
    that is the maha experience of suchness to complete it.
  • Soh Wei Yu Ok, way too many things said about bliss and I have only glanced through 2005-2009 conversations. I won't touch 2009-2019 as it's gonna take up lots of time
  • Soh Wei Yu Also, non-dual luminosity is blissful but not liberating, emptiness is what liberates. Other religions focus on the non-dual luminosity but not necessarily the same as the liberation focused in buddhadharma:

    Session Start: Sunday, 12 September, 2010

    "(12:15 AM) Thusness: Thorough ‘aliveness’ also requires ‘you’ to disappear. It is an experience of being totally ‘transparent’ and without boundaries. If you do not fall back to a background, these experiences are quite obvious, u will not miss it.
    (12:22 AM) Thusness: In addition to bringing this ‘taste’ to the foreground, u must also ‘realize’ the difference between wrong and right view. There is also a difference in saying “Different forms of Aliveness” and “There is just breath, sound, scenery…”
    (12:23 AM) Thusness: that these arising dependently originates.
    (12:24 AM) Thusness: In the former case, realize how the mind is manifesting a subtle tendency of attempting to ‘pin’ and locate something that inherently exists. The mind feels uneasy and needs to seek for something due to its existing paradigm.
    . It is not simply a matter of expression for communication sake but a habit that runs deep because it lacks a ‘view’ that is able to cater for reality that is dynamic, ungraspable, non-local , center-less and interdependent.
    (12:25 AM) Thusness: Otherwise the mind will continue to locate and seek.
    (12:26 AM) Thusness: Lastly also understand that 'bliss' is the result of luminosity, 'liberation' is the result of the insight of emptiness."

    "(1:28 PM) Thusness: means u truly see the erroneous view of dualistic and inherent view
    (1:28 PM) AEN: icic..
    (1:28 PM) Thusness: then u will understand what liberates
    a blissful state does not liberates u"

    "Hi Simpo,
    How have you been getting on? I am planning for my retirement.

    I think after stabilizing non-dual experience and maturing the insight of anatta, practice must turn towards ‘self-releasing’ and ‘dispassion’ rather than intensifying ‘non-dual’ luminosity. Although being bare in attention or naked in awareness will help in dissolving the sense of ‘I’ and division, we must also look into dissolving the sense of ‘mine’. In my opinion, dissolving of the sense of ‘I’ does not equate to dissolving the sense of ‘mine’ and attachment to possessions can still be strong even after very stable non-dual experience. This is because the former realization only mange to eliminate the dualistic tendency while the latter requires us to embody and actualize the right view of ‘emptiness’. Very seldom do we realize it has a lot to do with our ‘view’ that we hold in our deep most consciousness. We must allow our luminous essence to meet differing conditions to realise the latent deep. All our body cells are imprinted and hardwired to ‘hold’. Not to under-estimate it. " - 2010?
  • Write a reply...





  • William Lim The Anatta Bot crushes it again - Destruction by Information Overload :)
    3
  • Soh Wei Yu on love:

    AtR guide: https://docs.google.com/.../1xCaHV3T7LMNvuLew3eg.../edit...#

    Compassion and Loving-Kindness

    Compassion is vital to one’s practice and progression. Many years ago, John Tan informed me that he was expecting to have some breakthrough from the front of wisdom and insight for many years, and yet unexpectedly the breakthrough he was expecting came from compassion.

    “You just have to be less conceptual. What is more important is to boldly let go of self and practice metta (Loving-Kindness). It is the best way to actualize anatta.” - John Tan, 2018

    “Anatta does not deny you from being compassionate, contrary it opens up your mind, body and heart fully.” - John Tan, 2019

    “I have had experiences of love more powerful than maybe anything else, with no trace of subjectivity, just love experiencing itself, justifying itself.” - Bill Finch, https://www.dharmaoverground.org/.../mess.../message/5580083

    "My practice isn't esoteric but direct, simple empty clarity and compassion. My entire experience is currently free and liberating... and fills with joyous reverence and compassion. Very happy. An open expanse of brilliance clarity beyond description... without dual and solidity. My entire being is filled with/embraced will this clean, pure boundless insubstantial radiance freedom... energy dancing joyously and like gonna burst. I just want this empty clarity to be as natural as possible with this reverence and compassionate taste. Once your empty clarity becomes clear, powerfully present and naturally non-dual without concern of maintaining... the 3 states (waking, dreaming and deep sleep) will have a single taste. Deep Sleep and waking will share a single taste of bliss as if it is a perfection seamless continuum ... There is no concern. The strong presence will guide you... The greater the strength of this insubstantial brilliance clarity, the lesser the concerns. Only when our presence is weak there is the problem with distractions. It is like when a bodhisattva filled with compassion is not distracted with own suffering at all." ~ John Tan, 2014

    "Sometimes I wonder why must the topic frequently oscillate between emptiness and preserving an indestructible essence.

    Perhaps after experiencing the boundless brilliance, the aliveness, we feel deep down we must somehow exist in a true, solid and substantial way. The more we experience our radiance clarity, the more difficult for us to let go. This I understand. Maybe we should channel some bits of our time and energy towards understanding the relationship between compassion and emptiness.

    When watching Garchen Rinpoche movie that Piotr sent me, it seems that to Garchen Rinpoche, nothing matters more than sentient beings. Whether there “is or isn’t” an essence seems to be a non-issue; if there is, he would joyfully and generously sacrifice for the benefits of sentient beings when needed. This is what I gathered from the movie.

    I am beginning to see why Nagarjuna asserted that emptiness is the womb of compassion.

    I am beginning to understand without the awakening of Bodhichitta, there is no true realization of emptiness.

    I am beginning to see why Bodhicitta and wisdom are the causes of Buddhahood.

    May Bodhicitta be awakened in our authentic mindstreams.

    Homage to Bodhicitta.” - John Tan, 2013
  • Awakening to Reality: A Guide to the Nature of Mind
    docs.google.com
    Awakening to Reality: A Guide to the Nature of Mind
    Awakening to Reality: A Guide to the Nature of Mind
  • Soh Wei Yu Everyone is welcome to discuss, debate and hold opposing opinions with me or anyone. However if you are blocked by me, and so far I have only ever blocked one person in my 12 years of using facebook - John Ahn - then I am sorry but i will remove you as I am unable to see and moderate posts started by you.

    I have also been blocked by only one person in my 12 years of using Facebook and that happens to be jackson peterson. Lol
    • André A. Pais Soh Wei Yu that would be a good opportunity for you to trust the moderation of other moderators... 😅
  • Write a reply...





  • Robert Dominik 1. Writing about the importance of bliss and qualities of enlightenment but complaining about wasting time and writing something full of bitterness and blame at the same time.
    2. Conflating somebody's sharp intelectual faculties and choosing a particular form of writing expression (long stuff loaded with information) with lack of experiental realisation (aka antintelectualism).
    3. Straw man arguments (mistaking Anatta for mere seeing through personal identity and claiming that the oponent conflates I Am with that).
    4. Accusing somebody to be stuck in concepts because the other person uses maps of insight which do not put on pedestal certain paths. Mistaking not seeing finding liberative wisdom in certain teachings for close mindnedness.
    5. Blaming the person who was once seen as a mentor/guide/rolemodel for one's own past spiritual attitudes, opinions and lack of development - dumping responsibility

    I expected more of John Ahn
    For the record im not criticising the person here but the message. I find John to be a honest spiritual practitioner who is genuinely devoted to his particular form of sprituality.
    2
  • Soh Wei Yu Also making strawman versions of I AM. The I AM that john tan and i describe is nothing like his version.
    2
  • Soh Wei Yu He is very much into I AM now but has not had the realization
  • Soh Wei Yu John ahn also had glimpses of no mind (not anatta) but he did not realise Presence (although he had experiences) and hence he did not understand that our anatta includes the I AM presence, nothing is denied but made uncontrived, centerless and effortless. Anything lacking Presence is not our anatta.

    “After the maturity of anatta insight and twofold emptiness (which will be discussed later in this document), eventually there is effortless, ongoing and intense experience of "everything as Self", "As in that experience of I AM powerfully present at this moment", "As if like Awareness clear and open like space, without meditation yet powerfully present and non-dual. Where the 4 Aspects of I AM are fully experienced in this moment. This experience will become more and more powerful later yet effortless and uncontrived. How so? If it is not correct insights and practice, how is it possible for such complete and total experience of effortless and uncontrived Presence be possible?". "Indeed and this is being authenticated by the immediate moment of experience. How could there be doubt about it. The last trace of Presence must be released with seeing through the emptiness nature of whatever arises. After maturing and integrating your insights into practice, there must be no effort and action.... The entire whole is doing the work and arises as this vivid moment of shimmering appearance, this has always been what we always called Presence." "Yes and you should in all moment of 6 entries and exits experience all coming together for this moment to arise....this will dissolve all senses of holdings and will lead you effortless and maha experience of suchness effortlessly", "interpenetration, open, boundless, effortless and uncontrived." (John, 2012)” - AtR Guide https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xCaHV3T7LMNvuLew3eg-Vgjc_Q2tm6vnw7Yuy_Pv67Y/edit?fbclid=IwAR1t-p0YpRxX8DkgiZCSSmvflMuLVwb_FVKDES_ep_7JhsgBrXFP99uBQSg#
    “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.” - John Tan, 2018

    - Also from AtR Guide
  • Soh Wei Yu In fact anatta is the fundamental key towards effortless, total and uncontrived Presence. Without anatta it would not be possible
  • André A. Pais I just find it saddening that in a group full of aspiring bodhisattvas (and perhaps even some actualized ones), we're unable of having a constructive and healthy conversation.
    1
  • Soh Wei Yu It would be naive to think that we can have constructive conversations with everyone. As the saying goes, even Buddha cannot save someone who does not have the yuan (condition)
    1
  • Frank Trenholm "You become more active by default", about says it all...
  • Jenny Jennings Foerst It always amazes me: The unfounded confidence with which some people map and declare "truths" above their current practice pay grade. The mind can't know what it fails to know.
  • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Let me translate Andrè's question, Jenny:

    > Are you with us or against us?
    1

  • Robert Dominik Well to balance the energy out I will say that I have greatly benefited from Soh's blog. Lately this came to a fruition: breakthrough into complete, utter and irreversible certainty of impossibility of any selfhood. Experiental insight (will write some report soon).

    I get why some people might not benefit from the blog. Sometimes the stuff Soh writes is pretty loaded with info and terminology. But thats just the style. Only people pleasers think you can suit all tastes.
    Also the blog really does not offer that much regarding concentration, yogic practise or devotion. Its mostly centered around insight. For good reason - its precise and unforgiving in this field.
    Obviously most people need other forms of spiritual discipline but the blog does not demand exclusivity and from what I remember Soh and Thusness sometimes share recommendations like Somatic Meditation etc (which inspired me greatly).

    Also I think the problem is that some people like to read the blog, learn the lingo and maps and then parcitipate in discussions pretending they understand (like me a couple of years ago). However one should be critical, constantly check and really, precisely verify everything the blog suggests in ones meditation and behavior. Just parroting Soh and Thusness does not qualify for a path towards achieving same results.
    And that happens to every spiritual guide. Sometimes also there is needed certain chemistry between the mentor and the one who is learning. That depends on karma etc.

    I personally would like to thank Soh Wei Yu and John Tan.
    Without the blog Id be stuck in neoadvaita land I guess or I would project neoadvaita and new age views onto Buddhadharma thus blocking my practice. Also I met Malcolm and Dzogchen via Dharma Connection group. Its my main path and though I do not share some of the Soh's opinions regarding my root Guru CHNNR - I am very grateful and fond of their work.
    2
  • Robert Dominik PS: Regarding maps.

    Thusness from the get go was honest that the map is not ultimate. In todays spiritual landscape it is really hard to map all the various teachings and insights. But the maps and classifications are useful in wordly business (like for distinguishing music) and in spiritual field too (theyve been part of the deal for thousands of years). No map is perfect but the purpose is to give some tools to orient oneself instead of being fumbling in the dark. 7 stages model does a pretty decent job and works where many projects like the famous Hawkins scale or Wilber model fail.
    2

  • Jenny Jennings Foerst It always amazes me: The unfounded confidence with which some people map and declare "truths" above their current practice pay grade. The mind can't know what it fails to know.
  • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Let me translate Andrè's question, Jenny:

    > Are you with us or against us?
    1
  • Soh Wei Yu I think Jenny is referring to John Ahn commenting about I AM and anatta without having realized it, but she can confirm
    1
  • André A. Pais Since John Ahn presented himself against maps, I'm assuming Jenny is actually referring to the whole mapping thing happening in this group... 🤔
  • Soh Wei Yu I see. Jenny told me previously that she has no doubts I have gone through those stages, so I don't think she is referring to John Tan, me, or others in this group who has gone through the process?
  • Soh Wei Yu André A. Pais i think she might be referring to daniel ingram and his claim to “arahantship”
  • Jenny Jennings Foerst Soh has it right, except that I was not thinking of Daniel. I am not referring to anyone here.
    1
  • Jenny Jennings Foerst I don't know John Ahn personally, so I was responding only to the quote. I generalized an impression from the quote. Forums generally don't work for me, esp. large ones. The most frequent and loudest naysayers of this or that level of practice haven't See More
    3
  • Soh Wei Yu yes and john ahn already has notions about an ultimate despite saying one should not hold notions of what one hasnt realised

    And what he holds to be ultimate is the I AM of the vedanta school


    And wrongly projects that what i realised is lesser than his version of I AM

    Lol
  • Soh Wei Yu i do think that buddhadharma is more subtle and indepth than vedanta based on my experience and realisation

    He cant accept that and so be it. He seems to be disturbed by others who do not agree with him
  • Soh Wei Yu Also as per buddhadharma, knowledge of emptiness, the nature of mind, is a very specific knowledge. You either have it and have complete certainty in it or you do not, and there is no middle. There is no mystery or unknowing involved in realising and actualizing the nature of mind which is empty clarity.

    As lopon malcolm pointed out, The realisation or knowledge of emptiness at the first bhumi is identical with that of a buddha. The only difference is in terms of obscurations eliminated, qualities attained, etc

    Even the first bhumi must have realised what the ultimate is, but it does not mean one has all the qualities of shakyamuni buddha. But a first bhumi is an arya, an awakened person
  • Soh Wei Yu So when john ahn says that i imply i am enlightened, i have to say it depends on what definition he is using it for. Actually the more traditional and proper term is awakening.

    Enlightenment or awakening, as in realising the nature of mind, sure. I do
    not make it subtle that i am indeed enlightened and so are a couple of others in this group. John tan plainly told me more than ten years ago that he is enlightened. There is no doubt that he, me, and some others here are enlightened.

    But buddhahood? I doubt there is a single soul (oops, or no-souls) that is a buddha on this planet in this day and age. Maybe there are but i am not easily convinced and will need to see and interrogate that person myself. Lol
    2
    • Reply
    • 1d
    •  
    •  
    •  
    • .......
    •  
    •  
    •  
      • t7Sfnsfml8140f3h1e0ad 
        Shared with Your friends
        Friends
        Bliss of anatta
        Every year on my bday I will write a list like “ten things I learn this year”. 🤣 I was writing it this morning..
        Then I fell back onto the couch for an hour, watch the fan on the ceiling, a deep bliss course through, every sensation is bliss, happening by itself like a magical display, every sensation is so blissful. What a weird gift. Even my moms nagging is blissful 🤣
        So weird. So simple. I’m getting stupider by the year, and It’s really great 🤣
        Yet I know to reach such simplicity has taken me so much effort. What a year. Thank you❤️
        Happy new year, May 2022 be a happy one for you. May you be well. ❤️

        5 Comments


        Yin Ling
        You and John Tan has helped tremendously thank you ❤️
        2

        • Reply
        • 9h

        John Tan
        Yin Ling 😝 Btw happy birthday and happy new year!
        1

        • Reply
        • 9h
        • Edited

      • Yin Ling
        John Tan thank you!
        1

        • Reply
        • 8h

      • Yin Ling
        And happy new year to both of you!!!
        1

        • Reply
        • 8h

      • Soh Wei Yu
        Yin Ling happy birthday and happy new year!
        2

      • Reply
      • 8h
       
Thusness commented, "Yes good stuff. "Things" are just set of relations.

Whatever felt, seen, heard, tasted, smelled and thought that seem so real and awareness that is often taken to be more "real than real" is no different from the "chariot" and its basis of designation."


“[3/8/19, 1:23:25 PM] John Tan: However the article (by Adyashanti) should not lump all into one. They are different insights. "More real than real" is one insight. Everything is in fact truly real is another. The "real" is just "inter-ratedness". Then the clear view of the relationships and how to re-understand and live with the new experience and insights.
[3/8/19, 4:53:14 PM] Soh Wei Yu: More real than real is different from everything is in fact truly real? What do you mean? More real than real is just luminosity right
[3/8/19, 4:54:26 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Btw it occurred to me that advaita talks about non arising but the diff with buddhism is that buddhism non arising is the rejection of inherent production due to being free from causation by self, others, both and causeless, which is to say everything is non arising and free from inherent production due to dependent origination. Whereas in advaita everything is non arising due to everything being mere imputation and projection upon the inherently existing substratum of brahman
[3/8/19, 5:06:41 PM] John Tan: Yes. That (More real than real) is also an insight that turns the mind internal. Non-arising means appearances without essence similar to a reflection, like a rainbow. That (More real than real) comes with I AMness. The different between anatta and substantiality is beside appearance, there is innate feeling of some essence separate from the appearances of colors, sensations, sound, smell, taste and thoughts. Therefore one cannot be fully open and release.”



Update:

I wrote to someone to clarify -

"the OP is not about who has the higher view, it is about the necessity
to distinguish the different insights and not lump them all up.

Which is to say, Adyashanti has expressed most of those important insights, but could have done a better job delineating them"

"it is not a dispute, it is just stating that it is necessary to delineate them for readers to understand

I am sure adyashanti will agree if he is around. He did some delineation in his books"

"the “innate feeling of some essence separate from the appearances of...” is not a
criticism of adyashanti’s current mode of insight but the flaw of being
stuck with I AM paradigm.

Which adyashanti has criticised several times himself in recent articles. Adyashanti has warned many times about being stuck in the I AM.

I am very sure, just from adyashanti’s recent expressions alone, that he no longer has “innate feeling of some essence separate from the  appearances of...”


 

THE WORLD OF INTERRELATEDNESS
by Adyashanti

“When you feel love or fall in love, that’s a very real feeling to you, and yet you can’t see it, you can’t weigh it; it doesn’t have any objective sort of existence. Nonetheless, we treat it as more real than the things we consider to be real—certainly as more important.” 
When we think of interrelatedness, we usually think of big or small things that are in relationship with one another. However, the way I’m using the word is not like that. I’m not denying that, but there is something deeper than that. Things are actually nothing but interrelatedness itself.  
It’s really hard for a human mind to think that a thing could be nothing but interrelatedness, that interrelatedness itself ends up to be what things actually are. In this sense, things end up to be no-things, and no-things end up to be all things. So when we hear words like no-thing or nothingness, we shouldn’t try to understand that conventionally. In its truest sense, nothingness doesn’t have much to do with nothing. It has to do with interrelationship or interrelatedness.  
And so it is with each of us. When you look inside for your true being, you might say, “Okay, exactly, precisely, what is this thing called ‘me’? What actually is it?” The more you look for it, the more you can’t find it. The reason you can’t find it is because it is nothing but interrelatedness. There’s no substance. There’s no thought, idea, or image to grasp. In that sense, it’s empty, but not empty in the sense of being nonexistent. It’s empty in the sense of being unexpected or inconceivable.  
When you feel love or fall in love, that’s a very real feeling to you, and yet you can’t see it, you can’t weigh it; it doesn’t have any objective sort of existence. Nonetheless, we treat it as more real than the things we consider to be real—certainly as more important. Most people, if they feel love, their love feels more important to them than the solidity of their toaster. The love has no solidity to it at all. It has no objective tangibility to it, and yet, it’s something that one could orient their whole life around.  
The Buddha used to talk about the thusness or suchness of each moment. It means not just each moment, but the thusness or suchness of each apparent thing that we perceive. So when I say being, this is the sense I’m using it in, a similar way that the Buddha used the thusness or suchness of something. When we perceive the thusness or suchness of something, we’re actually perceiving it as being nothing but interrelatedness itself. So this ordinary moment, with nothing particularly unusual about it, is being awareness, and awareness itself is interrelatedness. It’s not like interrelatedness is aware; it’s more like interrelatedness is. It’s not that the interrelatedness is that which is aware—it’s that the interrelatedness is awareness.  
This is probably the fundamental barrier that any of us will bump into in spirituality: the barrier between awareness and the objects of awareness. The fundamental duality is that there is this world of things, and then there’s seeing and experiencing this world of things, and somehow those two are different. One of the great misunderstandings about unity is the belief that it reduces the world to a sort of homogenized “goo” of agreement. Actually, in some ways it’s almost the opposite. It frees the uniqueness in you, and it frees you to allow the uniqueness in others. Uniqueness flourishes when we see the unity of things. It doesn’t get flattened out—just the opposite. You just stop arguing with the difference that isn’t like yours.  
When you have two viewpoints that are open to interrelating, almost always something will arise if you stick with it long enough, if you’re sincere, if you’re openhearted, if you actually want the truth more than you want to win or be right. Eventually something will bubble up from that engagement that’s truer than either one began with. If you have two people who are openhearted and see the truth and usefulness, even the utility, of really relating, they’ll see that, and both people walk away feeling like “Gosh, I feel good about that, like we both win because we both discovered more than we started with.”  
The unity of things isn’t that there are no differences. It isn’t that a tree doesn’t look different than the sky, or behave differently than the sky, or have a different kind of life than the sky. The unity is that a tree—an object—is nothing but interrelatedness. The sky is nothing but interrelatedness, and the awareness of things is itself nothing but interrelatedness. That’s an explanation that is coming from a way of perceiving. That’s what enlightenment really is: seeing that the seeing and what one is aware of are one simultaneous arising. It’s an arising that’s always flowing because interrelatedness isn’t static—it’s ever flowing.  
That’s why I’m always saying that this is really about a kind of vision, not in the sense of having visions, but the quality of our vision, the quality of our perception when we can perceive without the dualistic filter. What seems to be this impenetrable sort of barrier between us and things, us and the world, us and each other, is fundamentally between our consciousness and what consciousness is conscious of. That seemingly basic and immovable sense that there is a fundamental difference, a fundamental separation, is what’s really dispelled when our insight gets deep enough.  
At the deepest level, the most fundamental level, interrelationship is just that—it’s interrelating. It’s not things interrelating. Things end up to be themselves interrelatedness. When vision becomes clear, that’s what we perceive. The world becomes not a world of things, but of interrelatedness. 
Excerpted from “The World of Interrelatedness,” April 10, 2019 ~ Garrison, NY 
Available as an audio download, The World of Interrelatedness
by Ven. Jinmyo Renge osho

Dainen-ji, June 10th, 2006

Golden leaf
Not long ago it was spring and now it is becoming summer. From spreading roots, shoots and stems have appeared and now countless buds burst forth and blossom and then fall to the ground. In the monastery garden, the ferns have unfolded and now tower above spreading moss. Skunks and squirrels and hundreds of finches have come to drink from the stream along with a mother racoon and her young who also stopped by the front porch to investigate the Buddha rupa and offering bowl. And the Engleman ivy creeps up the building with small fingers that attach themselves to the brickwork.
Not long ago, it was night and now its morning. Not long ago, we began this Dharma Assembly and not too long from now, it will already be over. Not too long from now, someone will be listening to the recording of this Dharma Talk and I will have been dead for years. It all happens so quickly. This happening, this activity, this exertion of the reality of impermanence is all that is ever going on. Our practice is the practice of opening to this reality and realizing it as part of our own natures.
Virya, or exertion, is one of the six Paramitas. The Paramitas describe aspects of being Awake to Reality that unfold through the process of practice. You have to start off with some initial element of, say, generosity, exertion, and so forth, but they unfold dynamically as you actually practice. In the Mahayana schema there are six Paramitas:
Dana Paramita: generosity
Sila Paramita: Integrity or discipline
Ksanti Paramita: Patience or flexibility
Virya Paramita: Exertion
Dhyana Paramita: Zazen or practice
Prajna Paramita: Radical insight or perfectly knowing emptiness
Of these six, exertion is the most important Paramita because without exertion, nothing is going to happen. We will just sit around instead of actually sitting and doing the practice of realization.
There are many ways of understanding what virya is, such as "the sustained effort to overcome laziness"; vitality; enthusiasm; prowess and potency. But none of these understandings are adequate to what we need to understand through and within our practice.
In the book, "The Pathless Path", Zen Master Anzan Hoshin says about virya:
…Exertion may well be the most crucial of the Paramitas that we must develop. Without it, our practice can only be based on images and ideas, expectations and concepts. Exertion is like the fine steel of a sword blade. Without a strong blade, it does not matter how sharp or well-honed the edge is, because the blade will snap off at the handle as soon as it is drawn. In fact, without exertion, the blade will just stay in the scabbard.
To truly sever the confusion and duality of the usual mind with Manjusri's sword of Dhyana and Prajna we must be able to exert THIS fully, holding nothing back. If we do not sever the duality and strategies of the usual mind, then the seamless unity of the whole moment will never be lived.
In order to practice beyond strategy we must first see our strategies, not to follow them but to open beyond them. And so it is of utmost importance to stay with the instructions we have been given and refrain from making up and following our own version of the practice. Not propagating means not propagating any thoughts, feelings, theories and concepts about anything and this of course applies to our practice as much as it does any other topic that might come up while one is sitting. Thinking about practicing is not practicing. If you have not been specifically told to do something in your practice, then don't do it. Ask about it if something has caught your attention and you think it worth discussing, but don't experiment.
There are ten thousand strategies that we may attempt to apply to our practice, but in the end they all fall apart. For instance, hunkering down around the breath instead of using the breath as a touchstone from which to open to the whole of experiencing will just lead to more and more discursiveness. Students will also sometimes "watch" themselves practicing, as though following themselves around. If you follow yourself around, you will inevitably get in your own way. Continuously "assessing" one's "progress" is another pitfall that frequently comes up. Letting yourself passively drift into storylines and justifying this by occasionally checking to see if you are still breathing or if the wall is still there and then going straight back into the storyline is not exerting yourself in your practice. Over and over again I see students allowing themselves to fall into the same cesspools of confusion and torpor again and again. Don't just muck about in that stuff. Don't put your face in it. STAND UP from it. How do you do that? Sit up straight, Shut up. Practice.
The Roshi continues,
Exertion must be clean, it must be free of strategies and romantic notions about enlightenment and Buddhahood. There is no use gritting your teeth and locking your legs in full lotus and trying to pull yourself out of samsara and into nirvana.
There is simply nowhere else that you can be than right here, in this moment. Exertion does not imply some kind of spiritual gymnastics or punching out self-image.
Exertion is surrendering completely into attentiveness again and again. Exertion is being utterly straightforward with whatever arises. Exertion is doing whatever needs to be done, and doing so as completely as possible: taking a complete step, a complete breath, touching completely, hearing completely. This is complete and wholehearted practice.
Without this kind of exertion all of this would just be talk. We could say, "Oh yeah, everything is Buddha Nature inhering within itself. Don't struggle, just wake up." And we could go through the motions, sit on the zafu and stare at the wall for the prescribed number of minutes and bide our time. But what is time? Who is this?
Zen is "the direct transmission outside words and letters, pointing directly to the mind," pointing directly to the moment, directly to just this.
The wall exerts itself completely and directly as the wall. No doubts about it, nothing held back, nothing pushed forward. No matter whether you call it a wall or not, the wall exerts itself completely as what it is. This exertion is what the wall is.
Complete exertion is our practice, it is what practice is. Cutting through blame and fame, hope and fear, here we are. Breathing in, breathing out.
Without calling it samsara or nirvana, good or bad, self or other, let us exert ourselves completely in just this. If you are walking, walk; if you are talking, talk; if you are listening, listen. In complete exertion, in whole-hearted practice, the Buddha Dharma begins to exert itself. If we exert ourselves completely as this breath, then this breath will begin to exert itself. Seeing has its own intelligence, hearing has its own intelligence; you are redundant. All struggle drops away and we discover that we don't even have to try to know anything.
Everything is self-known without a knower, without a known. Limitless Knowingness begins to dawn and continues to blaze as the mandala in which enlightenment is continuously born.
This occurs nowhere else and in no other time than just this. So let us exert ourselves completely, practice completely, realize the Way completely.
Moment after moment, the world opened by practice extends in the Ten Directions, exerting itself as sun and rain and wind. It exerts itself as the pain in your knee and the pleasure of cool water on your face on a hot summer day. It exerts itself as the creaking of the floorboards on which you walk in kinhin. It exerts itself as the empty toilet roll that needs changing, the printer that won't print, the bill that can't be paid, and exerts itself as your job, your family and your friends. It exerts itself right now and in each moment as everything you experience. The world presents itself as rich, playful, ever-changing details.
You are not separate from the exertion of the world and the possibility of your Waking Up exists only because of the possibility of your exertion. Unless you exert yourself, you're not really sitting, you are just sitting around. But if you're pushing and pulling you're not sitting either. You are doing some weird meditation trip.
When we are really practicing, we are not making anything happen. We do not make the sensations happen or the colours and forms and sounds happen. They are already present. All that we need to do is let attention fall open to what is already the case. Sensations and colours and forms and sounds already exert themselves. When you release yourself into this exertion, you release yourself into that which exerts itself as you and exerts itself as the world.
In the teisho series, "Wild Time: Commentaries on Dogen zenji's "Uji: Being Time", the Roshi says,
Everything arises here and now.
It is not that this arising is a matter of here plus now.
Here is now.
Now is here.
It is not a matter of time plus place equals our experience.
It is now equals here equals is.
This is the exertion that you must release yourself into in order to realize who you are.
Without the exertion of you releasing yourself, nothing is realized, nothing is real.
All that you have are stories,
descriptions,
presumptions,
and
fixations.
By releasing yourself into That which unfolds itself as everything,
which arises everywhere as everything, right now,
you realize this arising.
You are the realization of this arising.
Without the exertion that needs no one to do it,
that is done by no one at all
but is simply exertion exerting itself,
Nothing would arise.
We are open to the exertion of this moment only when we do not hold ourselves back or get in our own way by following tendencies and habits. Actually recognizing that a pattern is a pattern, that a tendency is a tendency, can be difficult. We have used patterns and tendencies to define ourselves and can sometimes find it impossible to believe that we can be any other way. But as Roshi says, "We are really only ourselves as we really are when we are open to reality as it is." And we can do this so easily. All that we need to do is actually sit when we sit. Just sitting around just won't do it. Just sitting back and hoping it will all work out won't do it.
Open to this breath. Now. Now. I mean it. Now. I really really mean it. Please? It's not just for your own good. There is no good that you can do without doing this. Look at this world. Read the newspapers. Or just actually listen to the nasty stuff you tell yourself about yourself. And about other people. It's terrible. The problem is that every body else is saying these terrible things to themselves about themselves and every one else. And they're out there: driving cars, shooting guns, buying shoes, having babies, ruling countries, writing code, playing music, cooking and eating and all of the things that affect every one and every thing else in the world. Someone has to do these things that doesn't have such a grudge about actually doing something clearly and completely and well. So, please, exert yourself. Exert yourself by just stopping. Stop that stuff. Just sit up straight. Now.
I mentioned before how quickly everything goes. Now this Dharma Talk is almost finished. Spring comes and goes, summer comes and goes, autumn comes and goes, winter comes and goes. You and I and all of us come and go. So let go. Let go INTO this coming and going. Exert yourself by not following yourself around and open to the ten directions all around you.
Now I've finished talking. You should stop talking to yourselves too. And so let's all sit.
/r/Buddhism on Reddit -- see comments by Kyle Dixon (Krodha), very clear on the Madhyamaka's perspective of Time

Nagarjuna and Time self.Buddhism
all 20 comments

[–]krodha 14 points  
Nāgārjuna devotes an entire chapter to "time" in his Mulamadhyamakakarika, offering three different arguments against time.
The first:
Three arguments regarding time are presented. The first argument is a reprise of the production argument and relies on the common-sense view that time is split into past, present and future. Nagarjuna argues if the "parts" of time have own-being, the conception of time quickly loses its coherence. If "the past" is considered to produce "the present" and "the future," the latter two parts would be already "in" the past and could therefore not be properly said to have separate being. On the other hand, if the present and the future are separate from the past, then their very unconnectedness leaves them uncaused, independent and without reference to the past. But since the very notions of present and future imply a relation to the past, this is self-contradictory. Therefore, the present and future do not exist. Neither identity with nor difference from the past is sufficient to establish the reality of the present and future. In a similar fashion, the independence of any of the parts of time can be attacked on the basis of their inseparability and necessary reference to each other. The past, for example, can not be independent because it is nonsensical if it does not terminate in the present and future.
The second:
...if time is acknowledged to be continuously fleeting, there are no absolute static components of it that can be experienced (or, perhaps, "grasped" by the mind). If we propose, as the Abhidharmic metaphysicians held, that there can be a "static moment" of time, it would no longer count as time. Time in and of itself can never be grasped.
The third:
The third and final argument shows that time can not be considered to be a self-existing thing that is somehow not dependent on other existing objects. This is because, as Nagarjuna has shown, there are no independent "objects" in the world, nor could time be itself truly independent as long as it remained defined by its relation to such supposed entities. To place the argument in more contemporary terms, time is not a self-existing substratum or arena in which equally independent things endure or independent events occur.
This third argument is the most stand-out. Nāgārjuna essentially says that our perception of time is predicated upon our perception of objects, however since objects cannot actually be found when sought due to their inability to withstand keen scrutiny, time is a misconception and is a figment of delusion.
[–][deleted] 4 points  
This third argument is the most stand-out. Nāgārjuna essentially says that our perception of time is predicated upon our perception of objects, however since objects cannot actually be found when sought due to their inability to withstand keen scrutiny, time is a misconception and is a figment of delusion.
Ah so Nagarjuna was essentially a nominalist regarding universals but went further by claiming that everything is an illusion without denying conventional reality?
So how is "change" accounted in his views if time is a misconception? Is change only viable through experience which itself is a delusion?
[–]krodha 13 points  
Ah so Nagarjuna was essentially a nominalist regarding universals
Buddhism in general denies universals both conventionally and ultimately. Particulars are allowed a conventional status but are negated ultimately.
but went further by claiming that everything is an illusion without denying conventional reality?
Phenomena are illusory according to Buddhism because they appear while lacking a substantial essence, like a mirage or a reflection. From the standpoint of relative truth, which is a species of cognition according to adepts like Candrakīrti, phenomena appear solid and real. However this perception of solidity and substantiality is considered a byproduct of ignorance [avidyā]. Once ignorance is exhausted then the veridical nature of phenomena is known and phenomena appears like an illusion – see the eight examples of illusion which attempt to communicate a perception of ultimate truth.
So how is "change" accounted in his views if time is a misconception? Is change only viable through experience which itself is a delusion?
There are also chapters on change, coming and going, movement etc., in his Mulamadhyamakakarika.
Change likewise only appears to be valid from the standpoint of ignorance which cognizes entities, once that knowledge obscuration is uprooted then one no longer perceives entities and therefore the notion of change is also realized to be a misconception.
Nāgārjuna's deconstruction of coming and going and movement are of course far more elaborate. Many of his arguments in the MMK are being leveled at trends of substantialism that had started appearing in Buddhism during that time. Nāgārjuna believed the buddha's intention was misunderstood and was slowly becoming lost as a result.
[–][deleted] 5 points  
Interesting. Is this also related to the no-self doctrine? The self is an illusion and a byproduct of ignorance manifested from our inability to comprehend our interconnected psychological elements lacking genuine essence and thus, creating an illusory entity? Would that be something close to what dependent origination means in that context? Of course i assume that nirvana is needed for that ignorance to subside.
I guess that makes rebirth somewhat plausible in the sense that the summation of our elements are transferred without an actual identity since our identities are illusion, which is in stark contrast to Pythagorean or Platonic ideas of transmigration of the soul. So children remembering their past lives isn't as implausible as previously thought.
[–]krodha 13 points  
Interesting. Is this also related to the no-self doctrine?
Yes, phenomena ultimately lack a substantial essence [svabhāva] and therefore lack an essential identity, this is the real meaning of selflessness or no-self [anātman].
The self is an illusion and a byproduct of ignorance manifested from our inability to comprehend our interconnected psychological elements lacking genuine essence and thus, creating an illusory entity?
Precisely, although I would say the self merely "appears" as a result of our inability to recognize its genuine nature as insubstantial and illusory. "Appear" being the operative term because if we understand that the perception of identity results from a failure to recognize a lack of essence in phenomena, then it is equally understood that the misconception of identity is a mere appearance and thus nothing is ever truly "created" at any point.
When we perceive identity in persons and phenomena we are only ever relating to our own ignorance, like seeing a rope in a dark room and mistaking it to be a snake. The snake merely "appears" as a result of our failure to recognize the rope, the snake never actually originates or is created at any point in time, and when we recognize the actual nature of the alleged snake, then we see it never originated in the first place.
Would that be something close to what dependent origination means in that context?
Yes this is exactly what dependent origination means. Phenomena only appear to originate in dependence upon our ignorance regarding their actual nature. Nāgārjuna is very clear about this, for example in his Yuktiṣāṣṭikakārikā he states:
When the perfect gnosis sees that things come from ignorance as condition, nothing will be objectified, either in terms of arising or destruction.
And,
Devoid of locus, there is nothing to objectify; rootless, they have no fixed abode; They arise totally from the cause of ignorance, utterly devoid of beginning, middle and end.
This has large scale implications as well, which is why Nāgārjuna sometimes uses the example of the world itself. From the same text:
Since the Buddhas have stated that the world is conditioned by ignorance, why is it not reasonable [to assert] that this world is [a result of] conceptualization? Since it comes to an end when ignorance ceases; why does it not become clear then that it was conjured by ignorance?
The unreality of the world is also mentioned in his Acintyastavaḥ and Lokātītastava, where it is said it manifests due to the imagination, likened to a mirage, or a child that is born, lives and dies in a dream.
This is why many adepts are explicitly clear that dependent origination [pratityasamutpada] is synonymous with a lack of origination [anutpāda], because phenomena that originate in dependence on ignorance as a cause, never actually originate at all. We see many adepts state that they are equivalent, Candrakīrti for example:
The perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created [dependently arisen] is uncreated [non-arisen]."
Or Mañjuśrī:
Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise.
Nāgārjuna, once again:
What originates dependently is unoriginated!
Moving on...
Of course i assume that nirvana is needed for that ignorance to subside.
Yes, nirvana is defined as the total cessation of ignorance, or the total cessation of cause for the arising of samsara.
I guess that makes rebirth somewhat plausible in the sense that the summation of our elements are transferred without an actual identity since our identities are illusion,
Right, essentially all that is reincarnating (or being 'reborn') are causes and conditions, which is the only thing that is ever occurring. Afflicted aggregates beget afflicted aggregates, each serving as simultaneous cause and effect. So there is no individual 'soul' or entity as such that is being reborn... and ironically, the fact that there is no inherent soul or permanent entity is precisely why rebirth is possible.
Causes and conditions proliferate ceaselessly where there is a fertile basis for said proliferation. These factors create the illusion of consistency in conditoned phenomena (phenomena capable of existing and/or not-existing), and the illusion of an enduring entity which was allegedly born, exists in time and will eventually cease. Ultimately, the so-called entity is simply patterns of afflicted propensities, habitual tendencies etc. however over time, these factors become fortified and solidified creating the appearance of an autonomous sentient being. The point of the buddhadharma is to cut through this dense build up of conditioning and ideally dispel it altogether.
Rebirth is the result of unceasing karmic (cause and effect) activity. If ignorance of the unreality of that activity is not uprooted, then said activity simply persists indefinitely. An easy example is the fact that we wake up in the morning with the feeling that we are the same individual who fell asleep the night before, however all that has persisted are aggregates that appropriate further aggregates, ad infinitum. We as deluded sentient beings do not realize that there is no actual continuity to the appearance of these so-called aggregates, and so that ignorance acts as fuel for further unfolding of the illusion of a substantiated, core, essential identity in persons and phenomena (and the habitual behavior and conditioning predicated upon that ignorance serves as the conditions for the continual arising of said illusion). If these causes and conditions are not resolved then the process simply goes on and on through apparent lifetimes, the entire process being akin to an unreal charade.
Nāgārjuna is also very clear about this, for example from his Pratītyadsamutpādakarika:
Empty (insubstantial and essenceless) dharmas (phenomena) are entirely produced from dharmas strictly empty; dharmas without a self and [not] of a self. Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals, fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes. Although the aggregates are serially connected, the wise are to comprehend nothing has transferred. Someone, having conceived of annihilation, even in extremely subtle existents, he is not wise, and will never see the meaning of "arisen from conditions."
and In his Pratītyasamutpādakarikavhyakhyana, Nāgārjuna states in reply to a question:
Question: "Nevertheless, who is the lord of all, creating sentient beings, who is their creator?"
Nāgārjuna replies: "All living beings are causes and results."
And in the same text:
Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness. Those, called "serially joined", not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.
It is a completely agentless process driven by affliction.
which is in stark contrast to Pythagorean or Platonic ideas of transmigration of the soul.
Yes, it is also in contrast to the Hindu definitions of reincarnation that involves a substantial essence.
So children remembering their past lives isn't as implausible as previously thought.
Certainly not implausible, karmic imprints on the mindstream persist.
[–][deleted] 3 points  
Thanks for the clarification, that was a fantastic answer. I will ask more once i encounter something that i have trouble with.
[–]sruffian 3 points  
/u/krodha gave a wonderful answer.
Is this also related to the no-self doctrine?
Madhyamaka holds that objects have no inherent being. The same applies to what we tend to perceive as the self - it does not exist independently of anything. It may appear that way to us, but as we begin to investigate it's nature, we see will see that it has no independent existence. This is, indeed, firmly rooted in the idea of dependent origination.
Other schools will have different interpretations of the 'no-self doctrine' that you allude to. Some see the self falling apart under scrutiny. Madhyamaka sees the self and all other objects as lacking any inherent independent existence under scrutiny.
Of course i assume that nirvana is needed for that ignorance to subside.
Madhyamaka would probably state that seeing the nature of things is necessary to rid oneself of delusion
Finally, while I'm not going to get in on Madhyamaka ideas on the basis for rebirth, you're heading the right direction in moving away from western ideas of transmigration of the soul. Good job getting outside that framework.
There's a great Lam Rim teaching by HHDL where he talks in depth about Madhyamaka and Nagarjuna. Very accessible, and helps set up the context for Nagarjuna's work well. It was published as "From Here to Enlightenment: An Introduction to Tsong-kha-pa's Classic Text The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment"
[–][deleted] 2 points  
There's a great Lam Rim teaching by HHDL where he talks in depth about Madhyamaka and Nagarjuna. Very accessible, and helps set up the context for Nagarjuna's work well. It was published as "From Here to Enlightenment: An Introduction to Tsong-kha-pa's Classic Text The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment"
Excellent. I've been looking forward to obtaining introductory information regarding Tsong-kha-pa's epistemology as well so this could be very useful.