Posts
- Reply
- 1d
- Reply
- 21h
- Reply
- 19h
- Reply
- 14h
- Reply
- 12h
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 12h
- Reply
- 51m
- Soh Wei Yu
badge icon
JT:
Not found is more tasty than full presence 🤣🤣🤣
If extended to all appearances, then the entire body mind will be pervaded by this single taste of "not found" -- immensely spacious and free, natural and spontaneous. He should spend some quality time on that.
Then relate this taste to essencelessness and understand the conceptual relationship and experiential taste of:
--Essencelessness and the 8 extremes.
--Essencelessness and dependent designations.
--Essencelessness and total exertion.
--Essencelessness and the manifold of appearances.
1
· Reply
· 2m
Jayson MPaul
Author
Thanks! I will do that. Not found is more tasty than full presence 😁
1
· Reply
· 1m
I was investigating Presence this morning and trying to probe into beliefs that are hidden or unquestioned. I saw that presence was still not emptied. It was assumed to have a clarity/luminosity as an attribute of it. This was giving it a subtle essence or reification. I saw that the clarity/luminosity was dependently designated on the IS-ness of presence. Everything seemed to get "closer" or more intimate and somehow presence became more direct, more present, less fixed, less grasping. This was a nice release and thought I would share in case this opens anything up for others.
44 Comments
Comments
Thanks
Jayson MPaul
can you please describe how you were investigating Presence? ie. if I wanted to do the same, how would I go about it?' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M12.162 7.338c.176.123.338.245.338.674 0 .43-.229.604-.474.725a.73.73 0 01.089.546c-.077.344-.392.611-.672.69.121.194.159.385.015.62-.185.295-.346.407-1.058.407H7.5c-.988 0-1.5-.546-1.5-1V7.665c0-1.23 1.467-2.275 1.467-3.13L7.361 3.47c-.005-.065.008-.224.058-.27.08-.079.301-.2.635-.2.218 0 .363.041.534.123.581.277.732.978.732 1.542 0 .271-.414 1.083-.47 1.364 0 0 .867-.192 1.879-.199 1.061-.006 1.749.19 1.749.842 0 .261-.219.523-.316.666zM3.6 7h.8a.6.6 0 01.6.6v3.8a.6.6 0 01-.6.6h-.8a.6.6 0 01-.6-.6V7.6a.6.6 0 01.6-.6z'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
Author
Nick Wilson
Sure. I'll give you the lead up to it as well since the mindset was
probably a condition leading to the insight. Having got comfortable in
presence (in the seeing, just the seen, no seer for all senses), I was
reading this blurb from the blog: The section labelled "On Emptiness" in
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../on-anatta-emptiness....
While this was happening I was investigating where is that voice that
occurs when reading, is located. I had been getting more comfortable
recently looking at where thoughts occur directly and not psyching
myself out because they don't seem to exist in space. I did this for
awhile noticing how the reading continues, the eyes move on their own,
and this voice of the text is appearing as a vague somewhere. After
getting really settled at looking at this voice and how it is non-local
(doesn't have a location of itself) which gives a feeling of it's
emptiness, I realized that presence itself is still being grasped at,
specifically the clarity aspect. I investigated this by looking directly
at presence itself (which also has no location) and seeing that it
doesn't have clarity as an attribute as it's existence. More that there
is presence and we give it the attribute "clarity" with our mind as a
conceptual designation only. It doesn't inherently exist like that. At
this point from my previous practices in seeing things as conceptual
designations only, the mind saw presence was empty and stopped grasping
it. At that moment I saw how there was still subtle grasping at the
clarity of presence and how it was even nicer to let that go.
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection
That's
fantastic, thanks so much Jayson. I've just tried to read your post
without the voice. I can't do it! but it feels like I almost can. Very
hard to see words without voicing them 
I've found a similar but easier thing in listening to music. Have you
noticed how your mind plays the music you're hearing a split sencod
after you hear it? The mental impression of the music I guess. It's easy
enough to shut that down and just pay bare attention but it feels quite
similar to your reading voice thing. I will ponder the fine points of
your investigation when I meditate in the morning lol..
I've found a similar but easier thing in listening to music. Have you
noticed how your mind plays the music you're hearing a split sencod
after you hear it? The mental impression of the music I guess. It's easy
enough to shut that down and just pay bare attention but it feels quite
similar to your reading voice thing. I will ponder the fine points of
your investigation when I meditate in the morning lol.. Thank you for posting
John Tan: That is great insight but not just thoughts, sound, smell..etc. what abt colors, lights...vividly vision? Where is the lurid scenery right before the eyes now? Don't privileged mind over phenomena or phenomena over mind.
It does not only apply only to referent of conceptual constructs r not found, even non-dual presence is not found...taste this not found deeply...the -A...
Then look at DO....if mind is de-constructed, there is no mind and into anatta, and phenomena too r deconstructed....without privileging either mind or phenomena, move deeply into dependent designation/origination, taste the formation, deconstruction and see the freedom of natural and spontaneous perfection.
Post anatta, insight is not so much about the radiance of presence, that is a given, it is the +A and -A taste...
It does not only apply only to referent of conceptual constructs r not found, even non-dual presence is not found...taste this not found deeply...the -A...
Then look at DO....if mind is de-constructed, there is no mind and into anatta, and phenomena too r deconstructed....without privileging either mind or phenomena, move deeply into dependent designation/origination, taste the formation, deconstruction and see the freedom of natural and spontaneous perfection.
Post anatta, insight is not so much about the radiance of presence, that is a given, it is the +A and -A taste...
JT:
Knowing is not enough...but taste the depth of how this "not found" becomes the wisdom that frees.
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Daniel's Post on Anatta/Emptiness
Author
Soh Wei Yu
Yes exactly. I have been doing the not found tastes a lot recently. How
mind is not found, thoughts are not found, I've done the vivid scenery
not found in the past as well. Appearance is, but in no location at all
JT:
Means see the essencelessness of what appears and refine the view of essencelessness according to the abv instead of relating through presence. Put presence aside · 12m
JT: U should focus on that instead of PCEs, it will help u relinquish fear, attachment and energy imbalances, radiance of presence will b soft and light, yet natural and immense. · 8m
Author
Seems
like this: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../putting-aside...
Putting aside Presence, Penetrate Deeply into Two Fold Emptiness
· 8m
JT: Yes related
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 23h
- Reply
- 23h
- Reply
- 23h
- Reply
- 23h
- Reply
- 22h
- Reply
- 18h
- Reply
- 18h
- Reply
- 18h
- Reply
- 18h
- Reply
- 23h
- Reply
- 23h
- Reply
- 22h
- Reply
- 22h
- Reply
- 22h
- Reply
- 22h
- Reply
- 22h
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22h
- Reply
- 22h
- Reply
- 22h
- Reply
- 22h
- Edited
- Reply
- 12h
- Edited
- Reply
- 12h
- Reply
- 11h
- Reply
- 10h
- Reply
- 10h
- Edited
- Reply
- 4h
- Reply
- 3h
- Edited
- Reply
- 2h
- Edited
- Reply
- 2h
- Edited
- Reply
- 2h
- Edited
- Reply
- 38m
- Reply
- 25m
- Reply
- 22h
- Reply
- 21h
- Reply
- 17h
- Reply
- 17h
- Reply
- 14h
10/21/2012 3:44 PM: John: U expressed well in Total exertion. That is actualizing and being less dogmatic
10/21/2012 3:50 PM: John: As of now, u should hv no trace of innate clarity anymore...
10/21/2012
3:55 PM: John: After a while, u will forget everything abt this innate
clarity...like view being actualized and cast aside
10/21/2012
4:01 PM: John: Ur practice entering the 3 states seem to progress well.
All the six entries and exists must b beaming bright and energetic for
u now..to penetrate the 3 states...
10/21/2012 4:02 PM: John: In addition ur faith and merit must be there
10/21/2012 4:02 PM: John: Practice hard
....
[9:23
AM, 6/3/2020] John Tan: Now if luminosity is intrinsic and inherent in
all cognitive states of our continuum, how can it b prasangika?
[9:25 AM, 6/3/2020] John Tan: This is the issue of mahamudra and dzogchen despite claiming that mmk is the definitive view.
(Soh:
Mahamudra and Dzogchen also teaches the emptiness of Awareness,
so this is referring to certain teachers, texts and writings
I just pasted to him)
Also important and relevant:
Wetness and Water
Malcolm:
The
idea that things have natures is refuted by Nāgārjuna in the MMK, etc.,
Bhavaviveka, Candrakīrti, etc., in short by all Madhyamakas.
A "non-inherent nature" is a contradiction in terms.
The
error of mundane, conventionally-valid perception is to believe that
entities have natures, when in fact they do not, being phenomena that
arise from conditions. It is quite easy to show a worldly person the
contradiction in their thinking. Wetness and water are not two different
things; therefore wetness is not the nature of water. Heat and fire are
not two different things, therefore, heat is not the nature of fire,
etc. For example, one can ask them, "Does wetness depend on water, or
water on wetness?" If they claim wetness depends on water, ask them,
where is there water that exists without wetness? If they claim the
opposite, that water depends on wetness, ask them, where is there
wetness that exists without water? If there is no wetness without water
nor water without wetness, they can easily be shown that wetness is not a
nature of water, but merely a name for the same entity under
discussion. Thus, the assertion that wetness is the nature of water
cannot survive analysis. The assertion of all other natures can be
eliminated in the same way.
...
Then
not only are you ignorant of the English language, but you are ignorant
of Candrakīrti where, in the Prasannapāda, he states that the only
nature is the natureless nature, emptiness.
Then,
if it is asked what is this dharmatā of phenomena, it is the essence of
phenomena. If it is ask what is an essence, it is a nature [or an
inherent existence, rang bzhin]. If it is asked what is an inherent
existence [or nature], it is emptiness. If it is asked what is
emptiness, it is naturelessness [or absence of inherent existence]. If
it is asked what is the absence of inherent existence [or
naturelessness], it is suchness [tathāta]. If it is asked what is
suchness, it is the essence of suchness that is unchanging and
permanent, that is, because it is not fabricated it does not arise in
all aspects and because it is not dependent, it is called the nature [or
inherent existence] of fire, etc."
Labels: Ācārya Malcolm Smith, Emptiness, Madhyamaka |
DHARMAWHEEL.NET
Mipham: Gelug = Svatantrika Madhyamaka - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel
[9:26
AM, 6/3/2020] John Tan: That [heat being a characteristic of fire] is
precisely not prasangika and is rejected that heat is a characteristic
of fire and wetness is a characteristic of water.
[9:27 AM, 6/3/2020] John Tan: In tsongkhapa difficult points, he rejected awareness.
Anyway it's a good insight you're having. Adding this to post-anatta contemplation in AtR guide.
Author
Soh Wei Yu
I am not. I don't have a teacher at the moment. I followed the Mahasi
method in the beginning and then dug into your blog. Most recently I
have been following directions from Lama Lena on Mind-Mind looking as
described in her Dzogchen videos tho.Jayson MPaul
where you on retreat yesterday or the previous time? Author
Alessandro Socio Migliori
Not sure what you are asking here, but I have not been on retreat. Most
of my practice these days takes place during the course of the day.
Also what previous time are you referring to?Jayson MPaul
there was a pointing out this week and last week Author
Oh you are talking about Lama Lena? I was not in either. I was watching some older videos from 2019.
Soh Wei Yu
When you post about the ending of rigpa, you mean the ending of a
substantialized awareness right? Not the ending of the
cognizance/luminosity? I think of rigpa as the latter, not the former,
so it is surprising to hear of it "ending."Means what
Jayson MPaul
is pointing to. If you are not clear about what he is saying, you can ask him to elaborate...
Soh Wei Yu
Okay thank you, it is clear. I am surprised then that Malcolm uses the
word "rigpa" to mean a reified presence as opposed to its usual
definition as empty cognizance.It means seeing, awareness and knowing is exhausted. This was my question to Anurag the other day.
Regarding emptiness of awareness:
Related:
KILOBY.COM
The Case Against Awareness – A Little Blasphemy Goes a Long Way
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M10.473 4C8.275 4 8 5.824 8 5.824S7.726 4 5.528 4c-2.114 0-2.73 2.222-2.472 3.41C3.736 10.55 8 12.75 8 12.75s4.265-2.2 4.945-5.34c.257-1.188-.36-3.41-2.472-3.41'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
Soh Wei Yu
Perhaps it is just a terminology issue I am hung up on. The clarity /
luminosity does not "stop" (because "when" could that even happen?). But
it is no longer seen as the property of anything. It is totally empty.Or maybe I should just ignore this for the time being 
.
.Soh Wei Yu
Thank you. I think I am saying the same thing as those articles (which I
read before). If I am not (as you seem to be suggesting) then I look
forward to discovering that. 
Soh Wei Yu
I read the article of Scott Kiloby you posted. He is deconstructing the
Awareness as Witness model i.e an awareness to which arisings appear.
However what I am saying is that all phenomena are awareness. Now the
confusion generally arises with this statement is that of a substantial
Awareness moulding phenomena like gold is made into various ornaments.
This is negated by the fact that Awareness is attributeless (free of all
conceptual dualities - like substance/formless etc.) So one can say
that Awareness is a conventional designation which is used to designate
the fact that no phenomena have any inherent essence. Thus the word
Awareness maps exactly to the word Emptiness. I also cleared that I use
this word more because I want to say that Advaita is not reifying any
"thing", "essence" or "background" in using the word Awareness. It has
just started receiving some bad rap What
I meant by "seeing never gets exhausted" is that there is never a
moment when there are no appearances. I did not talk of an impersonal
background seer.
Attn:
Aditya Prasad
Aditya Prasad
you write "luminosity... is not seen as a property of any thing". There
are no "things" separate from luminosity. And luminosity is not any
thing either. Anurag Jain
I wrote "anything" and not "any thing." May seem like a minor
difference, but words get really hard here, as I'm sure you appreciate.
Another way to say it is that luminosity is not a property or attribute,
period. Similarly, I'm sure Jayson did not mean that there are "things"
when he wrote "Everything seemed to get "closer" or more intimate."As
he clarified below, he is using the word "presence" to indicate the
subtle objectification of clarity. Sticking with that terminology, I
think
Soh
is pointing out that rigpa-as-presence is exhausted, not that clarity
is exhausted. Since I always understood the word "rigpa" to mean the
empty clarity/luminosity anyway, I was surprised to hear Malcolm say
that it is exhausted.For
some reason my language is still not connecting with Soh, and although I
don't know why, I'm not sure it's worth worrying about right now.
Aditya Prasad
,
I understand what you wrote now and earlier too. I was not actually
trying to point out anything to you, just making things more clear Aditya Prasad
language is always slippery, especially as we inch closer and closer to
non-duality. What helps here is a little generosity from parties on
both sides of the dialogue to clear things out. One thing we have to
understand is that there are no "objective" referents to words. So I may
use Awareness to imply or reify it as an essence, as is done in the
Witness stage. This has its uses at a certain stage of self inquiry.
Post collapse of Witness, Awareness is seen to be empty of all
conceptual dualities/attributes. So the same word can be or rather is
used in Advaita to denote Awareness as nature of all phenomena free from
the four extreme views. [The last is mentioned by Gaudapada in Mandukya
Karika]"“Verse
4.83. Childish persons verily cover It (fail to know It) by predicating
of It such attributes as existence, nonexistence, existence and
non-existence and absolute nonexistence, derived respectively from their
notion of change, immovability, combination of both and absolute
negation.”
If this is understood it is not necessary for me to match my vocabulary.
I mention all this in my Stages of Self Inquiry page on my website. https://neevselfinquiry.in/stages-of-self-inquiry/
NEEVSELFINQUIRY.IN
Stages of Self Inquiry
Anurag Jain
I agree with most of what you have written. One thing I don't
understand is why you capitalize Awareness, or why "It" is capitalized
in the Gaudapada quote. This definitely gives the impression of trying
to establish the luminosity, as opposed to it being totally empty. A
Buddhist might say there is no "It" or even "it," and that communicates
something quite different to me, despite words having no objective
referents.Anurag Jain
BTW awareness and awareness cannot be synonyms, because emptiness is
the mere fact that nothing can be ultimately established. There is a
very important reason that Buddhist masters harp on the emptiness of the
luminosity, and don't spend as much time talking about the luminosity
(or "awareness") itself. If Advaita spent as much time tearing down
awareness in the same way, it would be easier for me to see the
parallel. Even the quote you give doesn't communicate to me that radical
negation.Aditya Prasad
I capitalize Awareness to denote it to be different from ordinary
awareness that people mean: with a subject object duality. Every person
knows he is aware. But we are talking about Awareness as the nature of
phenomena. For
the rest, I can't comment anything more because it contains your
personal impressions or preferences. One is free to go either which way.
If
you feel Advaita has not spent time tearing down anything you can have a
dialogue with me on what concept it has left deconstructed, I shall
help you out with it. If you need a little help on understanding that
quote, I can help you. It is the chatuskoti or the tetralemma or the
four cornered negation spoken in a slightly condensed way.
Aditya Prasad
I guess you have to read more carefully. I have never "established"
Awareness "inherently" anywhere. The tetralemma is precisely meant to
obviate that. Since you had some difficulty in understanding it I shall
repeat it again in a more detailed way.One cannot say that
1. Awareness exists
2. Awareness does not exist
3. Awareness both exists and does not exist.
4. Awareness neither exists nor not exists.
You can interchange the word Awareness with phenomena as Awareness is phenomena.
Aditya Prasad
if you say "there is no 'it' " implying "There is no Awareness", you
fall into the error of one of the four extreme views. (i.e - the second
view above)John Tan said,
“Not
sure what Anurag meant by nothing is established but sounded like
instead of "freedom" from the 4 extremes of the tetralemma, there seem
to b an establishment of a super Awareness that "transcends" the 4
extremes. Tetralemma has always been quite problematic
that is y Tsongkhapa added qualifiers like "exist conventionally" and
"not exist ultimately" to present the tetralemma in a more logical
fashion whereas other schools simply see the purpose is to pacify the
mind from all views, notions and concepts instead of finding "something"
that can transcend or satisfy all the 4 conditions.
that is y Tsongkhapa added qualifiers like "exist conventionally" and
"not exist ultimately" to present the tetralemma in a more logical
fashion whereas other schools simply see the purpose is to pacify the
mind from all views, notions and concepts instead of finding "something"
that can transcend or satisfy all the 4 conditions.Anyway
it will be seen as quite final by any practitioner that collapses both
subject and object into pure seeing. Unless 缘 arises to relinquish both
awareness and phenomena, whatever said will be quite futile for now.”
When you mean clarity do you mean as a subtle object?
Author
Albert Hong
I believe that is the same thing as what I meant. I was grasping
clarity as inherently existing in presence. But like with any attribute
(ie color), it is not located in the object. So perhaps presence is the
subtle object in this case.As Lama Lena says. YarrrrTawa
Jayson MPaul
Is it a fair characterization of your post to say any sensation of
awareness is merely inferred and/or conceptualized (or similarly, any
possible categorization of awareness must be a thought)?Author
Michael Bridge
That is fair. I've never experienced a thing called awareness. It was always other sensations masquerading as awareness. 
