Richard went through I AM. But not sure how thorough it is. I disagree with some of his characterization of I AM.

Maybe like you say there was something lacking.

March 2011:

-----Original Message-----

From: Soh Wei Yu

Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:16 PM

To: Thusness

Subject: You are body, not mountain

Hi, what is richard trying to point out here by saying you are not the

world? That there is no cosmic consciousness?

RESPONDENT: 'There is nothing but x'; substitute for 'x' any term ...

RICHARD: Okay ... as you say 'any term' here is what I report looks like

under your schemata:

. [example only]: 'There is nothing but this actual world. You are this

actual world'.

Now, as this actual world is the world of this body...the world of the

mountains and the streams...and so on and so on...what you are saying is

that you are everything... whereas I say I am this flesh and blood body only

(sans identity in toto).

There is no such self-aggrandisement...(there is no identity in actuality).

And this is truly wonderful.

John Tan's reply:

It is like saying there is only aggregates. No aggrandisement at all. It

is a way of attempting to get grounded to the most fundamental facts so that

there is no abstraction or reification. A way of anchoring PCEs. It is

similar to getting oneself grounded in the here and now. But I do not not

want to comment about AF. Do not want u to create unnecessary problems.

.......

I AM is actually a PCE, although Richard may not see it that way.

Why is I AM a PCE? This is also explained in the I AM chapter of AtR guide:

"As John Tan also said in 2011:

“John: what is "I AM"

is it a pce? (Soh: PCE = pure consciousness experience, see glossary at the bottom of this document)

is there emotion

is there feeling

is there thought

is there division or complete stillness?

in hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound!

so what is "I AM"?

Soh Wei Yu: it is the same

just that pure non conceptual thought

John: is there 'being'?

Soh Wei Yu: no, an ultimate identity is created as an afterthought

John: indeed

it is the mis-interpretation after that experience that is causing the confusion

that experience itself is pure conscious experience

there is nothing that is impure

that is why it is a sense of pure existence

it is only mistaken due to the 'wrong view'

so it is a pure conscious experience in thought.

not sound, taste, touch...etc

PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) is about direct and pure experience of whatever we encounter in sight, sound, taste...

the quality and depth of experience in sound

in contacts

in taste

in scenery

has he truly experience the immense luminous clarity in the senses?

if so, what about 'thought'?

when all senses are shut

the pure sense of existence as it is when the senses are shut.

then with senses open

have a clear understanding

do not compare irrationally without clear understanding”

In 2007:

(9:12 PM) Thusness: you don't think that "I AMness" is low stage of enligthenment leh

(9:12 PM) Thusness: the experience is the same. it is just the clarity. In terms of insight. Not experience.

(9:13 PM) AEN: icic..

(9:13 PM) Thusness: so a person that has experience "I AMness" and non dual is the same. except the insight is different.

(9:13 PM) AEN: oic

(9:13 PM) Thusness: non dual is every moment there is the experience of presence. or the insight into the every moment experience of presence. because what that prevent that experience is the illusion of self and "I AM" is that distorted view. the experience is the same leh.

(9:15 PM) Thusness: din you see i always say there is nothing wrong with that experience to longchen, jonls... i only say it is skewed towards the thought realm. so don't differentiate but know what is the problem. I always say it is misinterpretation of the experience of presence. not the experience itself. but "I AMness" prevents us from seeing.

"

Some of his PCE description actually isn't different from I AM:

RESPONDENT: Furthermore, if you make the argument that since there is no ‘I’, there can also be no immortality of the ‘I’, you have to accept the argument that since there is no ‘I’, there can also be no death of the ‘I’. Otherwise, while you might be beyond enlightenment, you would not be very consistent.

RICHARD: Oh, yes … it is a delicious sensation to be here; I experience myself as no-one in particular; I am simply a body enjoying this exquisite moment of being alive unimpeded by any ‘self’ within. Only this moment actually exists, for there is no lasting ‘I’ present which would make the past and future real. The freedom from enduring over time as the past, the present and the future, leaves one completely able to appreciate the impeccable purity of being here. This appreciation is the exclusive attention paid to being alive right here and now. This type of attention is best known as apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception is a way of seeing that can be arrived at by pure contemplation. Pure contemplation is when ‘I’ cease thinking ... and thinking takes place of its own accord. Such a mind, being free of the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ – ‘I’ as ego and soul – is capable of immense clarity and purity. All this is born only out of pure intent. Pure intent is derived from the PCE experienced during a peak experience, which all humans have had at some stage in their life. A peak experience is when ‘I’ spontaneously cease to ‘be’, temporarily, and this moment and place is here and now. Everything is seen to be perfect as-it-is. Diligent attention paid to the peak experience gives rise to pure intent. With pure intent running as a ‘golden thread’ through one’s life, reflective contemplation rapidly becomes more and more fascinating. When one is totally fascinated, reflective contemplation becomes pure awareness ... and then apperception happens of itself.

“(9:46 AM) Thusness: impersonality is the doing away of the ego (Soh: see four aspects of I AM in the stage 1 chapter), doing away with the I AM is anatta …

Every experience is direct, gapless, non-dual, non-conceptual and radiance even total exertion is present, just not empty. Almost equivalent to Actual Freedom as narrated by Richard. In fact I find Richard's description very much my version of arahat .

For Kyle, due to his view in emptiness, the experiential insight of anatta not only pierce through the self/Self but also triggered the arising insight of emptiness. However this may not be true (imo) in most cases if one's view isn't firmly established. For me when I first encountered the chariot analogy, there is an immediate and intuitive recognition that it is referring to anatta but I am unable to grasp the essence of the phrase "emptiness and non-arisen" there and then.

In other words, in addition to self immolation, a specific insight must arise, it is the prajna that clearly sees through the referent is empty and non-arisen. So anatta I would say is about severing the self/Self whereas phase 6 is the blossoming of this specific insight. Extending this insight from self to phenomena, from conventions to magical appearances is then a natural progression.

As for first bhumi (Soh: related: [insight] [buddhism] A reconsideration of the meaning of "Stream-Entry" considering the data points of both pragmatic Dharma and traditional Buddhism , Definition of First Bhumi) I am seriously not sure and never thought of it.

I can only say if we practice long enough, there is a frequent occurrence of a clear, clean and pure spring of joy that emerges from nowhere, floating like cloud. A very helpful antidote for negative emotions.

Even the experience of drinking water is like experiencing a clean and pure stream of luminous sensations in zero dimension similar to a mirage flowing spring water floating in the air.” - John Tan in the Awakening to Reality Discussion Group, 2019, John wrote this maybe a month or two before a breakthrough that Soh had which led to the writing “The Magical Fairytale-like Wonderland and Paradise of this Verdant Earth Free from Affective Emotions, Reactions and Sufferings”

“Soh: as Richard said, the out of control experience can happen even before anatta (the complete dissolution of self/Self), that is why the "doer" dissolves but the "be-er" is still there, but in actual freedom both dissolves

John Tan: Quite acute insight and thorough for the state no mind. Means "being" is also deconstructed.”

Before, when insight of anatta first arose, you still risk the danger of seeing the physical as inherent and truly existing. Therefore there is a period that you are lost, unsure and AF (Actual Freedom) seems appealing - a sign that you have not extended the insight of emptiness to phenomena though you kept saying twofold emptiness.

At present you focus on the following:

1. When there is no cold or heat (Soh: See glossary at the bottom of the article)

2. Total exertion

For 1, it is not difficult to understand now but for 2, you have not directly or adequately replace the 'Self/self' with the interdependence of whatever arises.” - John Tan, 06/12/2011 E-mail

Here just dropped a ton that stopped progress. More joy, more just seeing but still a subtle mental self as center background as JT calls it.

The problem is only when you are not guided by right view, then you get stuck.

This is not just in anatta -- even in I AM, John Tan and Sim Pern Chong got stuck for a decade or more, but I progressed to anatta from I AM within one year. Why? The answer is clear.