Soh Wei Yu

35m  · 

Shared with Your friends

Simply Always Awake

eopsrdnotS419uamicg6gm4gif0tmlm3331ha0538584a8at1uf7l4m4gffg  · 

As the storm rages on within and without, take refuge in knowing that the investigation into your true identity carries with it a power far beyond the physical and the ethereal.

1Sim Pern Chong

2 Comments

Like

Comment

Share

2 Comments

• Active

  Soh Wei Yu

  "take refuge in knowing"

  Although I often post about anatman and emptiness, it is crucial in the beginning to "take refuge in knowing" to realize the "knowingness"/"I AM" first. So for beginners, it is good to have the first direct realization of that Knowingness/Pure Presence/Pure Awareness (whatever terms you use - different people have different terms) first, otherwise all the thinking and intellectualizing about anatman and emptiness will remain theoretical still rather than an insight into the nature of mind or consciousness. So I am glad Angelo is pointing out the different insights and posting videos on youtube and sharing posts about them. Further investigation after the doubtless realisation of Presence will further clarify anatman (no self or emptiness of self) and emptiness (twofold emptiness: self and phenomena are empty).

  Just today I sent a message to someone who shared a post on reddit indicating 'I AM' as stream entry. This is a very common mistaken understanding of what stream entry mean but has no basis in Buddhist scriptures (another common misunderstanding of stream entry is a 'blackout cessation', but I digress). I had to point out that stream entry is the realisation of anatman, not I AM.

  Kyle Dixon also said in reddit maybe two years ago, "As your practice progresses you should begin to familiarize with that knowing capacity. Even with bipolar, in the height of happiness, the depths of depression, in the intensity of anger, that knowing capacity is always the same, stable, bright, clear. Like the surface of a mirror.

  Anger, sadness, happiness and everything else are like reflections that appear in the surface of the mirror but don’t affect it.

  Be the mirror and don’t get caught up in the reflections.

  This is not yet stream entry. But it can be a basis for practice that will help you get there."

  The above practice, along with contemplations like self-enquiry, will lead to the realisation of the aspect of Clarity, and with dedicated practices, it usually does not need a long time to have an initial glimpse or realisation -- likely in months or a few years (it took me about two years of inquiring from 2008 to February 2010 to have the first self-realization). An example of self-enquiry is asking "Before birth, who am I?" or just "Who/What am I?" or this one: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/11/what-is-your-very-mind-right-now.html

  Even this is an important realisation, the beginner's rigpa which serves as basis for practice. Kyle: "Vidyā as the gnas gyu shes pa or knower of stillness and movement is also one’s “own present awareness, left as it is, in natural ease, beyond qualities and flaws to be added or removed, accepted or rejected,” as this is just describing the clarity of your mind, which we call “vidyā” for beginners, left in its unmodified condition.", "When you begin your vidyā is just the knower of stillness and movement as he mentioned, just the clarity of mind being called “vidyā” because it has a knowing capacity."

  Yet, if we stop here, it is no different from non-Buddhist schools which emphasize the clarity aspect, from Samkhya to Vedanta and contemplative traditions of all other religions. Even the Dalai Lama said, "Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels...."

  Perhaps the only difference with the non-Buddhists is that if you are trained in Buddhist view, you 'intellectually' know that there is still a step further, that you need to realise its empty nature, but intellectual or inferential view is very different from direct realisation. Clarity will still appear very real to you, unchanging, ultimate and inherently existent (like a background or ground of being out of which everything emerges) even if you intellectually understand anatta, as I did even at (in fact long before) my I AM phase. This is because the Clarity aspect is the aspect of consciousness which will be experienced as "More Real than Real" and under prevailing ignorance, it will certainly be reified as ultimate reality rather than empty and illusory and will be perceived as self-existent/independent rather than empty of its own existence besides presencing appearances.

  Why is discovering you are the mirror not yet stream entry? What is stream entry? Kyle Dixon said recently, "The simplest explanation is that stream entry is an instance of awakening where it is experientially realized that there has never actually been a self at any point in time.

  Like tasting sugar for the first time, after that insight dawns you will have unerring confidence in the dharma because the teachings are no longer just a theory, it becomes a lived and embodied truth.", "Anātman is a dharma seal that is only experientially knowable by either stream entrants [srotapannis] or first bhūmi āryas. It is essentially the realization of emptiness as related to the mind." - Kyle Dixon's reddit posts compilation https://docs.google.com/.../2PACX.../pub...

  Hence the initial rigpa/vidya, which is knowledge of the aspect of unfabricated clarity, must be ripened further into the realisation of anatman/emptiness as the nature of mind and all appearances, only then can one's vidya/rigpa be considered "mature" (traditionally speaking).

  And what is the realisation of anatman? Kyle [Krodha] also wrote recently, "The Buddhist view is that there is no actual seer of sights, no hearer of sounds, no feeler of feelings, no knower of known. When this is experientially recognized in a nonconceptual way, that is “awakening.”" Kyle also clarified, "The looking does indeed change though. Right now it seems like there is a stable looker who abides as thoughts arise and pass, etc., but this too is a total delusion."

  Relevant discussion on stream entry can be found in https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf%20 and https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf%20 -- a thread that John Tan told me to put it to the top of the reading list in AtR blog this year because it clarifies so many people's confusion.

  Clarifying the anatman, dependent origination and empty nature of self and all phenomena [awareness included] is a crucial emphasis of Buddhadharma even after unfabricated clarity is discovered.

  • Like
  • Reply
  • 22m
  • Edited
• Active

  Soh Wei Yu

  Another nice description by Kyle Dixon on realising the nature of mind / anatman, back in 2014:

  "'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness." - Kyle Dixon, 2014

  • Like
  • Reply
  • 15m
  • 
    

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

The Degrees of Rigpa

The Degrees of Rigpa

• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview
• 1m

John Tan:

Anatta is just the beginning of a profound refinement of one's view into freedom from extremes (freedom from all elaborations), dependent origination and emptiness.

We will continue to balance our extreme views via the middle path of dependent arising and emptiness until we can clearly "see" that DO and emptiness of the conventional does not contradict the ultimate, i.e, the natural state of spontaneous presence, primordially pure and naturally perfection.

Many cannot clearly understand the ultimate free from conceptual elaborations lack sameness or difference, is neither parts nor whole, neither one nor many is conventionally expressed as dependent origination and emptiness.  That is y as long as u see contradiction, u r not understanding the ultimate correctly.

They clung to the ultimate, either turning to monistic substratum or nihilistic view that there is nothing at all or there is no entity or conceptual notions, then there cannot be action, activities, no cause and effect..all sort of extreme views.

That is y it is crucial to see emptiness as empty of self-nature/inherent existence rather that freedom from "conceptualities".

Self-view does not mean there is no individual stream of consciousness, it means (imo) that the conceptual mind always perceive ghost images from abstraction and reification, mistakening them as real and primary.  Then the mind cannot understand lack of these entities, how is action originated and how happenings occur because they r trapped in the framework of duality and inherency.

....

When she meditates, rest Z mind in openness that's all.  Don't worry about what sort of thoughts arise, let the karmic and habitual tendencies unwind themselves.  Thoughts can be wholesome or unwholesome, evil or pure, just let them release themselves, there is no need to change anything or chase after them at all.  Because we have self-view, we think that we have to do "something" about it, but what works is rather to realize their empty and dependent originated nature and let them release themselves in open radiance and spaciousness.  If this tactic and technique is unhelpful, then we have to work with wholesome thoughts into habitual tendencies, because there is no-self therefore habitual tendency works.

But that is just my view, she can try it out.

Tell Z to have more confidence with Z open radiance...lol.  she must slowly meditate until radiance and spaciousness takeover, then that will be the turning point, when stabilized, there will be no "brain fog" and mental fatigueness, not even a minuest bit, so not to worry too much.

...

Not exactly, both have some very profound points.  Mipham "conceptualities" is not only referring to symbolic layering but also self-view which is more crucial.  Mipham made it very clear and said the gelug mistake "conceptualities" as just symbolic and mental overlay, which is not what he is referring then he laid down 3 types of conceptualities.  Same for dharmakirti also...there is the gross definition and the more refine definitions.

...

No, there r some other vital points.  Also u must not equate Tsongkhapa with later gelugpas.  But don't want to comment on other sects.

…

Insight of non-arisen must go right to the "presence" level, not just the mental level of conventional constructs.  Then we can have clear insight and taste on the nature of pure appearances, means though the displays cleanly and clearly appear, they r not found anywhere like mental constructs are non-arisen.

Dependent arising is not about entities interacting with other entities for "this is, that is" negates any entity-ness.  IMO DO/emptiness is the only valid and accurate conventional presentation of pure appearance/spontaneous presence when using a clumsy dualistic and inherent framework.

Consciousness is like a magical genie that kept manifesting "things" out of thin air, be it delusory conventional constructs or radiance of pure displays.  That is y despite appearing, it is not found anywhere.  Not clearly seeing this is not seeing/understanding consciousness.  🤣🤦‍♂️

 Someone said, “Try reading Aldous Huxleys Perennial Philosophy”

Soh replied, “Thanks for the recommendation, will look into it. But I have to say, I understand but do not agree with perennial philosophy (The perennial philosophy, also referred to as perennialism and perennial wisdom, is a perspective in philosophy and spirituality that views all of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.)

There are similarities but also differences in views and realisations.

As Christian mystic Bernadette Roberts said, 

"That everyone has different experiences and perspectives is not a problem; rather, the problem is that when we interpret an experience outside its own paradigm, context, and stated definitions, that experience becomes lost altogether. It becomes lost because we have redefined the terms according to a totally different paradigm or perspective and thereby made it over into an experience it never was in the first place. When we force an experience into an alien paradigm, that experience becomes subsumed, interpreted away, unrecognizable, confused, or made totally indistinguishable. Thus when we impose alien definitions on the original terms of an experience, that experience becomes lost to the journey, and eventually it becomes lost to the literature as well. To keep this from happening it is necessary to draw clear lines and to make sharp, exacting distinctions. The purpose of doing so is not to criticize other paradigms, but to allow a different paradigm or perspective to stand in its own right, to have its own space in order to contribute what it can to our knowledge of man and his journey to the divine.

Distinguishing what is true or false, essential or superficial in our experience is not a matter to be taken lightly. We cannot simply define our terms and then sit back and expect perfect agreement across the board. Our spiritual-psychological journey does not work this way. We are not uniform robots with the same experiences, same definitions, same perspectives, or same anything."

Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche, who went through went through realisation of atman brahman and was confirmed by his Vedantic masters as having realisations that were deep and profound, later felt unsatisfied and by dwelling into Buddhism, attained the Buddhist realisations and continued to spend decades in retreat and was asked to teach by his Buddhist teachers. 

As I wrote in http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2013/01/marshland-flowers_17.html , “As one of the few great Buddhist teachers in Nepal where the majority of the population belong to the Hindu faith, a place where myths and misconceptions of Buddhism are abound, he is in a great position to correct all of these misconceptions and do an accurate and unbiased comparison between the teachings of Buddhism vis-a-vis Hinduism due to his deep knowledge and experience of the Buddhist teachings as well as his previous experience with the Hindu tradition. He emphasizes that the comparison was done not in order to demean one system of teaching over another but to provide greater clarity on the essential doctrines of each system so that they could each be understood correctly, as he says, "I must reiterate that this difference in both the system is very important to fully understand both the systems properly and is not meant to demean either system."”

Also my mentor Thusness wrote years ago,

““Yes sahaja samadhi but that remain as "experience".  Just like in taoism, it is all about naturalness 自然 and non-action (action without agent) though there r overlaps but they r different in praxis and view essentially.  There is no need to forcefully integrate the various religions into one, that is just more attachment.

Although there is no monopoly over truth as ultimately all is/are talking about one's primordial nature but there r those that much clearer and precise in their system of practice.  If the views and philosophies r 90% inherent and dualistic, the result from such a system will at best be a stage to be achieved abiet the emphasis of" natural state".

As I said b4, if someone were to say "Soh is a malay, a speckie, used to b a c# programmer, 1.9m tall and has a sister", obviously some informations r correct and some r misleading.  Even if u were to stand right in front of him, he will not b able to recognize u.  Therefore although all r talking about the natural condition of pristine consciousness, some r exceptionally clearer than others.”””