Posts
- Reply
- 19h
- Reply
- 15h
- Reply
- 14h
- Edited
- Reply
- 13h
- Reply
- 13h
- Edited
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 13h
- Edited
- Reply
- 12h
- Reply
- 37m
- Reply
- 34m
- Reply
- 33m
- Edited
- Reply
- 31m
- Edited
- Reply
- 30m
- Reply
- 26m
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 22m
- Reply
- 19m
- Edited
- Reply
- 4m
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 14h
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 14h
- Reply
- 14h
- Reply
- 14h
- Reply
- 14h
- Reply
- 14h
- Edited
- Reply
- 6h
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 5h
- Reply
- 5h
- Reply
- 35m
- Reply
- 28m
- Reply
- 27m
- Reply
- 26m
- Reply
- 24m
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 11m
- Reply
- 5h
- Edited
- Reply
- 5h
Wanted
to share a section from a piece I'm (re)writing that summarizes the
stages. What I call "Stage 2" here is One Mind, and "Stage 3" is Anatta.
I would be curious if the descriptions connect with others.
---
We normally walk around with the (mostly unconscious) assumption that the world we experience — this collection of sights, sounds, smells, etc. — is "backed" by a real world "out there." When Stage 2 is realized in its full depth, we see that both our experienced world and our ideas about a "real world" behind it are made of the same fundamental principle (Awareness or Brahman).
---
We normally walk around with the (mostly unconscious) assumption that the world we experience — this collection of sights, sounds, smells, etc. — is "backed" by a real world "out there." When Stage 2 is realized in its full depth, we see that both our experienced world and our ideas about a "real world" behind it are made of the same fundamental principle (Awareness or Brahman).
Put into words, this realization is not very profound: sure, our ideas of a real world are made of consciousness, but obviously that doesn't preclude there actually being
a real world outside of consciousness. What we cannot see is that the
mind is playing a very subtle trick here around distinctions like real
and unreal; inside and outside; etc.
It
is impossible to overstate the astonishment that occurs once this trick
is seen through. We suddenly discover that we've been overlooking the
impossibly wondrous glory right under our noses in favor of an abstract
principle we ironically called "reality." We now see that consciousness is the realest possible thing. Even when it is unmanifest, it lies in wait, ready to express itself as the cosmos.
Stage 3 is even more radical. Time itself
is seen through, so there can be no "prior condition." When past and
future disappear, so does "the present" — that word being only a
signifier to differentiate it from other possible times. In the same
way, concepts like "Awareness" and "Self" evaporate, since there's
nothing left to contrast them with. There is just this.
This isn't just a semantic trick: the experience is vastly
different from Stage 2; they are like heaven and earth. Whereas before
one had a reliable touchstone, now one is hurtling through pure paradox. Far from being nihilistic or life-denying, it is miraculous beyond description;
as though one has front-row seats to the greatest story ever told: a
seeming-something-from-nothing magic trick that never began and yet
never lets up.
Nonetheless,
practitioners at Stage 2 are often unable to even consider this as a
possibility, since now all ideas are "just another manifestation of
Awareness." The notion of a fixed God is the hardest of all to give up —
though one could certainly be forgiven for repurposing that word to
describe this wonder of wonders.
33 comments
Artem Artemsky
Yes!
Sudden Awakenings
More please! 
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
“There is just this”
Also
good to stress that this “just this” is not an undifferentiated
oneness. The understanding/insight and experience of anatta should be
like:
Aditya Prasad
Author
Soh Wei Yu You're right, that phrase might be confusing. Perhaps something like "what's left is unnameable."
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Also
the insight that dissolves inherency needs to be pointed out also. It
is not just a state where line of demarcation dissolves (like since all
is consciousness there is therefore no consciousness to contrast with
non consciousness, consciousness is also forgotten)
or a state of evenness where last trace of mind dissolves (as a state),
or all is time therefore no time. All these refers to a state of no
mind but not the insight of anatman. It is nondual experience but not
necessarily having the insight that dissolves view of inherent
existence.
Like i posted below
“Need to emphasize difference between seeing through duality vs inherency
Otherwise
even if one enters a state or experience of no mind where awareness is
forgotten, it is still not the breakthrough of anatman
Primordial
Yes André, I agree with most of what u said, just 3 points:
1. Primordial state, original face.
What
does it mean to to be without the imagined and imputed? It is simply
one's primordial state, always and already so despite non-recognition.
So the path can be directly pointing to one's original face or to rid from all imputed imagined artificialities.
But
the direct leap out of the imputed layer is often not exhaustive and
thorough, many blindspots and hindrances. Therefore a short cut can
often turns out to be a longer cut.
2. Unmade, natural and spontaneous
I
agree that without imputations, there is no boundaries. Therefore all
experiences is open and spacious and without the layer of imagined,
whatever appears is pristine and pellucid, transparent and crystal.
In
addition to that, purge of all imputed artificialities, whatever
appears is also unmade and unconditioned, natural and spontaneous.
3. Seeing through duality and seeing from inherency, to me is not the same and has different experiential taste.
When we say "the lightning is flashing", there r no two parts - "lightning" and "flashing", the flashing is the lightning.
When we say "the mover and the movement", there r no two parts - "mover" and "movement", the mover is the movement.
Same
for the anatta insight, hearer hearing sound. There is no 3 parts, no
hearer hearing sound, the hearer is the hearing is the sound.
That is seeing through thingness, agency and action.
But
seeing through duality like inner/outer, left/right, entry/exit,
object/subject is different. When the line of demarcation that divides
dissolves, experience turns non-dual but sense of "thingness" can still
remain imo.
So
this teaching of exhausting "thingness" is quite unique, it is not just
doing away with duality or conceptualities in naked awareness or raw
attention.
Last question:
What if one does not go through the path of seeing through mental imputation and reification?
Any other ways to free oneself from the sense of agency-action, duality and boundaries?
Got to go, late for work. Thks for sharing!
- John Tan, 2020
Labels: Emptiness, John Tan, Suchness 0 comments | |
Also:
"So
what is one mind, what is no mind and what is original mind in this
context? One mind is post non-dual but subsuming leaving trace. No mind
is just one mind except that there is evenness till the last trace is
gone. Like what explains in the text. Uji...all is time therefore no
time. When you go from dual to non dual or one mind to no mind, those
are stages and experiences... If u got the condition to get pointed out
that originally there never was a mind, there are no stages to climb...
that is original mind. This requires insights and wisdom." - John Tan,
2020
(Note
by Soh: the original mind spoken here does not mean some unborn
metaphysical primordial mind such as the I AM, but the originally,
already-is nature of mind -- empty of itself -- "originally there never
was a mind", empty of all self/Self)”
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
What is left is unnameable is also not necessarily clear because even the person at I AM stage will say the I-I is nameless
Same description can mean different things
But without emphasizing no consciousness besides mere luminous appearances, consciousness is still reified
[1:46 AM, 11/8/2020] Soh: malcolm says this quote by buddha from the pali canon: "Viññanam anidassanam from the Kevatta sutta:
Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around"
[1:47 AM, 11/8/2020] Soh: is equivalent to dzogchen pristine consciousness
"Malcolm wrote:
The view is self-originated pristine consciousness, free from the
extreme of the dualism of an apprehended object and an apprehending
subject.
— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra"
[7:52 AM, 11/8/2020] John Tan: Yes. But how it is understood.
[8:01 AM, 11/8/2020] John Tan: Can be I AM, can be anatta.
…
[8:55
AM, 11/8/2020] John Tan: Once we r free subject-object duality,
consciousness/appearance is without feature, without end and luminous
all around. So is there realization about mere appearances is key
otherwise It is just reification of consciousness.
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
What is Consciousness Without Feature (Viññanam anidassanam)
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Anatman insight will see this:
"'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
Aditya Prasad
Author
Soh Wei Yu Thanks. Elsewhere in the piece I say this:
And:
"Again,
the distinguishing feature of Stage 2 is the idea of a universal
principle from which all else springs; of which all else is made; to
which all returns; etc.. It is the One Special Thing and therefore
deserves a special name."
Would you call that a good characterization?
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Aditya Prasad Yes, after impersonality, you will generally reify universal consciousness when inherent view is intact.
You don't need impersonality to have I AM realization. Case in point: Samkhya view is based on I AM realization without having experienced
impersonality, so their I AM is seen as individualistic. Each person
has their own unique purusha. Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism and
so on reify a universal Brahman on the other hand.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Many
Indian masters distinguish Soul Realization and God Realization. Soul
Realization is the realization of Atman as the Eternal Witness. God
Realization is cosmic consciousness that manifests in each person as
their atman, but is universal and transcends the
individual. Transpersonal. Many say one arrives at Soul Realization
before God Realization. That's also been my experience and John Tan's.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Impersonality
is also different from nondual, and nondual is different from anatta,
or rather can be different from anatta (or one can say, anatta is
'nonsubstantialist nondualism')
Aditya Prasad
Author
Soh Wei Yu
Thanks. My piece is an attempt to describe some of this in as simple
language as possible. I hope the above description puts the OP in
context for readers, but if it still contains inaccuracies I would like
to fix them.
Aditya Prasad
Author
Soh Wei Yu
I think of impersonality as feeling like a puppet of God, but I'm still
physically individual. When the duality of sensory fields (in
particular vision) collapses, that's nondual. I'm still a manifestation
of a single God though. Once the sense of there being a singular principle vanishes in favor of multiplicity, that's anatta.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Aditya Prasad
In non-doership, there is still a sense of individual self, but that
self is not the doer. It is not no doer, but non-doership -- the sense
of self is there but is a mere happening of impersonal consciousness. I
think this is Ramesh Balsekar's understanding.
At
a deeper level, the personal self sense is purged. I would say that
more refined level is 'impersonality' and comes with a distinct taste.
As written in http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../four-aspects-of-i...
Quote:
It
should be noted that impersonality is not just an experience of
non-doership. It is the dissolving of the construct of 'personal self'
that led to a purging of ego effect to a state of clean, pure, not-mine
sort of "perception shift", accompanied with a sense that everything and
everyone is being expressions of the same
aliveness/intelligence/consciousness. This can then be easily
extrapolated into a sense of a 'universal source' (but this is merely an
extrapolation and at a later phase is deconstructed) and one will also
experience 'being lived' by this greater Life and Intelligence.
“Of
course, make no mistake, from the point of view of the total
Understanding this teaching about whether you are the doer is in fact
redundant; the question does not even arise. With the Understanding
comes the natural and spontaneous apperception that there is no one here
no individual to either be the doer or not be the doer. So the question
is moot. What you think of as yourself; the whole package of body,
mind, personality, ego, sense of individuality, personal history; none
of that even exists as such, as anything other than an idea, a story, a
concept in Consciousness. The discussion of whether or not 'you' can be a
doer or not is, as Wei Wu Wei writes, like discussing whether the bird
in the empty cage is captive. The cage is empty! There is nobody home!
At
the morning talks recently there has been a musician who plays
traditional Indian flute for the group after the talks. The flute does
not know music: it does not know 'G'from 'B flat;' it does not know
tempo or emphasis, and cannot make music come out of itself: it's just a
hollow bamboo stick with holes in it! It is the musician who has the
knowledge and the skill and the intention and the dexterity, and whose
breath blows through the instru-ment and whose fingers manipulate the
openings so that beautiful music flows out. When the music is ended, no
one congratulates the wooden stick on the music it made: it is the
musician who is applauded and thanked for this beautiful gift of music.
It is precisely so with what we think of as our 'selves.'
We
are instruments, hollow sticks, through which the Breath, the Spirit,
the Energy which is Presence, All That Is, Consciousness, flows. Just as
it is not the flute making the note, but the Musician making the note
through the instrument, so it is the breath which is Presence which
animates this mind and body and comes out through this mouth to make it
seem that this mouth is speaking words. The basic misunderstanding, the
basic ignorance, is this unwitting usurpation of the role of Musician by
the instru-ment. This inversion of the truth is spontaneously realized
when the Understanding occurs. It becomes obvious that there is no
individual, that there is 'nobody home,'no entity’ here to be the doer
or not. Because awakening is simply the Understanding that there is no
one here to awaken.” – David Carse, Perfect Brilliant Stillness https://www.perfectbrilliantstillness.org/.../Book-from...
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Four Aspects of I AM
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
".
When the duality of sensory fields (in particular vision) collapses,
that's nondual. I'm still a manifestation of a single God though."
In
substantialist nondual, Everything is still manifestation of God, or
God is manifesting as everything. There is no sense of I as either an
individual self or as a background observer separate from the observed.
But it is still a one way dependency, like, gold can be made into many
necklaces, necklaces (shapes and forms and names) are always gold as it
is just modulations of gold, but gold is unchanging substance that
cannot be merely equated to a particular form of it. Every transient
phenomena is merely Brahman in action, in manifestation, yet Brahman is
unchanging and therefore cannot be merely equated to that moment's
manifestation.
That is nondual but substantialist. The highest view of Sankara AFAIK.
"Once the sense of there being a singular principle vanishes in favor of multiplicity, that's anatta."
That's
ok, but 'vanishes' here sounds like a state of no-mind. In no mind,
subjectivity vanishes into radiant multiplicity. But this is still a
state with entry and exit.
Anatta
is realising no inherency, no 'one consciousness' besides the manifold
radiant aggregates, no wind besides blowing and no consciousness besides
the sceneries, sounds etc... as a dharma seal, always already the case,
as the nature of consciousness/mind rather than merely a state to be
achieved.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Aditya Prasad 2008:
(10:34 PM) AEN: ken wilber say the witness must completely disappear into everything
(10:58 PM) Thusness: what ken wilber said is good. 
(10:59 PM) Thusness: That it whether it is realised as a stage or as an insight that has no entry or exit point.
(10:59 PM) AEN: ken wilber said tat?
(11:00 PM) Thusness: u said "ken wilber say the witness must completely disappear into everything"
(11:00
PM) AEN: ya i mean wat u mean by That it whether it is realised as a
stage or as an insight that has no entry or exit point.
(11:00 PM) Thusness: yes
(11:00 PM) Thusness: what ur lzls said is not what ken wilber said.
(11:01 PM) Thusness: it is witnessing
(11:01 PM) Thusness: what ken wilber is the dissolving of that witnessing
(11:01
PM) Thusness: what i said is that the dissolving is also an illusion.
That is by itself a dualistic view though the experience is there.
(11:02 PM) Thusness: ken wilber said there is a dissolving
(11:03 PM) Thusness: means he actually feel that there is a dissolving
(11:03 PM) Thusness: although he experiences the non-dual, the insight is still not there.
(11:03
PM) AEN: Because at some point, as you inquire into the Witness, and
rest in the Witness, the sense of being a Witness “in here” completely
vanishes itself, and the Witness turns out to be everything that is
witnessed. The causal gives way to the Nondual, and formless mysticism
gives way to nondual mysticism. “Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is
Form.”
(11:03 PM) AEN: oic
(11:04 PM) AEN:
Kw:
Across the board, the sense of being any sort of Seer or Witness or
Self vanishes altogether. You don’t look at the sky, you are the sky.
You can taste the sky. It’s not out there. As Zen would say, you can
drink the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp, you can swallow the Kosmos
whole – precisely because awareness is no longer split into a seeing
subject in here and a seen object out there. There is just pure seeing.
Consciousness and its display are not-two. (etc)
(11:04 PM) AEN: insight that means anatta?
(11:05
PM) Thusness: insight requires us to have clarity or our nature...that
there is no self at all from begining....all is because of dualistic and
inherent views...
(11:05 PM) Thusness: i will talk about that later
(11:06 PM) AEN: oic..
(11:06 PM) AEN: btw I AM feels like stillness? oprah says
(11:06 PM) AEN: It was so still that it
felt like all of time and no time. It felt like the Earth had stopped, that everything had stopped. So
much so that my very breath was so loud, I began to hold my breath because my breath was making
too much noise in the stillness. And, in that moment, I understood what you had written in Stillness
Speaks. That that is always there. That stillness—there's not a bird, or a cricket, or a frog, or a car horn
(11:06 PM) Thusness: yes
(11:06 PM) AEN: horn
or anything. That is always there.
(11:06 PM) AEN: I am that stillness.
(11:06 PM) AEN: oic
(11:07 PM) Thusness: It is a mistaken identity.
(11:07 PM) Thusness: once non-dual, this wrong understanding begins to dissapear.
(11:07 PM) AEN: icic..
(11:11
PM) AEN: Nobody is being aware of anything but itself. The razor blade
cuts itself. The sun shines by itself. The fire burns by itself. Water
flows by itself. Nobody watches.
-Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche
(11:22 PM) AEN: btw
(11:22 PM) AEN: so letting go of the conscious portion means letting go of witness rite
(11:34 PM) Thusness: yes.
(11:35 PM) AEN: icic..
(11:40 PM) Thusness is now Offline
Session Start: Monday, April 28, 2008
(8:25 AM) Thusness: I prefer impermanence is Buddha Nature.
It is more important for you to get out of analysis and mental looping
and be fully authenticated in empty luminosity. As long as u
understand there should not be a dualistic view that there is a
background experiencing something, then the arguments will become
irrelevant.
It is more important for you to get out of analysis and mental looping
and be fully authenticated in empty luminosity. As long as u
understand there should not be a dualistic view that there is a
background experiencing something, then the arguments will become
irrelevant. (10:19
AM) Thusness: The key is in "Empty" so that there is complete non
abiding and staying and "luminosity" so that there is aliveness and
clarity without falling into nihilism.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
some excerpts from http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../differentiating-i...
15/4/13 12:53:28 AM: John Tan: Anatta is a realization that there isn't a consciousness besides sound, scenery...etc
15/4/13
12:56:15 AM: John Tan: U c through reification of that agent and get in
touch with the base manifestation where the label rely upon
15/4/13 12:57:02 AM: John Tan: So sound is the actual consciousness is referring to
15/4/13 12:57:36 AM: John Tan: There is no consciousness other than that
15/4/13 1:01:13 AM: John Tan: When they see through reification, then phenomena has a different meaning
15/4/13 1:02:04 AM: John Tan: Seeing everything as awareness is not one mind
15/4/13 1:02:52 AM: John Tan: Seeing everything as the same unchanging mind is the problem
15/4/13 1:04:09 AM: John Tan: When u c through reification, u realized "awareness" is just a label point to these manifestations
15/4/13 1:04:32 AM: John Tan: So there is nothing wrong saying that
15/4/13 1:05:24 AM: John Tan: Only when we treat awareness to b of true existence then we r deluded because there isn't any
15/4/13 1:11:14 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I see..
15/4/13 1:11:36 AM: John Tan: In hearing, there is only sound
15/4/13 1:11:57 AM: John Tan: Hearing implies the presence of sound
14/5/13 9:39:15 PM: John Tan: One mind is different
14/5/13 9:40:04 PM: John Tan: One mind as I told u is the witness is gone but subsume into an overarching Awareness
14/5/13 9:40:31 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Is there a distinct phase of one mind in your seven stages?
14/5/13 9:40:48 PM: John Tan: Phase 4
14/5/13 9:41:23 PM: Soh Wei Yu: But u said phase 4 u already realised anatta and experience no mind?
14/5/13 9:41:51 PM: Soh Wei Yu: So does that mean the insight already arise by tendency to sink back to one mind is still there
14/5/13 9:42:03 PM: Soh Wei Yu: But
14/5/13 9:42:17 PM: John Tan: All such gray area is put onto phase 4 insight when view isn't completely clear
14/5/13 9:42:44 PM: John Tan: There is no way to describe the grey scale
14/5/13 9:43:24 PM: John Tan: Even in anatta there r so many different degree of refinements
14/5/13 9:43:34 PM: Soh Wei Yu: I see
14/5/13 9:43:59 PM: John Tan: But it is not practical to talk abt all
14/5/13 9:44:44 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. U mean not describable
14/5/13 9:45:32 PM: John Tan: No...not that it is not describable but not practical to describe
14/5/13
9:46:48 PM: John Tan: Like AF is part of the deviation looking into
purely physical flesh and blood of pure experience ... Some went into
details some does not
14/5/13 9:47:51 PM: Soh Wei Yu: What do u mean by went into details
14/5/13 9:48:54 PM: John Tan: It is like I M, there r all those experiences u undergone but I do not say they r diff phases
14/4/13 7:35:01 PM: John Tan: When u say "weather", does weather exist?
14/4/13 7:35:20 PM: Soh Wei Yu: No
14/4/13 7:35:42 PM: Soh Wei Yu: It's a convention imputed on a seamless activity
14/4/13 7:35:54 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Existence and non existence don't apply
14/4/13 7:36:02 PM: John Tan: What is the basis where this label rely on
14/4/13 7:36:16 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Rain clouds wind etc
14/4/13 7:36:25 PM: John Tan: Don't talk prasanga
14/4/13 7:36:36 PM: John Tan: Directly see
14/4/13 7:38:11 PM: John Tan: Rain too is a label
14/4/13
7:39:10 PM: John Tan: But in direct experience, there is no issue but
when probed, u realized how one is confused abt the reification from
language
14/4/13 7:39:52 PM: John Tan: And from there life/death/creation/cessation arise
14/4/13 7:40:06 PM: John Tan: And whole lots of attachment
14/4/13 7:40:25 PM: John Tan: But it does not mean there is no basis...get it?
14/4/13 7:40:45 PM: Soh Wei Yu: The basis is just the experience right
14/4/13 7:41:15 PM: John Tan: Yes which is plain and simple
14/4/13 7:41:50 PM: John Tan: When we say the weather is windy
14/4/13 7:42:04 PM: John Tan: Feel the wind, the blowing...
14/4/13 7:43:04 PM: John Tan: But when we look at language and mistaken verb for nouns there r big issues
14/4/13 7:43:22 PM: John Tan: So before we talk abt this and that
14/4/13 7:43:40 PM: John Tan: Understand what consciousness is and awareness is
14/4/13 7:43:45 PM: John Tan: Get it?
14/4/13 7:44:40 PM: John Tan: When we say weather, feel the sunshine, the wind, the rain
14/4/13 7:44:58 PM: John Tan: U do not search for weather
14/4/13 7:45:04 PM: John Tan: Get it?
14/4/13
7:45:57 PM: John Tan: Similarly, when we say awareness, look into
scenery, sound, tactile sensations, scents and thoughts
......................
"So
what is one mind, what is no mind and what is original mind in this
context? One mind is post non-dual but subsuming leaving trace. No mind
is just one mind except that there is evenness till the last trace is
gone. Like what explains in the text. Uji...all is time therefore no
time. When you go from dual to non dual or one mind to no mind, those
are stages and experiences... If u got the condition to get pointed out
that originally there never was a mind, there are no stages to climb...
that is original mind. This requires insights and wisdom." - John Tan,
2020
(Note
by Soh: the original mind spoken here does not mean some unborn
metaphysical primordial mind such as the I AM, but the originally,
already-is nature of mind -- empty of itself -- "originally there never
was a mind", empty of all self/Self)
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Differentiating I AM, One Mind, No Mind and Anatta
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Dr. Greg Goode wrote in Emptything:
I
had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's
treatise about the "prior entity," and I had been meditating on
"emptiness is form" intensely for a year. These two threads came
together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of
awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from
the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the
"ten-thousand things" in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic,
playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back.
No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy
everywhere...
........
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Greg Goode on Advaita/Madhyamika
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
2008:
(4:35 PM) Thusness: it is not about the description.
(4:36 PM) AEN: oic
(4:36 PM) AEN: wat u mean by mirror and reflecting become the actual experience
(4:36 PM) AEN: but u said thats dualistic rite
(4:36 PM) Thusness: means the practitioner really feel so.
(4:36 PM) Thusness: yes.
(4:36 PM) AEN: icic
(4:37
PM) Thusness: When a person rest his mind skewing towards Brahman, he
will always think of 'This'. Just 'This' as u saw in the
awakeningtodreams.
(4:37 PM) Thusness: hahaha
(4:37 PM) Thusness: don't say i say hor.
(4:37 PM) Thusness: later all ppl come and look for me.
(4:40 PM) AEN: oic.. lol
(4:41 PM) AEN: but DO is like understanding this is, that is
(4:41 PM) AEN: so theres no staying in This
(4:41 PM) AEN: rite
(4:41 PM) AEN: cos awareness is inseparable from conditions and impermanent
(4:41 PM) AEN: btw Dharmakaya is like the experience of DO?
(4:42 PM) Thusness: Yes.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Also, 2008:
The arising and ceasing is called the Transience,
Is self luminous and self perfected from beginning.
However due to the karmic propensity that divides,
The mind separates the ‘brilliance’ from the ever arising and ceasing.
This karmic illusion constructs ‘the brilliance’,
Into an object that is permanent and unchanging.
The ‘unchanging’ which appears unimaginably real,
Only exists in subtle thinking and recalling.
In essence the luminosity is itself empty,
Is already unborn, unconditioned and ever pervading.
Therefore fear not the arising and ceasing.
-------------
There is no this that is more this than that.
Although thought arises and ceases vividly,
Every arising and ceasing remains as entire as it can be.
The emptiness nature that is ever manifesting presently
Has not in anyway denied its own luminosity.
Although non-dual is seen with clarity,
The urge to remain can still blind subtly.
Like a passerby that passes, is gone completely.
Die utterly
And bear witness of this pure presence, its non-locality.
~ Thusness/Passerby
And hence... "Awareness" is not anymore "special" or "ultimate" than the transient mind.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Not
only is there the dispersing out into the radiant “multiplicities”
rather than a collapsing into an undifferentiated oneness, there is also
a radical discontinuity or disjointedness without a linking agent or
self or base or inherency, as greg goode said in
the link above (hence “just this” as in “always just this” can be
somewhat misleading and be another view of inherent existence in
disguise):
Stian,
cool, get into that strangeness! There is a certain innocent,
not-knowing quality to strangeness that counteracts the rush to
certainty, the need to arrive, to land.
I still don't get your "no compromise" point. Can you rephrase it, but without the words "between" or "compromise"?
Anything
can be denied. And is. There is one prominent Advaita teacher that I
like who likes to say "You can't deny that you are the awareness that is
hearing these words right now."
This kind of gapless continuity, so prized in Advaita, is readily denied in other approaches to experience:
you. can't. deny. that. you. are. the. awareness. hearing. these. words. right. now.
I
remember feeling during one retreat, just how many ways that this could
be denied. From a different model of time and experience, there are
gaps and fissures all over the place, even in that sentence (hence. the.
dots). Each moment is divided within itself, carrying traces of past
and future (retention and protention). The first "you"-moment and the
second "you"-moment are not necessarily experienced by the same entity.
Each "I" is different. Entitification itself is felt as autoimmune, as
divided within itself, and any "gaplessness" is nothing more than a
paste-job.
Not saying one of these is right and the other wrong. Just pointing out how something so undeniable can readily be denied!
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Need to emphasize difference between seeing through duality vs inherency
Otherwise
even if one enters a state or experience of no mind where awareness is
forgotten, it is still not the breakthrough of anatman
Yes André, I agree with most of what u said, just 3 points:
1. Primordial state, original face.
What
does it mean to to be without the imagined and imputed? It is simply
one's primordial state, always and already so despite non-recognition.
So the path can be directly pointing to one's original face or to rid from all imputed imagined artificialities.
But
the direct leap out of the imputed layer is often not exhaustive and
thorough, many blindspots and hindrances. Therefore a short cut can
often turns out to be a longer cut.
2. Unmade, natural and spontaneous
I
agree that without imputations, there is no boundaries. Therefore all
experiences is open and spacious and without the layer of imagined,
whatever appears is pristine and pellucid, transparent and crystal.
In
addition to that, purge of all imputed artificialities, whatever
appears is also unmade and unconditioned, natural and spontaneous.
3. Seeing through duality and seeing from inherency, to me is not the same and has different experiential taste.
When we say "the lightning is flashing", there r no two parts - "lightning" and "flashing", the flashing is the lightning.
When we say "the mover and the movement", there r no two parts - "mover" and "movement", the mover is the movement.
Same
for the anatta insight, hearer hearing sound. There is no 3 parts, no
hearer hearing sound, the hearer is the hearing is the sound.
That is seeing through thingness, agency and action.
But
seeing through duality like inner/outer, left/right, entry/exit,
object/subject is different. When the line of demarcation that divides
dissolves, experience turns non-dual but sense of "thingness" can still
remain imo.
So
this teaching of exhausting "thingness" is quite unique, it is not just
doing away with duality or conceptualities in naked awareness or raw
attention.
Last question:
What if one does not go through the path of seeing through mental imputation and reification?
Any other ways to free oneself from the sense of agency-action, duality and boundaries?
Got to go, late for work. Thks for sharing!
- John Tan, 2020
Labels: Emptiness, John Tan, Suchness 0 comments | |
Also:
"So
what is one mind, what is no mind and what is original mind in this
context? One mind is post non-dual but subsuming leaving trace. No mind
is just one mind except that there is evenness till the last trace is
gone. Like what explains in the text. Uji...all is time therefore no
time. When you go from dual to non dual or one mind to no mind, those
are stages and experiences... If u got the condition to get pointed out
that originally there never was a mind, there are no stages to climb...
that is original mind. This requires insights and wisdom." - John Tan,
2020
(Note
by Soh: the original mind spoken here does not mean some unborn
metaphysical primordial mind such as the I AM, but the originally,
already-is nature of mind -- empty of itself -- "originally there never
was a mind", empty of all self/Self)
Yin Ling
Admin
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Yes yin ling said well
Also a 2006 excerpt from
SUMMARY
Buddhi (Enlightenment) – I AM THAT
Self Realization – I AM
Jnani – I
Satguru – no conceptualization
Thusness:
Interesting site...
In
most religions and mystical path, the dissolving of the 'Self' is
necessary for the experience of the divine. The 'self' is always
experienced as the ultimate block that prevents one from experiencing
the transcendental. Glimpses of the beyond arise when we are able to go
beyond labels and concepts.
I respect her experience but would just like to add some comments:
On the experience of “AMness”:
The
key when the ‘I’ drops away lies in “fusing into everything”. Without
this experience, it is still resting in “I AM”, there is no
breakthrough. Even with the experience of “fusing into all things”, it
remains as a stage having an entry and exit point. To experience
pathless that is without entry and exit point is where the doctrine of
anatta and emptiness steps in.
On the unchanging self:
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
This is Impersonality Aspect, Not Anatta Realization
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Aditya Prasad
I mean this part, Thusness: The key when the ‘I’ drops away lies in
“fusing into everything”. Without this experience, it is still resting
in “I AM”, there is no breakthrough. Even with the experience of “fusing
into all things”, it remains as a stage having an
entry and exit point. To experience pathless that is without entry and
exit point is where the doctrine of anatta and emptiness steps in.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Have
you experienced dissolution of I that is simultaneously the total
fusing into the vivid vibrancy of merely everything with no remainder of
self?
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Dissolution
of I without dissolving the background observer can become like
spacious, all pervading presence that feels oceanic and impersonal and
even cosmic/shared (when extrapolated it feels like each one of us
shares a universal cosmic consciousness) but still
remaining as a background rather than as the pure vividness and
luminosity of forms and sounds and textures.
Aditya Prasad
Author
Soh Wei Yu
Yes, but the clearest examples have been on psychedelics. Still, it was
unmistakably clear enough to leave a lasting mental imprint. That's
what gives me faith in the AtR map.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Aditya Prasad Ok. You can practice this any moment... psychedelics are not needed. Just practice vipassana with the two stanzas in mind. https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../thusnesss...
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Thusness's Vipassana
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
icic
(8:48 PM) John: read Soen-sa experience (Soh: see http://www.buddhanet.net/masters/soen-sa.htm)
(8:48 PM) AEN: so u mean my fren experience the same 'life force' thing?
(8:48 PM) John: yet his is not stable yet
(8:48 PM) AEN: soen-sa? seung sahn?
(8:48 PM) AEN: oic
(8:48 PM) AEN: what is not stable?
(8:48
PM) John: that level is already beyond 1 going into 2 (note by Soh:
not referring to 7 thusness stages. In his earlier definition, 1 is I
AMness, 2 is anatta and emptiness, 3 is unconditional spontaneous
presence)
(8:49 PM) AEN: oic
(8:49 PM) AEN: which one
(8:49 PM) John: the luminosity is clear and correct
(8:49 PM) AEN: oic..
(8:49 PM) John: yet his master told him to be silent for 3 years
(8:49 PM) AEN: icic
(8:49 PM) John: the mind that is pre-occupied cannot perceive his master's intention
(8:49 PM) AEN: oic
(8:50 PM) John: u know what is the problem of the link now?
(8:50 PM) AEN: wat is it
(8:51 PM) John: what is lacking...
(8:51 PM) John: think...u should know
(8:53 PM) John: what is the diff between what is posted and those zen masters' poems
(8:53 PM) AEN: true experience, theoretical?
(8:53 PM) John: yes but what is the true experience like?
(8:54 PM) AEN: experiencing the presence in everything without self
(8:54 PM) John: yes! fusing into everything....
(8:55 PM) John: the tennis court....the drum beats of the foot step
(8:55 PM) AEN: oic
(8:55 PM) John: that clarity breaks the first level into the 2nd
(8:55 PM) AEN: icic how come
(8:55 PM) John: the luminosity of the mirror bright
(8:55 PM) AEN: u mean by experiencing that one will immediately realise Emptiness?
(8:56 PM) John: wait...what is the differences between that and emptiness?
(8:56 PM) John: sorry i mean "AMness"
(8:57 PM) John: the clarity of zen masters enlightenment and "AMness"
(8:57 PM) AEN: amness is still attached to a state of purity? not completely fuse into everything?
(8:58
PM) John: yes...has the zen master not demonstrated in their lives
about the luminous clarity in all things that came into contact?
(8:59 PM) John: is there a self?
(8:59 PM) John: there is only the everything
(8:59 PM) John: where is the 'Self'?
(8:59 PM) AEN: oic..
(8:59 PM) AEN: but hmm
(9:00
PM) AEN: i tot u also said b4, when one experiences the 'i am' when 6
senses are widely open, one will experience it as 'i am all'. isnt that
also sort of fusing into everything?
(9:00 PM) John: yes....and zen masters might have the danger of that too....
(9:01 PM) AEN: oic
(9:01 PM) John: so luminosity is not nature
(9:01 PM) John: what is it?
(9:01 PM) AEN: emptiness?
(9:01 PM) John: yes
(9:01 PM) AEN: icic
(9:01 PM) John: it is anatta...now this, now that, always changing and ungraspable
(9:02 PM) AEN: icic
(9:02 PM) John: the ungraspable is anatta manifestation.
(9:02 PM) John: it is seen in all
(9:02 PM) John: in everything
(9:02 PM) AEN: oic
(9:02 PM) John: if u return and want to rest in the 'Self', instead of gaining, u lost everything
(9:02 PM) AEN: icic
(9:03 PM) John: the nature is anatta, there is no self
(9:03 PM) John: understand?
(9:03 PM) AEN: ya
(9:04 PM) John: now when one understand this, he lays the foundation of stabilizing this in "everything" experience
(9:04 PM) John: because he is not returning to the "AMness"
(9:04 PM) AEN: oic
(9:04 PM) John: he is not confused anymore
(9:04 PM) AEN: icic
(9:05 PM) John: he finds it in all things without returning...though ungraspable, it is always seized at the moment.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
(9:05 PM) AEN: oic
(9:05 PM) John: and how it arise? this is, that is
(9:05 PM) John: emptiness
(9:06 PM) John: so i said extend it to the six senses, presence without self
(9:06 PM) John: sound without hearer
(9:06 PM) John: scenery without seer
(9:06 PM) AEN: icic..
(9:06 PM) John: everything to experience and understand anatta
(9:07 PM) AEN: icic
(9:07 PM) John: so that "AMness" presence is experienced in all moment without the need to fall back.
(9:07 PM) AEN: oic
(9:07 PM) John: how could there be movement then?
(9:08 PM) John: it is just arising and ceasing
(9:08 PM) John: because there is no moment that is not so.
(9:08 PM) AEN: icic
(9:08 PM) AEN: ya
(9:08 PM) AEN: that is not wat?
(9:09 PM) John: that is not arising and ceasing according to conditions and causes
(9:09 PM) John: emptiness
(9:09 PM) John: this must be understood after clarity
(9:09 PM) AEN: oic
(9:10 PM) John: but there cannot be any movement, because there is no moment that is not like that
(9:10 PM) AEN: icic
(9:11
PM) John: then from this complete clarity, emptiness, no movement,
yet everything wonderfully arises and ceases, one experiences the
spontaneous arising, the self-so, the unconditioned
(9:11 PM) John: then there is true insight.
(9:11 PM) AEN: icic..
(9:11 PM) John: then karma will make sense
(9:12 PM) John: because of arising without self
(9:12 PM) John: arises with causes and condition without self
(9:12 PM) John: therefore be serious about the deeds
(9:12 PM) AEN: oic..
(9:13 PM) John: in "AMness", how does karma step in?
(9:13 PM) John: he will be confused because "AMness" in its ultimate sense is a controller.
(9:13 PM) AEN: icic
(9:14 PM) John: all these are words, it is the true experience that is most crucial.
(9:14 PM) AEN: but hmm... i read dzogchen texts also speaks of the 'Source'
(9:15 PM) AEN: but in that context it isnt meant to be 'controller' rite?
(9:15 PM) John: i do not like to use the word source...ehehhe
(9:15 PM) John: just like 'Self'...
(9:15 PM) John: 
(9:15 PM) AEN: oic but dzogchen talks about it quite often
(9:15 PM) AEN: lol
(9:15 PM) John: depends on who tok also.
