Will Gau
opesdonrtS00gal6:i30MM1 f0httf  2ta rA8u5hf70alhhmc49tc0aa71  ·
Yesterday and the day before were already mostly doubtless in the stability of anatta as a realization and ongoing experience (it has been stabilizing over the past week or so). There have been some moments of slipping back into the impression of 'seeing', of not purely being the seen (as in 2nd stanza of anatta). I'm not 100% clear on anatta as a 'seal' rather than a stage yet, and as opposed to previous insights into non-inherency and lack of an agent, i'm not sure how I will arrive at it, because its hallmarks (say the intensity of luminosity, or feeling like the universe) seem more like side effects of a relaxation, a letting go, than of an insight. I associate them more with a kind of energetic shift, even though I know there isn't an agent, or an experiencer. I guess to follow someone like Daniel P. Brown's Mahamudra view, the point of meditation, at this point in practice, lies in stabilizing 'awakened awareness' (being the unbounded wholeness rather than experiencing it) so you never lose sight of it. This means conceding the fact that you didn't always recognize it, and that you aren't always living from it. Part of what kept me from progressing further for around two years was precisely the sense of the always-already-so-ness of the insights into non-inherency and lack of an agent, which made it nearly impossible to investigate the sense that there were still some impressions of separation, because conceptually i knew there never was or could actually be any. So paradoxically it created a kind of barrier, because it was true but it also become a limiting view for the sake of practice.
In the state of no-mind, you're dissolved into just 'objects' or presence as pure, gapless identity, or reflexive knowledge, and this isn't the same as being lost in reifying thoughts, even though from the absolute point of view, these thoughts are just as much luminous presence as anything else.
Walking around outside, the flavour of self-knowing presence extends seamlessly to every percept. There's no depth, time or source, just spontaneous vivid presencing knowing itself, shimmering aliveness without boundaries. In the city, people walking by are as close to me as my breath. The silence of thought is deafening. The street lights, faces, and gusts of wind cluster into constellations, all pulling on each other with invisible thread. Utterly free and unsupported, no meaning can be added to this appearance. Coming back inside, distracting myself on my phone, some time passes and I notice that a sense of 'seeing' has started to form again, but the pathway to de-reified vision is well oiled now, and I quickly orient to it in meditation. I know this 'return' is an illusion, but it is a necessary one, for the sake of practice, is it not? When the same sensations that make up the impression of 'seeing' arise, or if I call them up now, within a more active recognition of anatta, there is no risk of being fooled by them.

Comments
Oholomo  ·
I was in a place like you’re describing here for a while, until I finally experienced a letting go of it needing to be any which way. It felt like the effort to stabilize a certain way of seeing/being was a continuation of holding/clinging/seeking. Now whether i’m awake, asleep, in vibrant luminosity, lost in thought, whatever, it’s all coming and going effortlessly without the need to worry about how it’s showing up.
What do other anatta folks think? I’m genuinely curious about people’s opinion on striving to stabilize vs just letting go and however it shows up is just however it shows up. I have a feeling there will be some differences of opinion….

    Reply
    3w

James Wolanyk
This has been my predominant experience. There are obviously moments where the mind slides into contraction - traffic jams, harsh words, married life (LOL) - but the prevailing flavor is one of ease and acceptance. This body does what it does; this mind does what it does, and yet there is abiding luminosity, abiding compassion.

        Reply
        3w


Joel Taylor
I have no comment other than I felt transmission from the description in your last paragraph.

    Reply
    3w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
I like your descriptions. To realize anatta as a dharma seal, it’s important to integrate it with the general view of dependent origination. For example:
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../realization-and...
4. On Non-Dual Experience, Realization and Anatta
I have just casually gone through some of your forum discussions. Very enlightening discussions and well presentation of my 7-phases-of-insights but try not to over-emphasize it as a model; it should not be taken as a definite model of enlightenment nor should you use it as a framework to validate others' experiences and insights. Simply take it as a guide along your spiritual journey.
You are right to differentiate non-dual experience from non-dual realization and non-dual realization from the insight of anatta. We have discussed this umpteem times. Non-dual experience in the context we are using refers to the experience of no-subject-object division. The experience is much like putting two candle flames together where the boundary between the flames becomes indistinguishable. It is not a realization but simply a stage, an experience of unity between the observer and the observed where the conceptual layer that divides is temporarily suspended in a meditative state. This you have experienced.
Non-dual realization on the other hand is a deep understanding that comes from seeing through the illusionary nature of subject-object division. It is a natural non-dual state that resulted from an insight that arises after rigorous investigation, challenge and a prolonged period of practice that is specially focused on ‘No-Self’. Somehow focusing on “No-Self” will spark a sense of sacredness towards the transient and fleeting phenomena. The sense of sacredness that is once the monopoly of the Absolute is now also found in the Relative. The term ‘No-Self’ like Zen-Koan may appear cryptic, senseless or illogical but when realized, it is actually obviously clear, direct and simple. The realization is accompanied with the experience that everything is being dissolved into either:
1. An ultimate Subject or
2. As mere ‘flow of phenomenality’
In whatever the case, both spells the end of separateness; experientially there is no sense of two-ness and the experience of unity can be quite overwhelming initially but eventually it will lose its grandeur and things turn quite ordinary. Nevertheless, regardless of whether the sense of Oneness is derived from the experience of ‘All as Self’ or ‘as simply just manifestation’, it is the beginning insight of “No-Self”. The former is known as One-Mind and the later, No-Mind.
In Case 1 it is usual that practitioners will continue to personify, reify and extrapolate a metaphysical essence in a very subtle way, almost unknowingly. This is because despite the non-dual realization, understanding is still orientated from a view that is based on subject-object dichotomy. As such it is hard to detect this tendency and practitioners continue their journey of building their understanding of ‘No-Self based on Self’.
For Case 2 practitioners, they are in a better position to appreciate the doctrine of anatta. When insight of Anatta arises, all experiences become implicitly non-dual. But the insight is not simply about seeing through separateness; it is about the thorough ending of reification so that there is an instant recognition that the ‘agent’ is extra, in actual experience it does not exist. It is an immediate realization that experiential reality has always been so and the existence of a center, a base, a ground, a source has always been assumed.
To mature this realization, even direct experience of the absence of an agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.
Therefore this phase of insight is not about singing eloquently the non-dual nature of an Ultimate Reality; contrary it is deeming this Ultimate Reality as irrelevant. Ultimate Reality appears relevant only to a mind that is bond to seeing things inherently, once this tendency dissolves, the idea of a source will be seen as flawed and erroneous. Therefore to fully experience the breadth and depth of no-self, practitioners must be prepared and willing to give up the entire subject-object framework and be open to eliminate the entire idea of a ‘source’. Rob expressed very skillfully this point in his talk:
“One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.
This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.”
What then is the view that Buddhism is talking about without resorting to a ‘source’? I think the post by Vajrahridaya in the thread ‘What makes Buddhism different’ of your forum succinctly and concisely expressed the view, it is well written. That said, do remember to infinitely regress back into this vivid present moment of manifestation – as this arising thought, as this passing scent – Emptiness is Form. 🙂
Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives

    Reply
    3w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
https://www.amazon.com/Emptiness-Practical.../dp/1614295263/
NO SELF IN VOLITION
Surely we would expect to find an “I” in an act of volition. Who decides to act? Who makes a choice? But if we look closely at a simple action, we see that a multitude of factors converge to bring it about. Let’s say we are sitting in a room feeling a bit chilly and we decide to draw a shawl over our lap. In a normal account, that is all there is to say: “I felt cold, so I put on a shawl.” But if we look more closely, with the eyes of meditative mindfulness, we see that there are more steps in the process.
First there is the recognition that one is sitting (mindfulness of body). Then at some point there is a sensation (contact) that we recognize as cold (perception). Cold is felt as unpleasant (feeling tone), and there is a reaction of aversion (volitional formation). Not seeing the reaction mindfully (delusion), we don’t pause to investigate the feeling tone or formation, but rather distract ourselves (beginning of proliferation) with the mildly complaining inner voice, “I’m starting to feel cold,” and perhaps we feel a little shiver (sensation). Perhaps some perception of “warm” then arises, either by feeling a part of the body that is well covered or by remembering how the room felt when we sat down. Based on the perception of warmth, a desire (formation) arises to experience being warm (sensation with pleasant feeling tone). Just as the earlier aversion was not seen mindfully as something to investigate, so also the desire for warmth is not seen mindfully or investigated. Based on desire for warmth and a touch of delusion (lack of mindful attention), a memory arises of the shawl lying on the sofa. Based on desire and memory, a volition arises and we turn our head to see the shawl on the end of the sofa (perception). Next the urge arises (volition) to reach for the shawl and cover our lap with it (action) — which we do.
In this entire chain of linked causes and effects, there is never a separate agent or self. Rather there is a back-and-forth dialogue between the body, perceptions, feeling tone, aversion, desire, volition, and action. Volition is just another factor of mind that arises based on prior causes and conditions. It then leads to action, in this case, of the body. It can be very tempting to identify with volition: “I decided to reach” or “I reached.” But when we see the momentary nature of all the factors arising and passing, we see there is no continuity to volition either. It too arises, does its work, and passes away.
…
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../fully-experience...
Soh Wei Yu Not only anatta, but one must realize Dependent Origination. Means from the direct taste of Heart/Mind in whatever manifestation, one also intuits the chain of dependencies involved in the total exertion of a given manifestation. The green is the pure visual-consciousness is not 'there' or 'here' or 'anywhere', is not produced by self, not produced by other, but appears due to conditions. Also it is not that everything is 'one awareness' - pure-visual-consciousness/green-display is peculiar-consciousness-instance according to a given condition, the experience of music, the sensation of hand pressing against an object, are all peculiar displays/consciousness-instances. And just like 'weather' is merely a name when certain patterns are appearing which we then call 'rain, cloud, wind, sunshine' (these too are mere labels), 'consciousness' is not one single unchanging static entity nor even one entity 'transforming into many' (as if weather is some pre-existing or self-existing 'entity' that morphs into various forms, rather than simply a label denoting the entire flow of aggregates and formations) but simply a label denoting the whole bundle or aggregate or composite or collection or heap of self-luminous aggregates/display/manifestation. Mere-name does not mean nothing at all exist but that the various appearances which is the vivid displays of luminosity do not amount to a substantially existing [existing by its own side, having its own essence, independent of conditions, or changeless] entity either in terms of subject or object, which is why the emptying of both leads to the actualization of suchness in the way described in Kalaka Sutta.
Suffering, afflictions, likewise manifest by dependencies. Some practitioners like AF think that when self is there, afflictions arise, as if the 'feeler' causes the 'feeling' but anatta and D.O. reveals that afflictions/sense-of-self/suffering manifest via dependencies and is nowhere located or stored anywhere nor is it produced by a feeler (there never was a feeler/agent/self/Self), the chain of dependencies is what is always involved in a given experience which is always empty of self/Self/agency. Likewise, 'Awareness'/'colors'/'taste'/'sounds'/'thoughts', etc never resided anywhere just like the reflection of moon on water never resided 'inside' the water but merely manifests in an illusory way due to dependencies -- when condition is, manifestation is, consciousness is - condition, manifestation and consciousness are one and inseparable, never separated and neither are they 'interacting' with each other in the case of a mirror reflecting (stage 4). It is revealed that all phenomena are neither produced by an agent, nor by another, are not existing by its own side, and in fact is unproduced, unoriginated, non-arising, due to merely appearing via conditionality.
All the terms that sounded ultimate, metaphysical and ontological now applies to Mind/Appearance but in a non-inherent, non-metaphysical, non-ontological manner. The sense of quiescence, unmoving, non-arising that once applied to an inherent Awareness now applies to Mind/Manifestation in a non-inherent manner. For as Nagarjuna said and I reiterate, if the conditioned/arising of phenomena cannot be established, how can the unconditioned be established [in contrast to so called conditionally arising/abiding/subsiding phenomena]? So as Thusness wrote many years ago, 'The next understanding you must have after anatta and emptiness is to know that all qualities similar to those that are described and sounded ontological are always manifesting presently, spontaneously and effortlessly after the purification of anatta and emptiness insights.'
All displays are 'illusory' not because it is 'mentally projected' nor due to being subsumed to be 'mere modulations of consciousness' (like one mind) but because whatever appears is nothing there or here or anywhere but appearing via dependencies in total exertion. The taste of illusoriness and indestructible non-arising of a given self-luminous Mind/Heart display which is the total exertion of D.O. must be complemented, -A and +A: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../a-and-emptiness_1...

    Reply
    3w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
And as Thusness wrote in 2014,
John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:42am UTC+08
Actually if you do not see DO [dependent origination], you do not see Buddhism. Anatta is just the beginning.
John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:46am UTC+08
Be it Buddha himself, Nagarjuna or Tsongkhapa none never got overwhelmed and amazed with the profundity of dependent origination. It is just that we do not hv the wisdom to penetrate enough depth of it.
John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:54am UTC+08
If you see dependent origination and emptiness then Advaita is world apart from Buddhism, if you actualized your view into non-dual experience, then it is different from top to bottom. Simply looking at Awareness and no-self, besides non-dual empty clarity and substantial non-duality clarity, you will not be able to distinguish much.
John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:56am UTC+08
So answer Mike Scarf from DO and emptiness perspective.
John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 9:07am UTC+08
Just bring out the importance of DO. But what written is NOT the essence. The essence is the freedom from extremes of DO, the "nature" of mind and phenomena is realized to be dependent arising and empty. Dependent arising is exactly non-arising be it whether one sees dependencies from production, designation, relations or imputing consciousness. Conceptual or non-conceptual experiences, permanent or impermanent phenomena, conditioned or unconditioned phenomena, all dependently originates, empty and non-arising. If one sees this, how could it be Advaita....

    Reply
    3w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
This is a related exercise you can go through:
https://www.liberationunleashed.com/.../direct-experience/
The most important catalyst for triggering Awakening to no-self is to investigate our Direct Experience. Direct Experience is what is noticed, here and now.
We can skilfully divide d.E., for the purposes of investigation, into 3 main aspects:
1) thought
2) sensations
seeing
hearing
smelling
tasting
feeling [tactile + kinesthetic)
3) an unmistakable sense of Aliveness
(presence, being)
The illusion of separation is maintained by a stream of self referencing thoughts that are based on past conditioning. The most common reference point is a thought-created center referred to as “I” / “me” / “self”. There is no such center, and those self-labels refer only to other thoughts, or to some aspect of Experience.
By referring to d.E., one is able to deconstruct any assumptions of separation or self, and see that there is just an Experience. There may be thoughts about Experience that conceptually divide certain aspects of Experience into a “me” and other aspects into “the outside world”, yet those thoughts are also just a part of Experience, and as such there is ONLY Experience.
There is an assumption that there is an experience-er that experiences. This is propagated by a belief, as expressed by a thought such as “I experience”. We investigate this in d.E. by looking for this “I”. Is there a separate “I”, or is there just an Experience that thought conceptually divides as such: “I” + “what is experienced”?
There is an assumption that there is a perceive-er that perceives. This is propagated by a belief, as expressed by a thought such as “I am the perceiver”. We investigate this in d.E. by looking for this perceiver. We can see that there is no such thing as a perceiver, just a perception and thought dividing it in to an “I” + “body” + “perception through the senses”.
A sound is heard, then there is a thought “I hear a sound”. We can investigate and see that there is no hearer of sounds, just sound. If there is something felt and assumed to be the hearer, or self, is it anything more than some other sensations? or that sense of Aliveness? or another thought?
“I feel my body against the chair” a thought says. So, we investigate d.E. and see that there are sensations that are habitually labelled “body” and other sensations we refer to as “feeling of chair against body”. When we investigate where this “I” is that claims these sensations, it cannot be found, as there is either another self-referencing thought, some sensations or another aspect of Experience.
We can pick up an object, and look at it. We might say “I am looking at the object”. We then test this conclusion to see if it correlates with d.E., and what we find is that there is a sensation of seeing, and maybe some sensations that we usually label ‘head’ or ‘eyes’, or even other feeling-sensations labelled “body”. A thought may arise with the conclusion that these are inherently separate, and that one is “self” and the other is “what is observed”. When we test this out we see that there is never an “I” looking, never a watcher, never a seer. There is only seeing, only feeling, only Experiencing. We can say that it is simply Experience experiencing itself.
We look deeply in to Experience, and see that the assumptions of separation, self, “I”, perceive-er or an experience-er are just references to Experience. There is never an actual separate object, just the perception of such, and thoughts labeling it. We deconstruct all these assumptions of there being a watcher, or a looker, or a hearer, and find that there is only Experience, never an actual separate self.
Is it possible there is just Experience, with no separate experience-er?

    Reply
    3wEdited

Nafis Rahman
Admin
Also make sure to observe whether there is a lingering attachment to a subtle background awareness behind sensory experience:
“Good insight. Stability of experience has a predictable relationship with the unfolding and deepening of insights. For example how seamless and effortless can non-dual experience be, if in the back of one's mind, subtle views of duality and inherency and tendencies continue to surface and affect our moment to moment experience - for example conjuring an unchanging source or mind that results in a perpetual tendency to sink back and referencing experience back to a source.
For example even after it is seen that everything is a manifestation of awareness or mind, there might still be subtle tendencies to reference back to a source, awareness or mind and therefore the transience is not appreciated in full. Nondual is experienced but one sinks back into substantial nonduality - there is always a referencing back to a base, an "awareness" that is nevertheless inseparable from all phenomena.
If one arises the insight that our ideas of an unchanging source, awareness or mind is just another thought - that there is simply thought after thought, sight after sight, sound after sound, and there isn't an inherent or unchanging "awareness", "mind", "source". Non-dual becomes implicit and effortless when there is the realisation that what awareness, seeing, hearing really is, is just the seen... The heard... The transience... The transience itself rolls and knows, no knower or other "awareness" can be found. Like there is no river apart from flowing, no wind apart from blowing, each noun implies its verb... Similarly awareness is simply the process of knowing not separated from the known. Scenery sees, music hears. Because there is nothing unchanging, independent, ultimate apart from the transience, there is no more sinking back to a source and instead there is full comfort resting as the transience itself.
Lastly do continue practicing the intensity of luminosity... When looking at tennis ball just sense the tennis ball fully.... Without thinking of a source, background, observer, self. Just the tennis ball as a luminous light. When breathing... Just the breathe... When seeing scenery, just sights, shapes and colours - intensely luminous and vivid without an agent or observer. When hearing music... Sound of bird chirping, the crickets… Just that - chirp chirp. A zen master noted upon his awakening... When I am hearing the bell ringing, there is no I and no bell... Just the ringing. The direct experiencing of no-mind and intensity of luminosity.. This is the purpose of the practice of the four foundations of mindfulness that is taught by the Buddha.” - Soh, 2011
…
There is only sound
Geovani Geo wrote:
We hear a sound. The immediate deeply inbuilt conditioning says, "hearing ". But there is a fallacy there. There is only sound. Ultimately, no hearer and no hearing. The same with all other senses. A centralized, or expanded, or zero-dimensional inherent perceiver or aware-er is an illusion.
Thusness/John Tan: Very good.
Means both stanza is clear.
In hearing, no hearer.
In hearing, only sound. No hearing.
At the time of his enlightenment, Zen Master Huangpo said, "When I hear the sound of the bell ringing, there is no bell, and also no I, only ringing-sound."
...
“Basically the difference between Thusness Stage 4 and Stage 5 is that in Stage 4, there is the view that awareness is the unchanging substance that can only experience itself in various forms and modulations.
Stage 5 is the realization that like lightning and flash (no lightning ever existed besides flash), wind and blowing (there is no wind besides blowing), there is simply no awareness besides manifestation, no seer-seeing-seen, agent-action dichotomy.. then from there one replaces one's view of a source, substratum, substance, and continues to penetrate into D.O., total exertion and emptiness.
In particular, the important realization to breakthrough this view of inherent self is the realization that Always Already, never was/is there a self - in seeing always only just the seen, the scenery, shapes and colours, never a seer! In hearing only the audible tones, no hearer! Just activities, no agent! A process of dependent origination itself rolls and knows... no self, agent, perceiver, controller therein.
It is this realization that breaks down the view of 'seer-seeing-seen', or 'One Naked Awareness' permanently by realizing that there never was a 'One Awareness' - 'awareness', 'seeing', 'hearing' are only labels for the everchanging sensations and sights and sounds, like the word 'weather' don't point to an unchanging entity but the everchanging stream of rain, wind, clouds, forming and parting momentarily...
Then as the investigation and insights deepen, it is seen and experienced that there is only this process of dependent origination, all the causes and conditions coming together in this instantaneous moment of activity, such that when eating the apple it is like the universe eating the apple, the universe typing this message, the universe hearing the sound... or the universe is the sound. Just that... is Shikantaza. In seeing only the seen, in sitting only the sitting, and the whole universe is sitting... and it couldn't be otherwise when there is no self, no meditator apart from meditation. Every moment cannot 'help' but be practice-enlightenment... it is not even the result of concentration or any form of contrived effort... rather it is the natural authentication of the realization, experience and view in real-time. - Soh
…
If someone talks about an experience he/she had and then lost it, that's not (the true, deep) awakening... As many teachers put it, it's the great samadhi without entry and exit.
John Tan: There is no entry and exit. Especially for no-self. Why is there no entry and exit?
Me (Soh): Anatta (no-self) is always so, not a stage to attain. So it's about realisation and shift of perception.
John Tan: Yes 👍
As John also used to say to someone else, "Insight that 'anatta' is a seal and not a stage must arise to further progress into the 'effortless' mode. That is, anatta is the ground of all experiences and has always been so, no I. In seeing, always only seen, in hearing always only sound and in thinking, always only thoughts. No effort required and never was there an 'I'."
Related articles:
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../on-anatta...
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../different-degress...
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../anatta-not-self-or...
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../no-mind-and-anatta...
https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../suggestions...
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../anatta-and-post...
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/search/label/Pam%20Tan
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../two-stanzas-of...
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../spreading-good-word...
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-magical...
On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection
On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection

    Reply
    3w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
Since you mentioned Mahamudra, these are a few related texts you can go through:
1) Clarifying the Natural State by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal
2) Crystal Clear by Thrangu Rinpoche (commentary on the book above)
3) Pointing out the Dharmakhaya by Thrangu Rinpoche
4) Ocean of Ultimate Meaning by Thrangu Rinpoche
5) Essentials of Mahamudra by Thrangu Rinpoche
6) Moonbeams of Mahamudra by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal
7) Royal Seal of Mahamudra Volume 1
8 ) http://www.mahamudracenter.org/MMCMemberMeditationGuide.htm
...
Thrangu Rinpoche:
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../thrangu-rinpoche-on...
In the Vajrayana there is the direct path to examining mind. In everyday life we are habituated to thinking, "I have a mind and I perceive these things." Ordinarily, we do not directly look at the mind and therefore do not see the mind. This is very strange because we see things and we know that we are seeing visual phenomena. But who is seeing? We can look directly at the mind and find that there is no one seeing; there is no seer, and yet we are seeing phenomena. The same is true for the mental consciousness. We think various thoughts, but where is that thinking taking place? Who or what is thinking? However, when we look directly at the mind, we discover that there is nobody there; there is no thinker and yet thinking is going on. This approach of directly looking in a state of meditation isn't one of reasoning, but of directly looking at the mind to see what is there.
Source: Shentong and Rangtong
...
If we look for a perceiver, we won’t find one. We do think, but if we look into the thinker, trying to find that which thinks, we do not find it. Yet, at the same time, we do see and we do think. The reality is that seeing occurs without a seer and thinking without a thinker. This is just how it is; this is the nature of the mind. The Heart Sutra sums this up by saying that “form is emptiness,” because whatever we look at is, by nature, devoid of true existence. At the same time, emptiness is also form, because the form only occurs as emptiness. Emptiness is no other than form and form is no other than emptiness. This may appear to apply only to other things, but when applied to the mind, the perceiver, one can also see that the perceiver is emptiness and emptiness is also the perceiver. Mind is no other than emptiness; emptiness is no other than mind. This is not just a concept; it is our basic state.
The reality of our mind may seem very deep and difficult to understand, but it may also be something very simple and easy because this mind is not somewhere else. It is not somebody else’s mind. It is your own mind. It is right here; therefore, it is something that you can know. When you look into it, you can see that not only is mind empty, it also knows; it is cognizant. All the Buddhist scriptures, their commentaries and the songs of realization by the great siddhas express this as the “indivisible unity of emptiness and cognizance,” or “undivided empty perceiving,” or “unity of empty cognizance.” No matter how it is described, this is how our basic nature really is. It is not our making. It is not the result of practice. It is simply the way it has always been.
Source: Crystal Clear

    Reply
    3w

Will GauAuthor
Wow, thanks for the pointers and references Nafis! I will take my time and read through them carefully. For now there's no longer any sense of a background or even the possibility of one, even though there was implicitly just a week ago. There's only a sense of awareness if I consciously attend to one/generate one. Otherwise its really just the seen, heard, thought vividly appearing.

    Reply
    3w

Yin LingAdmin
Nafis Rahman even after so many times I read this article John wrote, I’m still so impressed.

        Reply
        3w


Yin LingAdmin
It will be effortful at first.
The energy hasn’t completely balance itself out. Give yourself time and keep practicing.
Especially calm abiding and just keep going back to recognise that view whilst in samadhi.
Once the energy slowly opens up, the body will be dropped and the view clearer.
Have you got a sense of “a whole arising front back no Center no end” and “body feels like part of the scenery like the tree in the park”?

    Reply
    3w

Will GauAuthor
Yin Ling great, thanks for the tips! Strangely i went through a phase a little over a year ago where the body was dropped already. I guess what remained were subtle senses of 'seeing' 'hearing' 'feeling' apart from the seen, heard, felt, and with them, a subtle centre. Now everything feels like a completely unified happening without centre or periphery, without location or agency, which includes the body. It far exceeds any expectations I had developed about what was 'realistic' since the last major insights 😀

    Reply
    3wEdited

Yin LingAdmin
Will Gau oh that is nice. Body drop for me is quite a deep anatta experience already. Next step would be to look into emptiness like Nafis signposted above once anatta is stable

            Reply
            3w


Tommy McNally
"In the city, people walking by are as close to me as my breath."
Beautiful expression of that intimacy. Awesome work. ❤️

    Reply
    3w

Branimir Staletovic
Great post. I can relate. Just a few things related to the last paragraph you wrote.
When this is the case, can you notice if there is any inclination to conceptualize the flow? In other words, does the mind try to validate the experience through the anatta concept? Or you can let go of anatta and be in the flow state while recognizing anatta as just a pointer as any other. Can you let go of anatta at that point? Also, is there any sense that something is missing? Does any subtle impulse to always feel good arise?
These were things that were "bothering" me, so I am curious if it has been the same in your case.
I can very much relate to what you described. That is a beautiful post. Thank you for sharing.

    Reply
    2w

Will GauAuthor
Branimir Staletovic I was investigating this the last few days, how it would hold up in the midst of the busyness of life, wether it equated to always feeling good, and contemplating in which way exactly was it a seal rather than a stage, or an absorption. Some understanding of depending origination seems to be getting clearer today, in a way that allows the expectation of any continuity to get uprooted. This, i think, is the the main difference between how experience played out in the past, and how it has been recently, that this idea of a flow seems to be completely gone. While relatively speaking you could say I have been feeling great since this insight dawned, beyond great, in a sense there's also no me here to 'feel good' anymore, which i guess is the tradeoff for this degree of freedom.. Thanks for the pointers, they are really appropriate for where things are at now.

        Reply
        2wEdited


Jack Nolan
One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.
The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.
These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.
So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one's own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.
To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.
In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?
Thanassiro Bhikku.

    Reply
    2w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
Jack Nolan
Soh has already spoken to you before regarding the flaws behind Thanissaro’s presentation of anatta. Even within the Theravada tradition, prominent scholars such as Bhikkhu Bodhi have critiqued his understanding of anatta. For example:
https://www.bps.lk/.../bp437s_Bodhi_Investigating-Dhamma.pdf
This essay will begin as a rejoinder to Thánissaro Bhikkhu’s paper, “The Not-self Strategy,”[15] but in the course of commenting on his interpretation of the Buddha’s teaching of anattá, I will present an alternative view which, I believe, corresponds more closely to the original intent of the texts.
My response to his paper is mixed, part agreement and part disagreement. My disagreements are not minor but stem from a fundamental difference between the views expressed in the paper and my own understanding of the anattá-teaching. To state my conclusions in advance: I agree with Ven. Thánissaro that the Buddha did not formulate his teaching of anattá as a blank assertion that “There is no self,” a claim made by many present-day interpreters of Buddhism. I also agree that the teaching of anattá is intended by the Buddha to fulfill a pragmatic purpose, that it is not a purely philosophical theory but serves as a theme for contemplation. I depart from Ven. Thánissaro over the question whether anattá, even in the early texts, can be satisfactorily understood simply as a “strategy of liberation” without reference to an underlying ontology. I regard the anattá-teaching as both pragmatic and ontological. I do not see these two perspectives as mutually exclusive but, on the contrary, as mutually reinforcing.
What I would maintain, in opposition to Ven. Thánissaro, might be stated briefly as follows. The first three points are closely interwoven and my distinguishing between them is more for the sake of convenience than because the distinctions are cogent.
(1) The reason the teaching of anattá can serve as a strategy of liberation is precisely because it serves to rectify a misconception about the nature of being, hence an ontological error. It accomplishes this task by promoting a correct comprehension of the nature of being, particularly with reference to our own personal existence.
(2) Without in any way contradicting its practical purposes, the Buddha’s teaching of anattá nevertheless involves an implicit ontology, one which precludes a truly existent substantial self. Doctrines that affirm a substantial self are, for the Buddha, instances of wrong view, of a mistaken ontology that ascribes real being to a notion that is a purely conceptual construct without a corresponding basis in actuality. These wrong ontologies are, for the Buddha, obstacles to liberation. Arisen from ignorance and craving, they bend back in a vicious cycle to reinforce our dispositions to craving and clinging. To eliminate craving and clinging, these wrong ontologies have to be corrected. This is what is accomplished by the development of correct wisdom (sammappaññá), which exposes phenomena as anattá, as lacking selfhood or any other kind of substantial identity.
(3) The anattá-teaching is a consequence of this ontology, set forth because of its liberative efficacy. Realization of anattá can trigger the experience of awakening, and thereby lead to liberation, precisely because it uncovers the nature of actuality. It is this ontology, the correspondence of the teaching with the actual nature of things, that gives the experience of insight its certainty and finality. Insight into anattá, in other words, is a type of right view (sammádiþþhi), called “right” because it knows and sees things in accordance with their real nature (yathábhútañáóadassana).
(4) The distinction between right view and wrong view, between correct understanding and distorted understanding, is not merely provisional, proposed for disciples still in training, but remains valid for the arahant, one who has attained liberation. Even the arahant continues to practice the contemplation of anattá, not to achieve something not yet achieved, but for other benefits this contemplation yields.
Now I will expand on these points (...)

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Nafis Rahman I have it worked out: where as you lot are treating it as if it is some mystical thing. The sense of self is the mind, body and awareness (born of contact of the 5 aggregates) sense of itself. Thanassiro's last statement encapsulates that perfectly. The objective is identifying the causes and cessation of suffering.

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
But, the individual of mind, body and awareness, is not limited to their fixed idea of themselves yet still bolster mind, body and awareness. That is anatta.

    Reply
    2w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
It’s been less than a minute since I posted the reply above. Please take the time to read Bhikkhu Bodhi’s critique regarding Thanissaro’s views on anatta. Even within the Theravada tradition it is considered very un-orthodox while leaning towards substantialism.

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Nafis Rahman I don't do the hoarding of the beliefs, views and opinions of others. I utilise my own realisation which have solid foundations. The matter is not enigmatic to me whatsoever and I've roused the dhamma eye in my own life. Seems like you're caught up on intellectual riffraff and are chewing on some existential queries.

    Reply
    2w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
Jack Nolan I have read your views on anatta before, and unfortunately they were substantialist and resembled Advaita Vedanta rather than proper Buddhism.
This is a clear commentary on anatta from the perspective of Theravada
Bahiya Sutta:
In the seen, there is only the seen,
in the heard, there is only the heard,
in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
in the seen, only the seen,
in the heard, only the heard,
in the sensed, only the sensed,
in the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place
betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)
https://www.emptyskysangha.com/.../the-sutta-about-bahiya...
I love this teaching by Buddha to Bahiya because this teaching was the one that led to my sudden realization and entrance into the Great Way, which is not an end in itself but the way towards effortless and ongoing practice-enlightenment/actualization:
"So we continue on with Bahiya’s meeting with the Buddha and the Buddha’s response to Bahiya’s urgent pleading to teach him how to truly enter the Great Way of freedom and happiness. Remember that although Bahiya has sought out the Buddha as a result of deep doubt and the realization that he is neither free nor practicing in a manner that will lead to freedom, he is nonetheless completely ripe to receive a teaching that will utterly transform him. He has dropped literally everything, emptied himself of everything except his completely focused urgency for awakening. The Buddha meets his simple openness with a simple and powerful response:
“Bahiya, this is how you should train yourself: Whenever you see a form, simply see; whenever you hear a sound, simply hear; whenever you taste a flavor, simply taste; whenever you feel a sensation, simply feel; whenever a thought arises, let it be simply a thought. Then “you” will not exist; whenever “you” do not exist, you will not be found in this world, another world or in between. That is the end of suffering.”
There are at least two approaches to understanding this teaching. The first is to follow closely just what the Buddha says; that this is an approach to training the mind and training one’s life; a teaching to be practiced and worked with as a process. Bahiya gets it in one deep jolt which he swallows whole, digests instantly and is fully awakened.
Most of us have to work at this as a practice for a very long time, and yet we don’t know how long Bahiya worked at his in order to come to this place, available for this encounter. And it doesn’t really matter whether we have gradual cultivation and sudden awakening, or sudden awakening followed by gradual cultivation. In fact both are not only true, together they encompass the whole of the life of practice-realization.
…
See, hear, sense, touch, taste; everything happening all at once with no discrimination, preference or choice. Every sense door completely open, welcoming, receptive, alert, completely alive. So that listening is with the whole body/mind; every pore of our skin, every hair on the body, one whole receptive, alive field of listening. In this there is no “who”, is there? No “me” listening, is there? Check it out for yourself. It may be a little slippery to catch, because when “you” are only hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, smelling; there may not be anyone there to record or reflect on the experience; no “you” there! See what happens when you notice there is separation from what is; when the mind is wanting this to be some other way than just how it is. What happens in that moment of just seeing separation? What happens when you’ve traveled down the mind road and there is a sudden seeing of that? Was there a “you” in that moment of awareness? What if seeing is awakening? What is hearing is awakening? What if it is just as simple and as obvious as that? Then you might wonder what you are doing here on this retreat! What happens if there is just awareness of that thought? This is the practice of awakening, but it might be more accurate to say that it is really awakening which is practicing us!
- Douglas Phillips, Empty Sky Sangha
EMPTYSKYSANGHA.COM
The Sutta About Bahiya, Part 2 (Feb 12, 2005) — Empty Sky Sangha
The Sutta About Bahiya, Part 2 (Feb 12, 2005) — Empty Sky Sangha

    Reply
    2w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-breakthrough.html
Ajahn Amaro, The Breakthrough:
They went back and forth three times, and after a third time a Tathāgata has to respond, so the Buddha said:
‘Listen carefully to what I have to say. In the seen there is only the seen. In the heard there is only the heard. In the sensed there is only the sensed. In the cognized there is only the cognized. When you, Bāhiya, can see that in the seen there is only the seen, and in the heard there is only the heard, and so forth, then you will indeed recognize that there is no thing there; there is no substance in the world of the object. And when you see that there is, indeed, no thing ‘there’, you will also recognize that there is no thing ‘here’; there is no being or person, no real ‘I’ in the realm of the subject. You will recognize the object is empty, the subject is empty. When you see that there is no thing there and no thing here, you will not be able to find yourself either in the world of this or in the world of that, or any place between the two. This, Bāhiya, is the end of suffering.’ And Bāhiya instantly became an arahant.
‘You will not be able to find a self in the world of this or in the world of that, or in any place between the two...’ Bāhiya obviously had some spiritual potential, since he became an arahant right then and there. He then said, ‘Please, Venerable Sir, may I be your disciple, and will you give me ordination as a monk?’ The Buddha asked him, ‘Have you a robe and a bowl?’ Bāhiya was an ascetic who wore clothing made of tree bark, so he didn’t have a robe or a bowl. The Buddha said, ‘If you can find a bowl and robe, I will give you the ordination. Bāhiya went off to try and find a robe and a bowl. And as he had correctly feared, his life was indeed short and uncertain; a runaway cow hit him as it was charging through the street, and he died from his wounds. But he died an arahant, so he was right to press the Buddha to give him that teaching.
‘In the heard there is only the heard. In the sensed there is only the sensed. In the cognized there is only the cognized...’ So as we hear a sound, as we feel a sensation in the body, as we smell, taste or touch something, as we have a thought or a mood – if there is just hearing, just seeing, just smelling, just tasting, just touching, just thinking, just remembering, just feeling – if they are known as just what they are, events in consciousness, then as the Buddha said to Bāhiya, ‘You will recognize that there is no ‘thing’ there.’
When we hear a sound, we might think, ‘That’s the sound of Ajahn Amaro talking’, or ‘That’s the sound of a plane going to Luton Airport.’ And we think that the sound is ‘out there’, the plane is ‘out there’. But if we know it clearly and directly, we recognize that the experience of hearing is not ‘there’; it’s happening in this awareness. The plane is in your mind. The experience of hearing is a pattern of experience in the mind. It’s happening here. The mind’s representation of that thing is experienced here and now in this field of awareness. And just as you see there is no thing there, that the object is empty, so the feeling of a ‘me’ here who is the experiencer can be seen to be empty too. There’s no person who’s the experiencer. There’s just knowing. There’s just the awareness of this moment, the unentangled participating in this pattern of experience.
The Buddha said that when you can see there is no thing there and no thing here, when you can see that the object and subject are both empty, at that point there is just subjectless awareness. You will not be able to find a self. You will not be able to find yourself in either the world of objects or the world of the subject, or any place between the two. Just this is the end of suffering.
This teaching is extraordinarily helpful, because we often fill up the world, making a ‘me’ here who is experiencing a world out there. We create a ‘me’ here watching a ‘mine’ out there: ‘Me watching my mind; me dealing with my thoughts; me and my practice.’ When that happens we are not attending in the most skilful and complete way. We are creating a subject here and an object there, both laden with ‘I’ and ‘mine’. So if we bear in mind this simple teaching, it helps us to undermine that I-making and mine-making habit. It dissolves the ahaṃkara/mamaṃkara programme. It dissolves the causes of self-view. And the more we are able to let there be just seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching; the more we let things take shape, do their thing, without creating a ‘me’ here who’s experiencing a world out there, or patterns of thought and feeling and memory inside, the more we recognize our experience as being just patterns of nature coming and going and changing.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Yin LingAdmin
Nafis Rahman thanks for sharing Nafis, these writings from bikkhu bodhi is so precious. ❤️

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Nafis Rahman Nothing I speak resembles Advaita Vedanta whatsoever. You do not know what my actual views are. Yes, and that what sees, hears, knows, is the mind... which creates an idea of itself called the 'sense of self', "Hello... I'm Ajahn So and So!".
This doesn't refute anything I say.

    Reply
    2w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/8812465038794848/
You have shared your views before in this post. It is very clear that they resemble Thanisarro’s unique/un-orthodox presentation of anatta rather than standard Theravada, much less Mahayana or Vajrayana.
It’s important to realize in terms of direct experience that consciousness/awareness is dependently originated, in which case there is no background awareness/perceiver/knower behind sensory experience. Even ‘mind’ is completely exhausted post-anatta.

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Nafis Rahman Not really. What I realised is what anatta is all about and has nothing to do with feverently worshipping the words of some Ajahn. Keep the advice at the end for yourself as I already know that. Consciousness is dependently originated but the mind has the capacity of knowing. Ajahn Chah would deny what you speak of.
You're a newcomer to these matters. Don't make conclusions too soon.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jack Nolan
'Buddha' to know the way things are. Which knows is mind. You have a flawed understanding of whatever you're intellectualising anatta as.

    Reply
    2w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
Jack Nolan
Unfortunately most of Ajahn Chah’s writings available in the market are substantialist and reify the notion of poo roo/’the knower’. His student Ajahn Brahm is much clearer. Relevant excerpts:
Small Boat, Great Mountain - Ajahn Amaro:
Oil and Water
Up until the point when Ajahn Chah met his teacher Ajahn Mun, he said he never really understood that mind and its objects existed as separate qualities, and that, because of getting the two confused and tangled up, he could never find peace. But what he had got from Ajahn Mun—in the three short days he spent with him—was the clear sense that there is the knowing mind, the poo roo, the one who knows, and then there are the objects of knowing. These are like a mirror and the images that are reflected in it. The mirror is utterly unembellished and uncorrupted by either the beauty or the ugliness of the objects appearing in it. The mirror doesn’t even get bored. Even when there is nothing reflected in it, it is utterly equanimous, serene. This was a key insight for Ajahn Chah, and it became a major theme for his practice and teaching from that time onward.
He would compare the mind and its objects to oil and water contained in the same bottle. The knowing mind is like the oil, and the sense impressions are like the water. Primarily because our minds and lives are very busy and turbulent, the oil and water get shaken up together. It thus appears that the knowing mind and its objects are all one substance. But if we let the system calm down, then the oil and the water separate out; they are essentially immiscible.
There’s the awareness, the Buddha-mind, and the impressions of thought, the sensory world, and all other patterns of consciousness. The two naturally separate out from each other; we don’t have to do a thing to make it happen. Intrinsically, they are not mixed. They will separate themselves out if we let them.
At this point, we can truly see that the mind is one thing and the mind-objects are another. We can see the true nature of mind, mind-essence, which knows experience and in which all of life happens; and we can see that that transcendent quality is devoid of relationship to individuality, space, time, and movement. All of the objects of the world—its people, our routines and mind states—appear and disappear within that space.
The Buddha Is Awareness
Ajahn Chah’s teachings also parallel Dzogchen in regard to the nature of the Buddha. When you come right down to it, awareness is not a thing. Nevertheless, it is an attribute of the fundamental nature of mind. Ajahn Chah would refer to that awareness, that knowing nature of mind, as Buddha: “This is the true Buddha, the one who knows (poo roo).” The customary way of talking about awareness for both Ajahn Chah and other masters of the forest tradition was to use the term “Buddha” in this way—the fully aware, awake quality of our own mind. This is the Buddha.
When there is resting in the knowing, then nothing can touch the heart. It’s this resting in the knowing that makes that Buddha a refuge. That knowing nature is invulnerable, inviolable. What happens to the body, emotions, and perceptions is secondary, because that knowing is beyond the phenomenal world. So that is the true refuge. Whether we experience pleasure or pain, success or failure, praise or criticism, that knowing nature of the mind is utterly serene. It is undisturbed and incorruptible. Just as a mirror is unembellished and untainted by the images it reflects, the knowing cannot be touched by any sense perception, any thought, any emotion, any mood, any feeling. It’s of a transcendent order. The Dzogchen teachings say this too: “There is not one hair’s tip of involvement of the mind-objects in awareness, in the nature of mind itself.” That is why awareness is a refuge; awareness is the very heart of our nature. (me: mirror analogy is a provisional teaching in terms of Dzogchen and is later abandoned once someone realizes anatta)
…
Ajahn Maha Bua, Path to Arahantship appendix:
Citta—The Mind’s Essential Knowing Nature
The following comments about the nature of the citta have been excerpted from several discourses given by Ãcariya Mahã Boowa.
OF FOREMOST IMPORTANCE IS THE CITTA, the mind’s essential knowing nature. It consists of pure and simple awareness: the citta simply knows. Awareness of good and evil, and the critical judgements that result, are merely activities of the citta. At times, these activities may manifest as mindfulness; at other times, wisdom. But the true citta does not exhibit any activities or manifest any conditions at all. It only knows. Those activities that arise in the citta, such as awareness of good and evil, or happiness and suffering, or praise and blame, are all conditions of the consciousness that flows out from the citta. Since it represents activities and conditions of the citta that are, by their very nature, constantly arising and ceasing, this sort of consciousness is always unstable and unreliable.
The conscious acknowledgement of phenomena as they arise and cease is called viññãna. For instance, viññãna acknowledges and registers the sense impressions that are produced when sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations contact the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body respectively. Each such contact between an external sense sphere and its corresponding internal base gives rise to a specific consciousness that registers the moment at which each interaction takes place, and then promptly ceases at the same moment that the contact passes. Viññãna, therefore, is consciousness as a condition of the citta. Sankhãra, or thoughts and imagination, is also a condition of the citta. Once the citta has given expression to these conditions, they tend to proliferate without limit. On the other hand, when no conditions arise at all, only the citta’s inherent quality of knowing is apparent.
Still, the essential knowing of the average person’s mind is very different from the essential knowing of an Arahant. The average person’s knowing nature is contaminated from within. Arahants, being khïõãsava, are free of all contamination. Their knowing is a pure and simple awareness without any adulteration. Pure awareness, devoid of all contaminants, is supreme awareness: a truly amazing quality of knowing that bestows perfect happiness, as befits the Arahant’s state of absolute purity. (note: although many claim Ajahn Maha Boowa supposedly attained arahantship, his actual insight is similar to ATR stage 4)

    Reply
    2w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
Jack Kornfield, close student of Ajahn Chah and dharma-brothers with Ajahn Brahm:
As your spacious heart opens, you can rediscover the vast perspective you’d almost forgotten. A spacious heart reveals the spacious mind. This is the mind that, after you’ve stubbed your toe, hopped around, and howled, finally laughs. The mind that, when you are upset with your partner, goes to sleep and wakes up, and sees that what was such a big deal has fallen into perspective.
Your spacious mind is the natural awareness that knows and accommodates everything. My meditation teacher in the forests of Thailand, Ajahn Chah, called it the “One Who Knows.” He said this is the original nature of mind, the silent witness, spacious consciousness. His instructions were simple: Become witness to it all, the person with perspective, the One Who Knows. Sometimes he would say, “If you are lost in the forest, that is not really being lost. You are really lost if you forget who you are.”
Pay attention to the movie showing in your life right now. Notice the plot. It might be an adventure, a tragedy, a romance, a soap opera, or a battle. “All the world’s a stage,” wrote Shakespeare. Sometimes you get caught in the plot. But remember, you are also the audience. Take a breath. Look around. Become a loving witness to it all, the spacious awareness, the One Who Knows.
With mindfulness we can step out of the story we tell and simply notice the telling of it. With a quiet mind, the One Who Knows sees how we construct our world through repeating our stories. And we discover the stories are mostly one-sided or untrue.
If you pay careful attention in the midst of your crises, you will begin to sense a witnessing consciousness, a wise presence inside of you, the One Who Knows. Even in the toughest times, underneath even your most catastrophic challenges and fears, the One Who Knows in you remains calm and clear. It already accepts whatever is going on. It sees beyond the immediate situation to something much larger. It knows long before we do that the end of our suffering begins when we turn to face our suffering and embrace its truth and wisdom.
But how can we find this “One Who Knows” in the midst of our most overwhelming difficulties? Go to the mirror. Look at your body. You will see someone who looks older than you looked several years ago, though inside you don’t feel any older. This is because it is only your body that has aged. The timeless awareness through which you see your body is the One Who Knows. Your body is only a temporary vessel for this awareness. It is a temporary and impermanent container for the undying consciousness of the One Who Knows.
When we rest in the One Who Knows, time drops away, self drops away, the one who suffers is released. We are simply the awareness of it all. As the One Who Knows, witness it all, let loving awareness make room for everything: boredom and excitement, fear and trust, pleasure and pain, birth and death. Return again and again to loving awareness, come home to the One Who Knows, the wise and gracious heart that is your true home.
Also:
Towards the end of Luang Por Chah’s teaching career, just before he had a stroke and lost the ability to speak, he used to ask people, ‘Have you ever seen still water?’
‘Yes. Just like in that glass. This water is still. It’s not moving.’
‘Have you ever seen flowing water?’
‘Well, yes, I’ve seen flowing water.’
‘Have you seen still, flowing water? Water that’s both flowing and still?’
And people would think they had misheard him. ‘Still, flowing water? What is he talking about?’
Luang Por Chah would say that the mind is like still, flowing water. It flows insofar as its perceptions, thoughts and moods, its sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, thinking and emotions, all come and go and change. There is a continuous flow. But there is also stillness. There is that which is aware of all the mental activity of perception, of thought, of feeling – and that awareness is not going anywhere. That awareness is outside of the world of space and time. That awareness is perfectly still. It is not something which is subject to movement or change. It is the ever-present quality of knowing – ‘the one who knows,’ that which is aware.

    Reply
    2w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
It's very clear to anyone who has genuine anatta realization that the excerpts above are substantialist and lead to reification.

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Nafis Rahman Knowing is a capacity of mind. It is the mind that comes to know dhamma which is an integral aspect of what one is.
Whether or not they are X Y and Z is folly. Stress and its cessation take priority. You're fixated on something intellectual.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jack Nolan
Nafis Rahman it is great that you are moved by the tradition but please try to offer your own authentic realisation instead of repeating what other people have said and highlight your realisation.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Nafis Rahman
Admin
Jack Nolan
I’ve quoted lineage teachers mainly to demonstrate that Thanissaro’s view on anatta is not universal within the Theravada tradition. The notion of poo roo/’the knower’ has been critiqued by Ajahn Brahm along with other Theravada teachers for being a non-Buddhist view. Knowing/cognition never required an underlying knower/thinker, this is the dharma seal of anatta. It’s not merely an intellectual distinction, but something one can verify in terms of direct experience.
Related:
"View informing realization" means your underlying assumptions about mind and reality in general will more often than not, color your experiential insights. Realizations will conform to presuppositions.
Take the Advaitan who takes the passive knowing witness to be an ultimately substantial background substrate. That apparent attribute is assumed to be an unerring and unassailable characteristic of consciousness, and said practitioner will use that characteristic as an anchor in their practice, which will then be refined into its purest form as what the Advaitan considers to be their ultimate purusa.
For Buddhists, that same characteristic (revered by the Advaitan) is considered to be an afflictive byproduct of delusion. It is seen as faulty, ultimately erroneous and an obscuration. Jigme Lingpa, for example, states that those who mistake that substrate and its strata as definitive and something to be cultivated are "like blind men wandering in the desert without a guide."
Thus, even inferentially, our view can influence the way our path unfolds and will then lead to a different result.” – Kyle Dixon

    Reply
    2wEdited

Nafis Rahman
Admin
AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:
Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.
He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.
He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.
He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

    Reply
    2w

Nafis Rahman
Admin
I can speak from personal experience as well if necessary. My view on anatta in terms of direct sensory perception does not differ from Ajahn Brahm or other non-substantialist teachers.

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Nafis Rahman You aren't listening when I speak for myself. The quality of knowing is mind. If there was no mind that gets itself entangled in habits that give rise to suffering then there is no mind that has a release from suffering. The mind has/IS the quality of knowing, that which responds to a name when your name is called is what you are and what is being called The name. You KNOW yojr name hence why you respond to it. You're just starting out and are unqualified to teach.
Consciousness is what a living being is and enables them to cognise of dhamma in the first place.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jack Nolan
Nafis Rahman Go face all the senior Ajahn's and tell them what you've just told me. The Tathagata knows the dhamma. I'd know because I've realised suchness and can make the claim. The mind is what senses whether or not it is a 'senser or not'. You're building a religion around your interpretation of a single aspect of the path. 😃

    Reply
    2wEdited

Nafis Rahman
Admin
Perhaps I’ve been overly diplomatic in speaking with you, but it seems that you’re a lost cause.
"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
Longchenpa: "From the [ultimate] perspective the meditative equipoise of the realised (sa thob) and awakened beings (sangs rgyas), there exists neither object of knowledge (shes bya) nor knowing cognitive process (shes byed) and so forth, for there is neither object to apprehend nor the subject that does the apprehending. Even the exalted cognitive process (yeshes) as a subject ceases (zhi ba) to operate.”
What you fail to understand due to being overly influenced by Thanissaro’s view is that the process of ‘knowing’ never required a knower due to the general principle of dependent origination. This experiential recognition is extremely obvious to anyone who has genuine anatman realization, but unfortunately you have mistaken ‘suchness’ as some sort of reified substrate consciousness. I also have no idea why you’re labelling me as a teacher when I’ve never given off that impression, but your views also contradict the majority of Buddhist teachers alive today, with the sole exception of those who blindly believe that Thanissaro is some sort of authority on definite view. In fact anyone with genuine anatta realization would never quote his passages since he believes anatta is some sort of intellectual no-man’s land where a practitioner is unable to distinguish between left and right, or whether a self is real or not. ‘Not-self’ is basically a strategy of neti-neti, and in the case of Thanissaro he affirms a luminous citta beyond the 5 aggregates which is a view in clear contradiction of basic Buddhist tenets. Based on what you wrote in a previous post saying that “Whoever runs this blog is someone who is learning but is confused” it seems unlikely that you’re willing to question your mistaken assumptions and temporarily humble yourself to acknowledge different perspectives, in which case you probably won’t be able to realize anatta within this present lifetime. It’s unfortunate, but hopefully you can become more open-minded in the future.

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Nafis Rahman tell me your credentials & qualifications in regards to this matter. Break down the mission objective of the communication of all Tathagata's communication.
Knowing is a capacity of mind. The mind in itself gives rise to ideas of 'self and not self' and in itself isn't an idea but it is that which knows. No mind, no knowing, no conversation. The mind is an aspect of one's being which is multifaceted. You're inferring that I am talking of self knowing which is nonsense. Ajahn Chah refers to the knowing capacity of mind. You're being dogmatic and think that your perspective is the absolute truth or the way it is (it isn't). I'm a fully realised Tathagata 😃 😃 😃 and one who carries the lamp of awakening with him and can establish the roots of the Buddha dhamma sangha in an age even when it appears to have disappeared. You are not anyone to school this one here but 10/10 Ajahn's will do away with what you've just spoken. Take that to some of the people at Amaravati

    Reply
    2wEdited

Soh Wei YuAdmin
No, you are not a fully realised tathagata. You're not even a stream entrant. You are stuck at the I AM phase.

    Reply
    2w

Soh Wei YuAdmin
If you have realised Poo Roo, try to go beyond Ajahn Chah's teachings which are merely centered on I AM. Ajahn Brahm is one who went through I AM and progressed into anatta. Another one is https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../ajahn-nyanamoli... Ajahn Nyanamoli, although I'm less familiar with his teachings but what he wrote here is good.
Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero on The Original Mind
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero on The Original Mind
Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero on The Original Mind

    Reply
    Remove Preview
    2w

Jack Nolan
Soh Wei Yu You don't know that. You are not qualified to make remarks. I know what the sense of 'I' is premised on and rest as that. There is a reason why you are in this group and discuss matters like these: because you're still rousing bodhi. Good luck. 😉

    Reply
    2w

Soh Wei YuAdmin
Jack Nolan You appear to be at I AM and your ego prevents you from going in the right direction towards liberation. The fact that you think you're a fully realized Buddha means you are hopeless. It's hilarious you're so obviously an egomaniac and suffering from megalomania and still think you're a Buddha. Like seriously, you have the biggest ego in the group (congratulations) and that qualifies you as... Buddha? Wow.
It's best you find a psychiatrist to get your mental conditions and serious delusions checked out. Either that, or you're some kind of troll (and trolls usually do have some kind of mental issue too which should be treated). Are you a bot? I should give you a "tick this to confirm you're human" test lol
This shall be my last message to you. Goodbye. I have compassion for you, but we can't help you here. Find a psychiatrist.

        Reply
        2wEdited


Nafis Rahman
Admin
I have went through Thanissaro’s writings in the past, he believes that there is a luminous citta beyond the 5 aggregates which is a non-Buddhist view. Ajahn Brahm has similarly criticized many of his fellow Thai Forest practitioners for holding substantialist views:
https://www.amazon.com/Mindfulness-Bliss.../dp/0861712757/
The Buddha’s Word on the One Who Knows
Even some good, practicing monks fail to breach illusion’s last line of defense, the knower. They take “the one who knows,” “the original mind,” “the pure knowing,” or some other descriptions of the citta as the ultimate and permanent reality. To be accurate, such concepts belong to the teachings of Hinduism and not to Buddhism, for the Buddha clearly refuted these theories as not penetrating deeply enough.
For instance, in the first sutta in the first collection of Buddhist scriptures, the Brahmajāla Sutta, the Buddha described in detail sixty-two types of wrong view (micchā diṭṭhi). Wrong view number eight is the opinion that the thing that is called citta, or mind (mano), or consciousness (viññāṇa) is the permanent self (attā)—stable, eternal, not subject to change, forever the same (DN 1,2,13). Thus maintaining that “the one who knows” is eternal is micchā diṭṭhi, wrong view, says the Buddha.
In the Nidāna Saṃyutta, the Buddha states:
But, bhikkhus, that which is called “mind” [citta] and “mentality” [mano] and “consciousness” [viññāṇa]—the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: “This is mine, this I am, this is self.”…
It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self [attā] this body…because this body…is seen standing…for [as long as] a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called “mind” and “mentality” and “consciousness” arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. (SN 12,61)
However, just as the hard scientific evidence mentioned earlier cannot dislodge the view that it is oneself who is the doer, so even the hard scriptural evidence of the Buddha’s own teachings is unable on its own to dislodge the view that “the one who knows” is the ultimate entity, the attā. Some even argue that these Buddhist texts must have been changed, solely on the grounds that the texts disagree with their view!
Such irrational stubbornness comes from bhavataṇhā, the craving to be. Bhavataṇhā is so strong that one is prepared to let go of almost everything—possessions, one’s body, and one’s thoughts—as long as one is finally left with something, some tiny spot of existence, in order to be. After all, one wants to enjoy parinibbāna, thoroughgoing extinction, having worked so hard to get there. Bhavataṇhā is why many great meditators are unable to agree with the Buddha and make that final leap of renunciation that lets go of absolutely everything, including the citta. Even though the Buddha said that “nothing is worth adhering to” (sabbe dhammā nālam abhinivesāya) (MN 37,3), people still adhere to the citta. They continue to hold on to the knower and elevate it to unwarranted levels of mystical profundity by calling it “the ground of all being,” “union with God,” “the original mind,” etc.—even though the Buddha strongly refuted all such clinging, saying that all levels of being stink, the way even a tiny speck of feces on one’s hand stinks (AN I,18,13).
One needs the experiences of many jhānas, combined with a sound knowledge of the Buddha’s own teachings, in order to break through the barrier of bhavataṇhā, the craving to be, and see for oneself that what some call “the citta,” “mind,” “consciousness,” or “the one who knows” is only an empty process, one that is fueled by the craving to be and blinded by the delusion of permanence, but which is clearly of the nature to cease absolutely and leave nothing at all remaining (...)
Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook
AMAZON.COM
Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook
Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook

    Reply
    2w

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan there’s no “Self” in a tree and no “Self” in the seeds of the tree that falls into the soil and grows into another tree of the same species.
And if there were a “Self” within the first tree, it would no longer exist once it dies away and the second seed grows into a tree without the same “Self” of the first tree.
Yet the patterns of the second tree holds similarities to the first tree.
So in regards to “karma”, it is not the same “Self” that is being reborn, it is the patterns of thoughts, behaviors, conditions, etc. that are. The exact appearance of the “new life” might not be the same as the “past life”, but the patterns remain.
So you imagine each experience of a life as a tree, and it is the patterns of that life that drop a seed for the next life. There’s not a continuing “Self”, the “Self” is just the fruit and flowers of a life, the appearance.
But that doesn’t invalidate the presence of a tree. Similarly, this doesn’t invalidate Presence as a “whole”. Presence isn’t a “Self”, it isn’t a “who”, it isn’t a “what”, it isn’t even a “where”. It’s a display of experience and without it there would be no APPEARANCE of “Self”.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat Why are you lecturing me on this? I haven't said anything in regards to a self.
The notion of a self is premised on the minds idea of itself. The mind in itself isn't an idea and is not limited to this notion of 'self'. It is what gives rise to the idea of itself.
I'm not a tree so I can't speak for one. I can speak for what I am though. Yes, patterns and thoughts of a particular mind. It is mind. It is mind that calls itself 'I'. Your mind is not my mind.
Who, what, where when and why has a role and a function.

    Reply
    2w

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan Sorry, I was just trying to answer to this:
“This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life?”
I read the rest and it makes sense. I don’t deny there’s a function to conventional language, I was more responding to that I guess in an ultimate sense.
I could probably work on making sure my responses don’t have a lecturing sort of energy to them though.

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat It is the mind in itself. The sense of self is the minds mental image of itself. The mind isn't just limited to its idea of itself, however.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan yeah that’s why my response included that the sense of “Self” is an appearance within Presence, it’s ultimately a manifestation dependent on different circumstances and conditions

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat Yep. And that is anatta. But that doesn't mean that one isn't what they are which is the combination of mind, body and awareness! The sense of self has a function. One is what they are. The catch is learning to see it for what it is in order to let go of the unhelpful aspects of it. This is an actualised alived application of anatta. Many people take this word and then put it on a pedestal & bow to it. The Buddhadhamma journey is more than just that!

    Reply
    2w

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan and even the “mind” is a manifestation. It’s dependent on “thoughts” that labels and conceptualizes themselves which then creates a sort of “knot” for its own sense of self-existence.

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat Without it, there is no conscious awareness. It is an integral aspect of what you are. No mind, no dhamma.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan How would there not be conscious awareness without it? The sensory phenomena will still shine brightly as an appearance whether or not there is a concept of mind or not that we cling to.
For functionality’s sake though, yeah, the Self can be useful and it’s good to understand how to shift patterns of behavior and thought processes so that it interacts in a way that would be seen as “ideal”.

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat Because the mind is what is consciously aware. No mind, no awareness.

    Reply
    2w

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan are we talking in terms of an actual, self-existing mind? Or are we talking in terms of multiple factors that depend on each other to give the appearance of that which we only label as “mind”?

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat The mind originates dependent upon causes and conditions & those causes and conditions are enabled vis a vis causal fluctuation due to a dilemma. It is originated.
Mind can be discerned in its immediate suchness by wiggling your finger right now, counting to ten or paying attention to the breathing or willing a thought. That is mind. And that is actual.

    Reply
    2w

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan I get where you’re going there. Is the mind inside the head in your view?

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat It cannot be pinned down exactly but it is around here-ness - the edge of my 5senses.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan Okay cool haha maybe it is the here-ness which is exactly why it can’t be pinned down, because it doesn’t have a center nor a boundary.
Because there’s not really separation between the “mind” and the “wiggling finger” or the “counting to ten”, or the “breathing”, or the “willing thought”. Right?

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat It is around hereness, my mind, and as I type it is at this point right here. It is around here where I am. My body isn't where your body is, but these words are my expression. Well, wiggling ones finger and counting to ten are two different actions utilising/that are enabled due to mind (the intelligence one is).

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan where’s the mind after this life passes though?

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat Those who rouse mindfulness (sati) enter into the stream and those who do not break away & may be born again at a random location with no recollection of a prior life.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan okay, but in that case, a cloud passes and the ocean waves and the animals eat and someone’s playing video games while another’s working at their job. So, a bunch of different events are happening whether during life or when one passes. Where’s the mind?

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Why are you asking me? Whirling in the wind.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan cause I’m trying to get your perspective on where the mind is and what “around hereness” means exactly in that regard so that I have enough information to continue responding in this conversation 🤷🏼‍♂️

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat My mind is located at the edge of my 5 senses and the border of this physical body & right now is right here and is here when I click your comment when I get a notification.

    Reply
    2w

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan okay now I understand your perspective more.
If you say the sense of “Self” is the minds “mental image” of itself then how can there be a “me” or “you” that possesses a mind? The image is an apparition, it’s not actual and changes easily, dissolves easily, flows easily. So there can’t actually be a “Self” that owns a mind, in the same way that none of us own the ocean.
If the “Self” is a mental image then so too are the boundaries and edges of the five senses and the border of this physical body. They’re fabricated for the sake of functionality in regards to discernment.
So where’s the mind at this point?

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat The sense of self is the minds image of itself. My sense of myself is not fixed/permanent/unchanging and it varies & changes in relationship to circumstances although there are general themes that constitute to my character which are consistent. All things are subject to change.
Because I am a mind. It isn't that I possess a mind. I am one. I don't have consciousness. I am consciousness. I don't have a body. I am a body, also, a body is apart of what I am. So it isn't an 'I' that owns more so that the sense of 'I' is a testament of that which constitutes my being (mind, body and awareness). So it isn't a self that owns a mind like you are assuming.
Still where it is as I already said.

    Reply
    2w

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan So that means that you’re also “around hereness”?
And if you are mind and consciousness, then does that mean that you are the thing that continues after the passing of this life?

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat Somewhere around hereness, currently sat in the bath. Yes. It means I am that.

    Reply
    2w

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan but if the “Self” is a mental image of the mind then that means there is an attachment to an identity - one which is merely a fabrication of the mind - that would imply a permanent, eternalness to “you”. An inherent existence to yourself that continues past this life.
There might be change in appearance but the identity remains with a sense of permanence for you.
But if you say your sense of self is not fixed or permanent, then consciousness cannot be something you can identify as, because through this identification there is a mental construct of a subtle sense of permanence and a separation/boundary.

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat the sense of self, I.e. 'i' is a thought born of this that we call mind. The mind in itself is not limited to any one of its thoughts but gives rise to thoughts. The mind is more than just thoughts, hence the wiggling ones finger example that I mentioned earlier on.
There isn't an 'attachment to identity'. You need to understand the context that these matters are spoken about: that of suffering. Suffering, dissatisfaction and stress arises when one is attached to their sense of self and opinions, views, habits, actions, that are rooted in ignorance, attachment and aversion. When one sees clearly what this sense of self is and wisdom, concentration and ethics begin to develop, one reaps the benefits of all that one is without the entanglements and suffering element.
Not really. I am rooted totally in the present. When I go to rest, the conscious aspect of me is not present and so is not continuing on wards at that moment. If there is a break, how is that eternity? Eternity cannot be fractioned in its entirety by a human mind, it is just man's idea of an unending span of time when one can only fathom what is occuring through the 5 senses.
I do not worry for what happens at death and if I will go on or not. I should say, IF I am to continue on after death, then YES I am that. Depends what line of thinking you're following really.
The sense of my self changes in relationship to the environment around me and my environment helps me form an understanding of what I am. Consciousness is something I AM, aliveness is something I AM, I do not need to identify with either of them to be what it is that I am. The sense of self is the mind/consciousness idea of itself but that idea isn't all that one is.
I'm not worrying for permanence or impermanence. I am rooted totally in the present. There is a relative degree of separation between all individuals and beings of mind-body. Separation means separation from WHAT? And that is the choir of other minds around you.

    Reply
    2w

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan What happens when you take away the “I Am” and just allow there to be aliveness and consciousness without the “I Am”?

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat I am still just as I am. I can drop referring to myself as I am, and these fingers are still typing.

    Reply
    2w

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan If you’re thinking “I am still just as I am” then you didn’t take away the “I Am” hahaha
Like, if you take away “I Am”, then there isn’t even a “yourself” to refer to as “I Am”.
So what happens when you just allow there to be aliveness and consciousness without “I am”, and without any “self” that can be referred to as “I am”?

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat As I am typing that I am not saying "I am" in my mind.
If I take away the words 'I Am', the ability to type is still present and there is still this conveying of information.
This happens. Right now, the warmth of the bath feels wonderful. The sense of 'I Am' arises because one has become conscious. A person is born to two parents, and they were before you were, and before you came to know of yourself as 'I were'.
'I am' is only a testament to beingness. The ability for that to arise is because there are conditions that have given rise to that.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Jake Karat
Jack Nolan Okay cool so then you’d agree that there is no “Self” involved in the appearance of the sense of “Self”? That there isn’t a “Self” who can be considered “one who has become conscious” that is involved in the arising of “I Am”?

    Reply
    2w

Jack Nolan
Jake Karat What gives rise to the sense of self is the mind which is itself. But the sense of self isn't all the mind is.

        Reply
        2w



Jack Nolan
Anatta isn't a denial of agency.

    Reply
    2w

Soh Wei YuAdmin
Thanissaro's version of anatta is a plague that distorts the true meaning of anatta. Sorry for being straightforward about this but his concept of anatta is really doing harm to the Buddhadharma.
Better to read this explanation of anatta by Geoff with several citations from scriptures: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../great-resource-of...
Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings
Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings

    Reply
    Remove Preview
    2w

Jack Nolan
Soh Wei Yu And who or what authorises you to make such a remark?

    Reply
    2w

Soh Wei YuAdmin
Jack Nolan I speak from my direct realization of anatta.
Also, most Buddhist teachers disagree with Thanissaro's version of anatta and many have explicitly spoken about it, as cited by Nafis and some of it in my article https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../anatta-not-self-or...
Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?
Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?

    Reply
    Remove Preview
    2w

Jack Nolan
Soh Wei Yu That doesn't explain how or why what Thanassiro has said is wrong.

            Reply
            2w


Soh Wei YuAdmin
Will Gau
Is this part clear:
"'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

    Reply
    2w

Will GauAuthor
Soh Wei Yu Yes, this is quite clear to me now, although there has been considerable variation in the degree to which it is experienced in the past weeks. It has been 'effortful' to some degree to reorient to this insight every morning, and then generally it stays clear for the rest of the day. I was rereading Daniel Ingram's post on his experiments in actualism inspired practice and his description aligns quite well with my experience: notably that while everything was already experienced as empty, some aspect of what he called 'the attention wave' was still causing some perceptual distortion, preventing luminosity from totally entering the foreground. Attention wasn't completely emptied out yet, even if agency was. Earlier today it felt like something was more thoroughly dropped, and I returned to this undoubtable and simple sense of 'being reality', no matter how it presented. All questions of luminosity, emptiness, knowing or even experience were completely eliminated, as well as the relevance of these qualities increasing, decreasing, coming or going. The self-reflexive mechanism was just gone. It just feels like the complete exhaustion of reification and clinging, like I'm identical to experience. The qualities of luminosity, non-locality, emptiness, are all still here but feel like side effects rather than anything to strive for. The insight is that of course this was always the case, how could I ever think that i was not identical to experience! Curious to see how things settle tomorrow and in the next days. I'll keep you posted. Thanks for the pointers!

    Reply
    2w

Will GauAuthor
Soh Wei Yu This morning, no more inclining, efforting, just an immediate sense of spontaneous identity. Though I can still imagine the value of penetrating emptiness. The article you posted makes sense to me now, I will read the links today 🎉

    Reply
    1w

Soh Wei YuAdmin
Will Gau
👍
2006:
(10:51 PM) John: there is a passage ken wilber wrote...i m looking for it.
(10:56 PM) AEN: back
(10:57 PM) AEN: was finding my shi fu's mentioning of shi shui fei shui.. cldnt find hehe
(10:57 PM) AEN: icic..
(10:57 PM) John: Rather, the very deepest part of you is one with the entire Kosmos in all its radiant glory. You simply are everything that is arising moment to moment. You do not see the sky, you are the sky. You do not touch the earth, you are the earth. You do not hear the rain, you are the rain. You and the universe are what the mystics call "One Taste."
(10:59 PM) John: This is not poetry. This is a direct realization, as direct as a glass of cold water in the face. As a great Zen Master said upon his enlightenment "When I heard the sound of the bell ringing, there is no bell and no I, just the ringing."
(11:00 PM) John: 1997 Journal Sunday, March 9
(11:00 PM) AEN: oic..
(11:01 PM) John: There is no inside and no outside, no in here versus out there. The nondual univese of One Taste arises as a spontaneous gesture of your own true nature. You can taste the sun and swallow the moon, and centuries fit in the palm of your hand.
(11:01 PM) John: all these are experiences of anatta. 🙂 (comment: John would later clarify that while Ken Wilber's experience is non-dual, the view is of substantial non-dual rather than anatta, i.e. One Mind)
(11:02 PM) John: but sinking back to the source.
(11:02 PM) John: that is why non inherent nature, emptiness nature of Presence is very important.
(11:02 PM) John: one sees the luminosity but forgotten about its emptiness nature
(11:03 PM) John: this will cause one to overlook karma.
(11:03 PM) John: Presence has no self, nor otherness
(11:03 PM) John: it also IS and the IS arises and ceases
(11:04 PM) AEN: icic..
(11:04 PM) John: this rises, that arises
(11:04 PM) John: and ISness is that arising as well as ceasing
(11:04 PM) John: the nature is empty.
(11:04 PM) AEN: oic
(11:05 PM) John: when one sink back to the source and say pure consciousness without object is the highest....then one falls.
(11:05 PM) John: manifested and unmanifested are one. A stage that has entry and exit isn't the expression of dharma. 🙂
(11:06 PM) AEN: oic..
(11:07 PM) AEN: but when one says 'all is consciousness' there isnt distinction between manifested and unmanifested rite
(11:08 PM) John: there is discernment, there is no discrimination. One understand clearly the emptiness nature of our nature. The clarity will deepens even further if we understand this.
(11:09 PM) John: now...why is there deep sleep and dreams?
(11:09 PM) AEN: conditions?
(11:09 PM) John: yes
(11:10 PM) John: when one is aware of a dreamless state, why so?
(11:10 PM) John: when one is aware of dream, why so?
(11:10 PM) John: because our nature is empty
(11:11 PM) John: that is why dreamless state to dream to waking
(11:11 PM) John: when we say Presence, is ringing the same as the color 'green'?
(11:12 PM) AEN: icic..
(11:12 PM) AEN: nope
(11:12 PM) John: but the ringing is total presence without 'I'
(11:13 PM) John: sames goes to color
(11:13 PM) AEN: icic
(11:13 PM) John: does our buddha nature fail to discern?
(11:13 PM) John: sky is me, the rain is me....how come?
(11:14 PM) John: one knows the luminosity but fail to see the emptiness nature.
(11:14 PM) AEN: icic..
(11:14 PM) John: this is what i say why buddha fall into samsara.
(11:14 PM) AEN: oic
(11:14 PM) John: there is a thread right?
(11:15 PM) AEN: which thread?
(11:15 PM) John: why buddha has fallen...
(11:15 PM) AEN: yes
(11:17 PM) John: http://budhdhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display...
(11:17 PM) John: eheheh
(11:17 PM) AEN: yea
(11:17 PM) AEN: lol
(11:18 PM) John: too brillance bright result in the fall. 😛
(11:19 PM) AEN: icic..
(11:20 PM) John: If the nature of mind is this all-pervading, brilliant union of luminosity and emptiness, ungraspable, how is it that it could be obscured, even for a moment, let alone lifetime after lifetime?
(11:20 PM) John: how pitiful if one gone through all the stages of fruition and fall.
(11:21 PM) AEN: oic..
(11:21 PM) AEN: fall as in how? go back to samsara?
(11:22 PM) John: depending on ones condition
(11:23 PM) AEN: oic
(11:43 PM) John: Sunday, April 27 1997
No, as you rest in Witness -- realizing, I am not objects, I am not feelings, I am not thoughts -- all you will notice is a sense of Freedom, a sense of liberation, a sense of Release....
(11:43 PM) John: does buddhism teach this?
(11:43 PM) AEN: oic wat about it
(11:43 PM) AEN: oops
(11:43 PM) AEN: sorry din scroll down
(11:44 PM) AEN: skhandas are empty of self yes... but not sure about resting in witness
(11:45 PM) John: there is no I am feelings, I am thinking...
(11:45 PM) John: feeling alone there is, no feeler
(11:45 PM) John: empty phenomenon rolls
(11:46 PM) John: actually the feeling is the emptiness nature of our buddha mind.
(11:46 PM) John: disassociation is not it, association is also not it.
(11:47 PM) John: by disassociating it and say the source is in direct contradiction.
(11:47 PM) John: then why is one with the sky, the rain?
(11:47 PM) John: but not thoughts and feelings
(11:47 PM) AEN: icic..
(11:47 PM) John: so some i associate, some don't associate 😛
(11:48 PM) AEN: lol
(11:48 PM) AEN: oh theres something i just read recently
(11:48 PM) John: when the emptiness nature is clear, there is no problem with all these.
BUDHDHISM.SGFORUMS.COM
Application Error
Application Error

    Reply
    Remove Preview
    1w

Soh Wei YuAdmin
John tan, 2010:
Hi AEN,
Just managed to scan through the past few posts you wrote. They are quite insightful. In summary you are beginning to experience the ‘taste’ you described in the “certainty of being” of the formless presence in transient phenomena. That is what I meant by bringing ‘this’ from the background (formlessness) to the foreground (forms). It is also what I meant by the ‘fabric and texture of Awareness’ in forms. Below are some of the points that came to mind after reading them. I will just jot down some of them for sharing purposes.
1. One Taste
You mentioned about ‘one taste’ but do take note that what you are experiencing is just the ‘same taste’ of luminous essence, not the ‘same taste’ in Emptiness nature. I use the term ‘essence’ differently from Dzogchen. In Dzogchen, luminosity is the ‘nature’ and Emptiness is the ‘essence’. As I see Emptiness as the absence of an essence in whatever arises, I do not feel appropriate expressing the Dzogchen way.
2. “Obvious and direct…yet always missed!”
I like how you expressed it, it is quite apt. However I sense that you may have underestimated the power and full meaning of ‘deeply rooted in consciousness’. If we are unaware of the impact, we will not realize what is meant by ‘latent tendencies’. Try imagining ‘someone’ standing right in front of you yet you are unable to see him because you are under a magical spell that is planted in the deep most of your consciousness. If you are unaware of the latent deep, whatever realized is merely a surface understanding. Day in day out, these tendencies are always in action. You may want to ask yourself will the latent deep find its way up even in a PCE mode?
3. Feels Universe, Pure Consciousness, Pure Aggregates
“You are not just the formless presence/knower/consciousness... you are all forms, you are the universe univers-ing, you are whatever is arising moment to moment as a complete non-dual experience in itself... There is no background awareness and foreground phenomena happening in awareness... there is simply foreground pure consciousness always, be it the pure existence experienced in a formless mode (e.g. I AM, aka the 'thought realm' as Thusness puts it), or in all forms... the making of a non-dual experience into a background is simply trying to capture and reify a moment of pure consciousness.”
I remember writing this to Simpo few years ago in his forum. It is related to his experience of ‘feeling light and weightless’. This also relates to mind-body drop and your dream about ‘transparency’. Being ‘light, weightless and transparent’ is the result of dissolving the body-construct. It is quite an obvious contrast moving from ‘Self/self’ to no-self. Prior to what you have written you should also experience this, otherwise you are being too focused on being ‘brilliance and luminous’ of the 'actuality'.
On the othe hand, feeling ‘universe’ has to do with the deconstruction of ‘identity’ and ‘personality’. You have to have clearer insight of what ‘deconstructions’ leads to what experience.
The text in bold is quite well expressed but knows the dependent originated nature of consciousness. There is the experience of primordial purity of the aggregates and 18 dhatus but there is no 'a substratum background' that is called 'pure consciousness'. The sense of self is dissolved and is replaced by a sense of inter-penertration.
. 4. No agent and the intensity of luminosity
In the seen, there is just the seen! It is completely non-dual... there is no 'the seen + a perceiver here seeing the seen'.... The seen is precisely the seeing! There is not two or three things: seer, seeing, and the seen. That split is entirely conceptual (though taken to be reality)...
Well expressed! But in the subsequent paragraph, you said,
“All the bullshit concepts, constructs and images of an 'aliveness', a 'hearing', a 'seeing', an 'awareness' simply dissolves in the direct experiencing of whatever arises... just 'seeing is seeing, hearing is hearing, thinking is thinking and they are all flowing independently', with 'no self holding all these sensory experiences together'”
In the article on http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../on-anatta..., I mentioned about the 2 stanza. There is the no-agent aspect and there is the intensity of luminosity aspect. I find that your present experience is still centered on the luminosity aspect. You are directly experiencing seamlessness of any happening where no clear line of demarcation can be drawn between the subject-object split. You realized the boundary is purely illusionary and is clear about the cause that resulted in such division but still, that is not the ‘essence’ of an experiential insight of anatta in my opinion. There is a difference in saying "there is no split between thinking and thinker, the thinking itself is 'me'" and "there is thinking, no thinker". You must be aware that having immediate and direct experience but with dualistic framework intact and complete replacement of the dualistic framework entirely with DO (dependent origination) yields very different experiential insight; you may want to investigate further and move from "they are all flowing independently" to "manifesting in seamless inter-dependencies."
5. "How am I experiencing the moment of being alive?" (HAIETMOBA)
But.... if you contemplate on "How am I experiencing the moment of being alive?", or, "How am I experiencing the moment of hearing?", or "How am I experiencing the moment of seeing?" or "How am I experiencing the moment of being aware?"
"How am I experiencing the moment of being alive?" (HAIETMOBA) is the key question of the AF. I will not comment on it but how does it differ from the question “Without using any symbols of ‘I’, how is ‘I’ experienced?” Also how it differs from the question “Who am I?” -- the question that led you to the realization of “I AM”.
As you get clearer and clearer where exactly are all these questions leading you and the mode of perception that are involved in I AM realization and PCEs, you will have to asked yourself sincerely is this the ultimate mode of perception that will lead you towards genuine freedom. Is being lockup permanently in PCE the way towards liberation and how it differs from seeking permanent uninterrupted abiding in “I AMness”.
Edited by Thusness 17 Oct `10, 4:35PM
On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection
On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection

            Reply
            Remove Preview
            1w


Soh Wei YuAdmin
And what i wrote recently:
We are not trying to merge knower and known!
To someone transitioning from I AM to nondual (only begun talking with him yesterday), I pointed out anatta to him a few moments ago, I have a feeling he will breakthrough to anatta soon:
Mr. C:
“The transience itself rolls and knows”…that is awesome. It pulled me into a more clear state when I first read it and again just now. This was the right thing to resend:)
Soh:
yes and its always already so! like when we say.. fire is burning... its totally an illusion if you imagine fire is something 'behind' burning, or fire is the 'agent' or 'watcher' of burning. thats ridiculous isnt it?
and yet we imagine 'awareness' was something behind 'transience'
its the same
fire is just the burning, fire is not 'doing' the burning
lightning flash -- lightning is the flasher? no. lightning is just another word for flash. lightning is flashing is just another way of saying 'flashing is happening'.
thunder roars -- thunder is the agent of roaring? no. thunder is just roar. wind blows? wind is just blowing. seeing sees scenery? seeing is just colors, no seer. hearing hears sounds? actually, hearing is only ever sound, never been a hearer. always already so.
thats why realisation is so important, you must see through the delusion that it never was like that
its not that you merge fire and burning, its not that you are trying to merge lightning with the flash, its not that you are trying to merge wind with the blowing. it is not that we are trying to merge knower and known. its to realise both are never valid in themselves in the first place, both poles are non-arisen.
as i sent someone a few moments ago:
"like how krodha/kyle dixon described:
"'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.""

    Reply
    2w

Soh Wei YuAdmin
This is also why there are two stanzas of anatta. For many one becomes clearer before the other. It is important to be thoroughly clear about both stanzas as an experiential insight.
See
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../on-anatta...
And
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../pellucid-no-self...
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
GOOGLE.COM
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

    Reply
    Remove Preview
    2w

Michael Sinclair
Nice, Will! You said "the pathway to de-reified vision is well oiled now"—could you say a bit more about that pathway?

    Reply
    2wEdited

Will GauAuthor
Michael Sinclair There are so many subtle degrees of reification built into the mind, but in the context of it already being empty of a central agent, doer, knower, after two years or so i started noticing that some tracking of the movement of attention was preventing the sense of perception being identical to its objects, and I started looking into this. Through a combination of inquiry and gentle concentration, i would sort of relax into or get 'behind' the sense of attention to the point of just feeling identical to self-luminous perception, which was much more still, bright, boundless and intimate beyond any sense of a gap. It feels like objects are known before attention even sees them. This 'pathway' became more familiar as I oriented to it every day, and as i saw through the subtle sense of inherency bound up with attention creating the sense of a continuity or flow of (empty) objects of perception. Gradually 'experience' of the world resolved into mere identity, and the last subtle refuge of something like a moving centre sort of died. This has still been variable over the past weeks, but the insight is quite clear now, and it feels like only a matter of time for it to be fully stabilized.

    Reply
    2wEdited

Michael Sinclair
Thanks for the explanation! You write very clearly.

    Reply
    2w

Will GauAuthor
My pleasure!

    Reply
    2w

Yin LingAdmin
Will Gau this is really good 😁

            Reply
            2wEdited


Chris Jones
Nice! I can relate to most of these insights but for me it’s still stabilising. Energy and luminosity wise there’s still a lot of fluctuation here. Seems like I’m probably around the same point as you were a few weeks ago. There is this feeling of everything being light, translucent, almost magical and dream-like spontaneous appearances. Awareness (or awareness-sensations, field of experience, whatever you want to call it) effortlessly very wide and expanded whereas before it was seemingly quite effortful to be aware of everything at once.

    Reply
    1w

Will GauAuthor
Chris Jones Thats great! Now, there is only a kind of simplicity. This quote of Ramana Maharshi comes to mind: "There is no mystery greater than this, that being reality, we seek to gain reality. We think that there is something hiding our reality and that it must be destroyed before the reality is gained. It is ridiculous. A day will dawn when you will laugh at your past efforts. That which will be on the day you laugh is also here and now." 😀

    Reply
    1w

Chris Jones
Will Gau Yes exactly, there was never actually anything obscured or missing. It was just the mind identifying with certain sensations and disidentifying with other ones.

                Reply
                1w

I firmly believe, and have experienced many miracles, encounters and visions, that dharma protectors and Buddhas and bodhisattvas have helped me many times in my life. 

Wrote to John Tan recently, “ Sometimes or even often i have dreams that i feel are inspired by bodhisattvas or dharma protectors.. even today i fell asleep after i woke up but felt a presence or sensation of someone like lifting me up from my neck like a noose lol but wasnt like a frightening or v bad experience. After that i felt awake and woke up. Otherwise might be late for work etc.. and i still had time to answer some online ppl”

Someone asked me to translate this passage in my sharing to the AtR admin group, so I did.

my translation of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cDDkVwY2lI hui lu fa fashi


"moving on. our clothes, food, lodging, even though it is not good, however practice is pure abiding, our mind are also free of whatsoever, free of any matters/businesses, because all dharmas are empty. everyday it is like this, experientially realize all things are empty in nature, however our mind peacefully abides in the place of purity, turning the evil world of five turpidities into mind's bliss world [sukhavati], therefore our mind does not grasp on a single phenomena, mind is also free of any matters that it clings to, everyday it lives in such days of such purity, free of any hang ups, this is the place of purity.

however, householders are not like [monastic] monasteries, are filled with matters that troubles the mind. all of us here, laymen and laywomen 100+ in number, in all these 3 days we live in pure bliss world [sukhavati]. for everyone that arrived here, participating in the 8 precepts, even if you wish to break the precepts you do not even have that opportunity to do so. in this place there is not a single drop of alcohol, isn't that right? in this place, men and women are totally segregated, you cannot possibly commit [breaking of precepts] anything. furthermore, killing, what being is there for you to kill? unless you accidentally step on one or two ants, you are unable to use a magnifying glass to magnify them. stealing, what can you steal? everybody never brought much money. isn't that so? even if you have money, perhaps you have given them away in dana. there is not much money to take away, so what can you steal? so here, the 8 precepts more or less cannot be broken, you do not have the opportunity to break them. you can't even take a step out [of the monastery]. so this is the purest place.

master hsu yun did chao2 shan1 (mountain pilgrimage）, only took small belongings in bag, went through tough days suffering cold and hunger,... took things one day at a time ... mind is without grasping. always have dragons [nagas] and celestial beings [devas] sustaining/helping him. but we just don't have such great vows/aspirations, no matter what we do, we are afraid. if we have aspirations/vows, then whatever matters can be accomplished. this message, shifu encourages all to make an effort/to strive.

when i became a monastic, i personally made such a great vow: in this life of mine, i must master and penetrate the three baskets (tripitakas - sutra, vinaya and abhidharma), i must realize the nature of mind in this life, i must spread and promote the buddha's true dharma.

when i set this aspiration/vow, whenever i faced the greatest difficulties, in many instances i almost died from illnesses, buddhas and bodhisattvas came to help shifu. i have told teacher mai, in this life i died about ten times. but never managed to die. at least died ten times, every time it was extremely serious. based on normal reasoning, one cannot survive this, yet i revived. once you have set great vows/aspirations, so persistent, very strangely, your blessings/merits will keep coming. this is what i deeply feel. in the past there was someone in monastery helping out in the kitchen, when helping out he set great aspiration, no matter how tough/how much suffering, he cooked. later on both hands became injured, searched for many doctors but was unable to heal. later we introduced him a doctor, once he tui-na one time, [was healed]. his blessings/merits was just great.

therefore, when one has great aspirations, no matter how tough the difficulties he/she face, very strangely, the buddhas and bodhisattvas, the nagas and devas and dharma protectors will protect him/her.

let me give another example. this is not blowing one's own horn. once a lady was possessed by demons. she was brought to the lei yin monastery, i was there, that was a very long time ago. when she came she was rolling around on the floor, and the words that came out of her were not human words. she was possessed by a spirit that entered her body. this lady's voice is not good, was very distant from shifu. she stood at a very far location, kept wanting to speak. yet her words were so soft. i said, you are so far away, how can i hear what you said? you are so far away, how can i hear what you are saying? come a bit nearer, come over a bit nearer. she said: i am unable to come near to your body. you are surrounded by Caturmahārājakayikas (the four heavenly kings, buddhism's main dharma protectors) who are standing beside you. i am unable to come near to you, i just do not have any way. Shifu is not saying this to blow one's own horn, but rather to point out that when you make great aspiration, bodhicitta, do not think about how the outcomes will be like, only that the aspiration be coming from a pure heart, that it is true bodhicitta aspiration (Soh: on bodhicitta, see https://www.dalailama.com/news/2019/generating-the-awakening-mind ), then naturally, there will be the nagas, devas and dharma protectors that will be protecting and helping you. because our human eyes are unable to see them, therefore, although shifu in this life faced disasters after disasters. yet, i was able to resolve them each time.

some of those who did not make such great aspirations, like another bhikshu, i advised him: you should make great vow/aspiration. he said, aiya, venerable hui lu, i do not have your talent/capability. after one great illness, liver illness, just once, based on those circumstances you should be able to do [procedures?] and find a doctor to help, but just once, he died. he died for many years.

so this is saying: a person, although our human eyes are unable to see, this force of karma, wholesome karma, bodhi karma, are always upon our body, always functioning, yet our fleshy eyes are unable to see them. therefore, why do we say you need to give rise to great aspiration, take up hardship? in buddhism, you should never be afraid to take up hardship. never be afraid of taking hardship. if you are able to take up hardship, your blessings and merits will be greater. be willing to do/act and truly practice. then, the nagas and devas will do dharma protection [for you]. your worldly eyes cannot see them, but the devas and nagas and the eight classes of beings can see [you]."