John Tan:

To me, this separation of "existence" from "what appears" is unique and very skillful.  "Non-existence" appearance is essentially the same insight as anatta.  It involves the 2 authentications:

1.  Seeing through the reification of conventional construct and

2. Recognition of appearances as one's empty clarity.

What makes appearances appear "real, solid and external" are our mistaken perception of the inherent framework of subject-action-object.  But that is only part of the confusion.  The other is not realizing what appears is just radiance, that is y it is illusory and insubstantial.

However if we deconstruct entities and characteristics, then mind and phenomena, consciousness and conditions are all deconstructed, u can't treat mind as real due to point 1.  Otherwise one skewed towards yogacara (but then yogacara doesn't actually treat mind as real either).  It is sort of strawman stereotyping a group of practitioners attaching to mind as real.

—-

Therefore there r 2 parts:

1.  Understand and clearly see how the conceptual conventions confused the mind.

2.  Directly experiencing appearances as one's radiance

But some masters can see 1 yet the path they teach can't match with 2.

While other masters try to teach 2 but their view cannot doesn't match.

This is most problematic.

—-

Yes what x said is good.

What originates dependently does not originate, abide and cease. Neither internal nor external nor is there a here and now. This must be directly linked to what appears and not as a mental enterprise. 

So in anatta, 

there is no hearer, only sound.

there is no thinker, only thoughts.

Sound is neither internal in our head nor external in the world.

Thought is also not inside our head nor is it outside our head.

The spell from our faulty premise creates that impression,

Freedom of that is liberation.

If she stabilises this experience of essencelessness post anatta, the radiance will turn very soothing, very light and transparent; like space, free and liberating. Appearances turn illusory and magical, joy will keep surfacing in every authentication. Her clogged energy will surely be released.😁

——

Actually after authenticating appearances r radiances, I see the next most important step is to arise insight of DO and emptiness.  It is a sort of special insight that sees the "middle path" and we use this insight to re-orientate our conventional world view and understand  8 extremes do not apply.

——

I shared this with someone recently 

“Even when all is mind is taught, it was not asserted by the Buddha that such a mind is a universal mind or a truly existing mind. Mind is empty of mind, this too was clearly taught by the Buddha. 

Therefore as Mipham wrote and criticised self-styled followers who misinterpreted the Yogacara founder Asangha:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/iyepfk/madhyamaka_cittamātra_and_the_true_intent_of/ (highly recommend to read the whole text in full)

...Why, then, do the Mādhyamika masters refute the Cittamātra tenet system? Because self-styled proponents of the Cittamātra tenets, when speaking of mind-only, say that there are no external objects but that the mind exists substantially—like a rope that is devoid of snakeness, but not devoid of ropeness. Having failed to understand that such statements are asserted from the conventional point of view, they believe the nondual consciousness to be truly existent on the ultimate level. It is this tenet that the Mādhyamikas repudiate. But, they say, we do not refute the thinking of Ārya Asaṅga, who correctly realized the mind-only path taught by the Buddha...

...So, if this so-called “self-illuminating nondual consciousness” asserted by the Cittamātrins is understood to be a consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses, and it is merely that its subject and object are inexpressible, and if such a consciousness is understood to be truly existent and not intrinsically empty, then it is something that has to be refuted. If, on the other hand, that consciousness is understood to be unborn from the very beginning (i.e. empty), to be directly experienced by reflexive awareness, and to be self-illuminating gnosis without subject or object, it is something to be established. Both the Madhyamaka and Mantrayāna have to accept this...

Bodhidharma, the first Zen patriarch of China:

'To find a Buddha all you have to do is see your nature (見性). Your nature is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the person who's free: free of plans, free of cares. If you don't see your nature and run around all day looking somewhere else, you'll never find a buddha. The truth is there's nothing to find.'

(The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, p 13; T48, no. 2009, p. 373c17-20)

'To attain enlightenment (成佛) you have to see your nature (見性). Unless you see your nature, all this talk about cause and effect is nonsense (外道法). Buddhas don't practice nonsense. A Buddha free of karma free of cause and effect. To say he attains anything at all is to slander a Buddha. What could he possibly attain? Even focusing on a mind, a power, an understanding, or a view is impossible for a Buddha. A Buddha isn't one sided. The nature of his mind is basically empty, neither pure nor impure. He's free of practice and realization (無修無證).'

(p 17; p. 374a15-20)

'People who don't see their nature (見性) and imagine they can practice thoughtlessness (無作想) all the time are liars and fools. They fall into endless space. They're like drunks. They can't tell good from evil. If you intend to cultivate such a practice (無作法), you have to see your nature (見性) before you can put an end to rational thought (息緣慮). To attain enlightenment without seeing your nature is impossible.'

(p 19; p. 374a24-27)

'Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware (覺性), miraculously aware (靈覺). Responding, arching your brows blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, its all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the path. And the path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature (見本性) is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it's not Zen.'

(p 29; p. 375a5-9)

'Once mortals see their nature (見本性), all attachments end. Awareness (神識) isn't hidden. But you can only find it right now. It's only now. If you really want to find the Way, don't hold on to anything. Once you put an end to karma and nurture your awareness (神), any attachments that remain will come to an end. Understanding comes naturally. You don't have to make any effort. But fanatics (外道) don't understand what the Buddha meant. And the harder they try, the farther they get from the Sage's meaning. All day long they invoke Buddhas and read sutras. But they remain blind to their own divine nature (神性), and they don't escape the Wheel.

A buddha is an idle person. He doesn't run around after fortune and fame. What good are such things in the end? People who don't see their nature (見性) and think reading sutras, invoking Buddhas', studying long and hard, practicing morning and night, never lying down (長坐不臥), or acquiring knowledge is the Dharma, blaspheme the Dharma. Buddhas of the past and future only talk about seeing your nature (見性). All practices are impermanent. Unless they see their nature (見性) people who claim to have attained unexcelled, complete enlightenment are liars.'

(p 35-37; p. 375b22-c3)

'Basically, seeing, hearing, and knowing (見聞覺知) are completely empty (本自圓寂). Your anger, Joy, or pain is like that of puppet. You can search but you won't find a thing. According to the sutras, evil deeds result in hardships and good deeds result in blessings. Angry people go to hell and happy people go to heaven. But once you know that the nature of anger and joy is empty and you let them go, you free yourself from karma.'

(p 45; p. 376b2-6)

'Someone who seeks the Way doesn't look beyond himself. He knows that the mind is the Way. But when he finds the mind, he finds nothing. And when he finds the Way, he finds nothing. If you think you can use the mind to find the Way, you're deluded. When you're deluded, buddhahood exists. When you're aware, it doesn't exist. This is because awareness is buddhahood.'

(Wake-up Sermon, in The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, p 59; T48, no. 2009, p. 371c10-13)

'To see form but not be corrupted by form or to hear sound but not be corrupted by sound is liberation. Eyes that aren't attached to form are the Gates of Zen. Ears that aren't attached to sound are also the Gates of Zen. In short, those who perceive the existence and nature of phenomena and remain unattached are liberated. Those who perceive the external appearance of phenomena are at their mercy. Not to be subject to affliction is what's meant by liberation. There's no other liberation. When you know how to look at form, form doesn't give rise to mind and mind doesn't give rise to form. Form and mind are both pure.'

(Wake-up Sermon, in The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, p 61; T48, no. 2009, p. 371c17-23)

Some quotes by Acarya Malcolm Smith from Dharmawheel on Conventional vs Ultimate Truth

Malcolm: 

"“Conventional” simply means “functional,” it does not mean arbitrary or subjective. For example, perceiving water as amṛta, pus, boiling metal, etc., is invalid in the human realm.

One can build many kinds of cars, but if they don’t function as cars, they are not cars, conventionally speaking."

"No, conventions are not subjective, they are conventions because one or more people have agreed to call a functional thing a given name. For example, a truck is called a lorry in England, but they both refer to a heavy vehicle that carries loads."

"Conventional truths are derived from observing functional appearances. Falsehoods are derived from observing nonfunctional appearances. Example, lake vs. mirage."

"No, it is not more correct to say consciousness arises or ceases than a labelled self, a since consciousness is also a conventional label, like the label "self." Prior to analysis there is both a self, akuppa, and a consciousness. After analysis one will find neither self nor consciousness, beyond the designations "akuppa" and "consciousness." For example, take a car as a metaphor for "self". A car cannot be found in any part, all of its parts, or separate from its parts. Likewise, as self cannot be found in any aggregates, all of the aggregates, or apart from the aggregates. Likewise, consciousness cannot be found in the sense organ nor the sense object, both, or separate from them. The mind is also made of parts, and cannot be found in one of them, all of them, or separate from them.

Functionally speaking, we can say there is a self, because when I say "akuppa go there!" You will respond to this directive by saying yes or no. This means that "self" is functional. It is efficient. Whatever is functional corresponds with relative truth. If I said to you, "Malcolm go there!" you would respond, "I am not Malcolm." So calling you "malcolm" is not functional and therefore cannot be considered to be relatively true. Consciousness is a relative truth, as long as it performs its functions, then we can say "there is a consciousness." But when we analyze consciousness, we cannot find it outside of the conventions we use for an appearance we label "mind.""

"Two truths are specified, seeing correctly and seeing falsely. That’s enough. No need to have the Buddha declare that aggregates and so on are ultimate, otherwise it would have been game over for Madhyamaka at the beginning."

"Which Sutra view did you have in mind, the one where in PP Sūtra it is stated that all phenomena are nonarising, pure from the beginning, and the state of dharmatā? The dependent origination of phenomena? Emptiness? In what way does Dzogchen refute these views? We do not reject conventional truth in Dzogchen. Longchenpa was utterly clear on this point.

ChNN understood what is stated in the Dzogchen tantras: we do not make a distinction between sharp and dull. If someone is sincerely interested in the teachings, they do not have to convert to Buddhism, but it is not because Buddhism contains any wrong views. It does not. There is no contradiction between Dzogchen and the four truths of nobles. There are serious contradictions however with Samkhya, etc."

"This is not correct. There is such as thing as mundane correct view. A correct view in this case is one that is functional. For example, believing in normative causes and effects. We have to distinguish wrong views about entities from wrong views about essences. Christians have wrong views about both essences and entities, since they believe salvation comes from believing in the divinity of a man executed by Romans somewhere between 30-33 CE.

Buddhists only hold wrong views about essences, i.e. that knowledge obscuration of the innate habit of I-making."

John Tan shared:

"Very good description of selflessness"

 Mr. WA

Top Contributor

That makes sense. I have definitely looked for the seer, thinker, doer, but in experience it is still very fast and very subtle. Very hard to catch, still a very automatic and solidified conditioning, I think. I recognize this is probably the deepest of all conditioning... the core sense of being "separate" from that which is directly perceived. However, there's still a great deal of aversion and craving in the body mind. Much of it is very powerful, very uncomfortable, and very slow to dissolve. My feeling at this stage is that this needs to be worked through before I will have the clarity to start to see the very subtle Anatta pointers. Do you agree?

I have definitely observed that clarity continues to get finer, allowing a deeper investigation, the more conditioning is dissolved. It seems reasonable that at some point it will be possible to finely see and dissolve the seer, thinker, doer.

Definitely hear you on the radiance part, I will continue to inquire. I am at a really strange place with that because of my whole psychedelic awakening thing. I definitely experience presence / awareness as a sort of bubble, but it never took over my identity. I have a hard time with the no-doubt aspect, because skepticism and doubting is a very deep conditioning of mine to begin with. There's more work to do.

20m

Reply

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

Aversion, craving, everything can also be the fuel for insight investigation, the contemplation of the two stanzas, the seal of anatta is always already the case -- a dharma seal, not a state or a stage, so there is no need to wait. But of course you should also balance with some shamatha, some calm abiding practice, anapansati, or something that works for you.

9m

Reply

Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

You can try self enquiry to realize that doubtless certainty of Beingness.. when enquiring, just enquire without expection of doubt/doubtless/future attainment etc, diving straight to the Source, to what Self is.

Doubts cant help happening until the doubtless certainty of Beingness dawn just like cloud covers pass revealing the doubtless clearer than day brillliance of the Sun. At that time even if you want to deny that sun's brilliance that outshines all doubts, all thoughts, and indeed the entire world, you can never do it.

You can't force doubtlessness before that self-realization, and doubts cannot be forced to stay after self-realization, just like darkness cannot be forced to stay when the intense sunshine reveals itself dispelling all darkness, and it's not doubts per se that is the source of the issue, just like darkness was never an issue preventing sunshine from revealing itself.

So just self enquire wholeheartedly and meditate on what the Source/Self is until it reveals itself on its own. Don't worry about doubts/doubtlessness, it will take care of itself.

8m

Reply

Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Author

Admin

“Hi Mr. H,

In addition to what you wrote, I hope to convey another dimension of Presence to you. That is Encountering Presence in its first impression, unadulterated and full blown in stillness.

So after reading it, just feel it with your entire body-mind and forgot about it. Don't let it corrupt your mind.😝

Presence, Awareness, Beingness, Isness are all synonyms. There can be all sorts of definitions but all these are not the path to it. The path to it must be non-conceptual and direct. This is the only way.

When contemplating the koan "before birth who am I", the thinking mind attempts to seek into it's memory bank for similar experiences to get an answer. This is how the thinking mind works - compare, categorize and measure in order to understand.

However, when we encounter such a koan, the mind reaches its limit when it tries to penetrate its own depth with no answer. There will come a time when the mind exhausts itself and come to a complete standstill and from that stillness comes an earthshaking BAM!

I. Just I.

Before birth this I, a thousand years ago this I, a thousand later this I. I AM I.

It is without any arbitrary thoughts, any comparisons. It fully authenticates it's own clarity, it's own existence, ITSELF in clean, pure, direct non-conceptuality. No why, no because.

Just ITSELF in stillness nothing else.

Intuit the vipassana and the samantha. Intuit the total exertion and realization. The essence of message must be raw and uncontaminated by words.

Hope that helps!” - John Tan, 2019

8m

Reply

ChatGPT: Imagine an image that captures the essence of Nagarjuna's philosophy from the Mulamadhyamikakarika, focusing on the concepts of dependent origination, emptiness, and the freedom from the extremes of existence and non-existence. This image could feature a serene, vast landscape under a twilight sky, symbolizing the transition from dualities into the unity of understanding. In the center, a single, leafless tree stands, representing emptiness and the interconnectedness of all things through its roots and branches, illustrating the principle of dependent origination. The tree is neither fully lit nor completely in shadow, embodying the middle way and the avoidance of extremes. This tranquil scene captures the profound simplicity and depth of Nagarjuna's teachings, emphasizing the peace found in understanding the nature of reality beyond dichotomies.

Here's a simpler image that embodies Nagarjuna's teachings on dependent origination, emptiness, and the middle way, capturing the essence of finding peace beyond the extremes of existence and non-existence.

Recently John Tan asked me to recall when did I realise that 'self' is a learnt and reified concept. Wanted to mention that this is an important point and even in initial anatta breakthrough it is usually unclear at first. It comes as a deepening of insight.

Soh:

At the I AM level, the personal ego is [seen to be] “learnt” and dropped.. but all self/Self is only seen through and dropped at anatta

John Tan:

I don't think this is true. Think deeper, recall.

U must understand that u can enquiry "who am I" and search for "I", u can have experience of "I M" or even experience no-mind, or even realized that "I" does not exist, but still not realized that "I" is a reified concept.

Soh:

Hmm.. “I” as reified concept probably becomes clearer as i contemplated more on emptiness. But even in the initial bahiya sutta realization, there was a recognition that the sense of a seer or a seeing or awareness behind or beside manifestation is a reified concept that is wrong

That it is imagined and abstracted out of manifestation due to false view and then anatta is immediately authenticated as luminous manifestation and realised as always already so. Seeing is only ever the seen and no other seer beside, in the seen only the seen. Like putting on glasses and vision is corrected finally

....

(later)

I just recalled i had a deeper understanding about nine months after anatta

Then i wrote:

The View

Just posted in The Tao Bums a week ago:

I have just come to a new realisation of the implications of views in daily life. I could have misunderstood what goldisheavy meant but I think it has to do with the fields of meaning. I have realised how ideas, beliefs, notions, views pervade our life and causes attachment.

I now see that every single attachment is an attachment to view, which, no matter what it is, comes to two basic clinging: the view 'there is' and the view 'there isn't'.

I started by noticing how in the past I had a sense of self, body and awareness... That these all seem so real to me and I kept coming back to that subjective sense and this is no longer the case now: I don't even have a sense of a body nowadays. Then I realized that all these clingings are related to view.

The view of There is.... Self, body, mind, awareness, world, whatever. Because of this clinging on to things as existent, they appear real to us and we cling to them. The only way to eradicate such clingings is to remove the root of clinging: the view of 'there is' and 'there isn't'.

The realization of anatta removes the view of 'there is self', 'there is awareness' as an independent and permanent essence. Basically, any views about a subjective self is removed through the insight that "seeing is just the seen", the subject is always only its objective constituents. There is no more sense of self, body, awareness, or more precisely there is no clinging to a "there is" with regards to such labels. It is seen that these are entirely ungraspable processes. In short the clinging and constant referencing to an awareness, a self dissolves, due to the notion "there is" such things are being eradicated.

The realization of dream-like reality removes the view of 'there are objects', the universe, the world of things... One realizes what heart sutra meant by no five skandhas. This is basically the same realization as anatta, except that it impacts the view "there is" and "there isn't" in terms of the objective pole, in contrast to the earlier insight that dissolves "there is" of a subjective self.

What I have overlooked all these while is the implications of views and how the thicket of views cause all clingings and suffering and what underpins those thicket of views, and how realization affects and dissolves these views.

----------

Related stuff:

A view is a fundamental belief one holds about reality. For example, "everything exists" (sarva asti)

....

The root of both these mistaken positions is "is" and "is not" -- for example "I exist now, and I will continue to exist after death" or "I exist now but when I die I will cease to exist".

~ Loppon Namdrol (Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith)

At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive reification of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

...

"In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."

~ Loppon Namdrol (Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith)

Another related article from an Actualist practitioner: http://nickdowntherabbithole.blogspot.com/.../conversatio...

Labels: Anatta, Emptiness, View and Path |

- https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/07/the-view.html

John Tan:

So u must understand the difference.

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

The View

Hello! Welcome to the Awakening to Reality blog. For all new to Awakening to Reality blog, I highly recommend reading the 'Must Read...

All reactions:

2Vũ Huy Lê and Cao Khánh

1 comment

Like

Comment

Send

Cao Khánh

Top Contributor

Thank you for sharing. It’s inspiring to me that you continue to learn from John’s pointer throughout all these years and continue to do so earnestly.

• 40m
• Like
• Reply