Shared by André A. Pais

T h e M e t a c h r o n a l U n i v e r s e
Waves in the ocean don't move or travel in the ocean; instead, the ocean itself ondulates,
giving the sense that a wave is cruising it. However, the water is not traveling anywhere; the
water composing a wave is new at every millimeter traversed. So there is no water moving, just the illusory appearance of movement. It is much like the audience-wave (sometimes referred
to as “Mexican wave”) we see in sport events. There is no wave running around the stadium,
only people moving up and down while remaining in the same seat. Likewise, in the ocean the
water moves up and down in a way that creates the appearance of a moving wave when, in
fact, the water remains in the same place.
In a dream, we may imagine a car traveling down a road. However, such car doesn't remain
unitary, consistent or simply “the same” while driving down the dream road; there is no actual
car sliding or moving in the mind's surface. What happens is that the dreaming mind reshapes
itself as to give rise to the appearance of a moving car, despite the fact that no car, or mind, is
going anywhere – like the audience-wave.
In “real” life, in the waking state, the same happens. Objects don’t travel in space, like space
was made of some substance different from that of the objects appearing in it. Space itself
acquires or manifests the properties of the objects “moving” in it. So, there are no objects
moving in space, but only space arising or manifesting as the objects that apparently move in
it. But there are no objects in space, only the space itself – which is then merely another name
for existence.
Space itself is just another phenomenon, like any other, despite being quite subtle. However, it
too must be a functional thing – it cannot be either non-existent, or dysfunctional. So, to be
existent and functional, space must share the nature of all other phenomena, namely
emptiness, consciousness and information.
A car, when moving, does not retain its characteristics while traversing space. In fact, it is the
car’s characteristics that are transferred through space, much like sound waves travel in the air
before hitting our ear drums. For instance, when we walk through a room, we feel that our
constituents move from one place to the other, like the same entity or structure was moved
from one place to another. However, such entity or structure does not move at all. It is merely the information of said object that is transferred through space, recreating its shape and
function at each point of space and time.
We can also picture a tornado. There is nothing substantial moving as the tornado – there is
only wind. In addition, we could even say that the air itself is not moving – like the water in the
waving ocean. What is being transferred from one place to another is the information or
energy of the tornado, that, as it moves, excites the particles of air at every new location,
making it seem that the tornado, as a whole, has moved there.
It was said that an object does not move across the room, nor its constituents, but only its
information. In a way, this is merely a play with words, since there is no entity that possesses its
information. The information is the entity. What this metachronal view is highlighting is the
utter absence of a coherent, intrinsically existing whole, replacing it with the existence of a
merely conventional and functional agglomeration of interdependent data.
As I move across the street, “I” am not the same entity that started walking moments ago. What
happens is that “my” data, throughout the traversed space, keeps its informational consistency,
giving rise to the same appearance as before. Appearances – objects, people, thoughts,
emotions, cities, galaxies, etc. – are nothing other than coherently traveling information,
streams of data that act consistently according to their programming. The universe is only
cause-and-effectarising as informational patterns.
The sense of self is nothing other than an attempt at solidifying and personalizing what is just a
stream of impersonal information interacting in a universe of purely empty, conscious and
responsive data.
Why can’t objects merely move in space, like we are usually accustomed to believe? That
would imply that space itself was not an informational entity, since it would remain oblivious
to the passage of objects through it, assuming that space existed in a somewhat parallel reality, indifferent to its objects. However, everything that exists must be an informational, conscious
phenomenon – and that must include even space. Space is nothing but a very subtle type of
existent – one of the finer types of conscious phenomena.
Previously, in the section about Staticity11, an example was given about a particle floating in
the far reaches of space, as a possible instance of independent existence. In such an isolated
scenario, it was, however, said that even such a particle must constantly communicate with the
embracing space as to be able of functioning with it – which in this case is mere floating. What
is being affirmed now is that such communication implies the interpenetration of both
phenomena – space and particle, in this instance. Therefore, any objective and truly
established distinction between such interacting phenomena – or any other – is always a
merely conventional measurement, not any ultimate or essentially existing difference.
Ultimately, space is indistinguishable from the particle and vice-versa. Any truly dividing line,
in order to separate two existents, would have to be made of non-existence. Said hypothesis is,
however, untenable.
Space and phenomena are ultimately indistinguishable, which means that there is no space
and phenomena, but only either space or phenomena. So, there are no phenomena travelling
in space. We can either posit it as space reshaping itself as phenomena; or phenomena
interpenetrating each other – space being nothing but a label attributed to the natural
movement of transient existence.
The gist of this view is that there are no discrete and separate entities or objects moving
around, but merely a web of interpenetrating streams of information, data or consciousness,
creating the appearance of moving entities, objects and overall activity – a luminous display of
holographic and empty existence. This applies to very simple actions, like merely raising a
hand or the blinking of an eye.

Many years ago I wrote to Tony Parsons (the Neo Advaita teacher) as I was curious about what his view on Awareness was. It became clear that he is clearly speaking from the insight of “no mirror reflecting”. On this point I think he is clearer than many teachers, be it non-Buddhist or Buddhist ones, that speak of a changeless awareness underlying or being inseparable from manifestations.  Was reminded of him after a discussiong with Thusness as Tony too wrote “All appearance is source.”

His email to me:

Dear Wei Yu

Thank you for your interesting email and I feel it is better if we speak together.

Please therefore give me a phone number and a good time to call you.

In the meantime, since we are using words to point to the unknowable, perhaps we need to be clear about what some words and ideas mean to us.

From this "perspective" consciousness is a function of knowing or awareness which only arises in the deluded story of me and has no meaning or relevance.

Therefore all of the Norquist ideas about consciousness are still dualistic . . . there is no before, in or after manifestation, nor is there a "feeling of existence", nor does manifestation arise from consciousness, live and then return.

What is your meaning for substratum? What is your vivid reflection? How can there be what you call "non-dual awareness".

For here there is no union, container, or mirror.

best wishes

(r) "Because (followers of anuyoga) do not understand that the phenomena of the universe, however they appear, are the Source, just-that-ness, they see space and wisdom (respectively as) cause and effect. Because they affirm the cause and deny the effect, (they have) obstacles until (they develop) confidence in (dzogchen) that transcends both affirmation and negation."

"Followers of anuyoga do not understand that all phenomena of the universe, however they appear, are the state of Pure Perfect Presence, the Source, just-that-ness. They see a duality of cause and effect, in which the two aspects -- the emptiness of space and the luminosity of wisdom -- are, respectively, earlier cause and later effect. They affirm the production of the effect from the cause, but deny the dependence of the cause upon the effect. They do not understand that all phenomena are the essence of self-originated wisdom, which primordially transcends arising, ceasing, accepting, and rejecting based upon cause and effect. Thus they have the obstacle of not understanding the authentic state, the real condition, until they correctly acquire confidence in the fundamental principle of ati dzogchen that transcends both affirmation and negation."

- Ornament of the State of Samantabhadra: Commentary on the All-Creating King, Pure Perfect Presence, Great Perfection of All Phenomena

(The text is translated by Jim Valby, chapter 1-10, second edition:


A discussion based on the above sharing:

RC: There is no where to go and no experience that requires correcting.

I don't follow the distinction that is being made in the sentence "they affirm the production of the effect from the cause but deny the dependence of the cause on the effect"

Soh Wei Yu (Me): If you have some notion that there is a space behind phenomena out of which phenomena is later created, that is dualism. All phenomena are one's own state, one's own essence, nature and energy.

The notion of true origination is erroneous. For example, there is no such thing as sunlight truly created by the sun as the sun is designated in dependence on sunlight, it's not that sun precedes sunlight. Sun has no sun-essence apart from shining and shining has no essence of its own apart from sun. Father is also designated in dependence on the son, the cause does not truly precede its effects. If you think the father could exist without the son, then you are affirming the producer of the effect independently of the effect. In truth, the son, the love for the son 'actualizes' the father. Both are merely designated in dependence without any independent reality. In truth, sunlight/manifestation is non-originated, non-arising. There is no that which produces and that which is produced when both are merely/dependently designated.

Stian: Nice pointing, thanks. I got a sense of it.

RC: Richard Cooper So we are saying that concepts rely on one another to create the perception of a universe/the world we experience.
That there is perception going on seems to be a bit of a sticking point for me. The emptiness of "external" phenomena seems a lot more obvious.

Soh Wei Yu (Me): Yes, the concepts of inherently existing entities/realities, cause and effect (one that could precede another), and so forth.

Perception already has loaded connotations with it, as it implies a perceiver and a perceiving. Same in fact for the term "awareness" if understood incorrectly. But these terms are not an issue as long as you understand that perception has no self-existence apart from perceiving/perceiver and perceiver/perceiving has no self-existence apart from perception, they are all merely designated in dependence but does not refer to some independent or inherently existing reality.

As for the non-referential "basis" or "ground" which you may call "perception", perhaps a better word would be "presence" or better yet "presencing". Whatever is vividly appearing is simply "presencing". "all phenomena of the universe, however they appear, are the state of Pure Perfect Presence"

There is no denial of that direct experience of Presence. It's just whether it's understood properly

If we talk about pure perfect presence as the source, it's very easy to fall into an ontological notion of creator-creation dualism. And this is the reason for the clarification above regarding cause and effect.

RC: I don't think it is basis/ground I am speaking about it is the illusion of perception and perceiver. I see it/it falls sometimes when I do chi gung/tai chi. But generally it stands and any attempt to investigate seems to involve perception/perceiver ( the very thing I am trying to investigate)

Stian: What about this, RC:

Things arise dependent on conditions, and they remain dependent on their conditions. When things are cut off from their conditions, that is called cessation.

The thing to notice here is that since it is like this, arising can’t be a matter of first being given rise to and then being cut off from conditions and from then on abiding cut off from its conditions (i.e. ex-isting).

Hence we don’t get free-standing things (free from its conditions) having arisen and now abiding cut off from their conditions for arising.

We can’t cut off the sun from the means by which we know it (for example its rays), and then conceive of the sun standing apart from our means to know it (rays, warmth, etc.). If we did, that would be tantamount to the cessation of the sun, since it would have been cut off from its conditions. Hence, the sun giving rise to its rays, like cause and effect, would be tantamount to the cessation of the sun!

Soh Wei Yu (Me): "the illusion of perception and perceiver. I see it/it falls sometimes when I do chi gung/tai chi."

Bahiya Sutta worked for me, also the two stanzas of anatta may be helpful.


RC: Stian. It isn't clear to me whether you are speaking about externally existing objects or our experience.

Stian: Soh wrote this:

> For example, there is no such thing as sunlight truly created by the sun as the sun is designated in dependence on sunlight, it's not that sun precedes sunlight.
> Father is also designated in dependence on the son, the cause does not truly precede its effects.

This whole “this does not precede that”-business applies to “externally existing objects” and “our experience”. We can boil down this “externally existing objects vs. our experience” into a consideration of each in turn being the cause and the effect.

So first we take externally existing objects and we ask if that is the cause and that our experience is the effect.

Try to consider this by reading the analogies that Soh mentioned of the sun/rays and father/son and reading my comment again.

Then we take our experience and we ask if that is the cause and that externally existing objects is the effect. Same procedure.

If you do this, what do you make of it?

Yacine: You guys mighy enjoy chapter IV A)e) page 38 of APM by Gendlin:

John Tan: A very interesting book, Yacine.

SGH: Written by a very interesting person! 

John Tan: Yes. I bought the book. Well written and very insightful.

Jared K Jones‎ shared in Dharma Connection:

Photo: Guru Rinpoche's palm print in solid rock, a demonstration for a private group of students that phenomena are empty of inherent existence and do not exist separate from mind.

There are only two branches to the teachings: emptiness and method. The Buddha taught all other teachings - all methods - in order to illuminate or to point-out the emptiness of all phenomena.

Emptiness is the prajna, the wisdom, the special insight, and the valid perception which eliminates the root of suffering, which is ignorance. Everything else within Buddhist philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, cosmology, and psychology flows out of the question: "Empty of what?"

Emptiness is revealed or recognized using a number of philosophical systems and types of analysis. This seems to be where many people's confusion arises. Within Buddhism, there are - at least - four major philosophical positions with different ideas on both the conventional and ultimate nature of reality. Within those four we find, maybe 20-30 interpretations and hundreds of methods of practice.

In other words, there is no final agreement between all Buddhists on what the Buddha meant when he said, "It's empty." This - in part - is due to the fact that (arguably) the Buddha meant different things on different occasions when speaking about emptiness. That being said, scholars and cave-dwelling yogis from the last 2,500 years of Buddhist thought have mostly identified with and fallen into these four major schools of thought with regards to emptiness:

1. Sautrantika. Conventional means things arise, exist, and cease based upon a huge set of causes and conditions. Things are composed of various parts, upon which basis they arise and exist. The "ultimate" means there is no static self to the person and sometimes also, no static self to material phenomena.

Phenomena are self-arising and have self established characteristics - including impermanence - but there is no static, unchanging self to the person. This includes most of the "Orthodox" modern Theravada schools, but the modern Theravada is a very diverse tradition.

2. Chittamatra or Yogacara. This school literally translates as "mind-only" and includes most Zen, Chan, and Seon Buddhist schools. It also includes a number of Tibetan Buddhist lineages. The conventional level is one composed of the appearances mind itself creates, and ultimate level is the mind-appearance inseparability.

The appearances are mind. The mind is also the mind, so reality is mind-only. The conventional reality exists as a "non-dual" or a "not-two" appearance of mind itself. The mind is real and self-established, but there is no "self-established person" who is unchanging. There is only the "non-dual all-there-is." This view places "awareness, mind, consciousness, or knowingness" at the center of training.

3. Madhyamika-Svatantrika. In this school, the Ultimate means a lack of “true existence” beyond mental designation. Things do posses properties, characteristics, distinctive features, and so on, but have no essence or identity which makes them what they are. Phenomena exist as mere valid mental construction, imputed upon self-existent or self-arising characteristics.

4. Madhyamika-Prasangika. The conventional is mere designation by mind onto a valid basis of designation. The ultimate is full emptiness (a full lack of characterization) of all phenomena. All phenomena lack relationships, identity, structure, characteristics, properties, and an essence.

When the mind draws boundary conditions such as "this and that have a relationship" on a valid basis of designation, then it exists and functions as such. But, from the side of undesignated or unconstructed ultimate reality, it is utterly devoid of self-borne identities, characteristics, relationships, and so on.

Nagarjuna, "I pay homage to dependent origination which is not ceasing, not arising, not impermanent, not permanent, not coming, not going, not identical, and not different, free from [mental] fabrication, and peaceful." The ultimate level is utterly free from existence, non-existence, both, or neither, which are all merely validly and invalidly socially constructed designations.

In Tantra, Dzogchen, and Mahamudra, they then point out that the awareness or knowingness aspect of experience is inseparable from the emptiness aspect in the ground condition: clear light, rigpa, or bliss-emptiness. But these terms are attempting to point-out a state without any boundary conditions, reference-points, parts, and so on.

There is no agent, no action, and no object acted upon. There is no subject, no object, and no inseparability or non-duality of the two. There is also no utter non-existence, nihilism, or nothingness.

This all perhaps brings up the question: "What is dependent origination? Doesn't it mean parts-whole or cause-effect? What is this dependent designation?" Dependent designation finds its bones in Sutra, it's organs in Nagarjuna, it's nerves and blood vessels in Dignaga, Dharmakirti, and Chandrakiriti, and it's skin and clothing in the writings of Tibetan yogis like Tsongkhapa and Ju Mipham. It means: "application of a term, name, symbol, sign, or denotation to a valid basis of designation."

This process of mental designation onto a valid basis is, from the Prasangika perspective, the only way in which phenomena exist. Emptiness in Prasangika does not mean “arises from causes” and does not mean “has parts.” Those two definitions of “dependent arising” do not pervade all phenomena. Only “merely designated” pervades all phenomena.

The parts and whole are merely designated. The cause and effect are merely designated. The subject and object are merely designated. Mind is merely designated. Space is merely designated. Time and impermanence are merely designed. Atemporality and permanence are merely designated. Emptiness is merely designated.

The confusion arises here because the first two types of analysis (parts-whole and cause-effect) are used as a skillful means to help move someone out of seeing things as inherent: “It has causes, so it is not self-established.” Or “It has parts, so it is not self established.” But in the end, you are still clinging to real parts or a real nexus of causes in Sautrantika.

If you are still clinging to real “parts out there” and a real “causal web that brings things into existence.” You are not perfectly free of mental fabrication. As Dogen says, “causes do not happen before effects, effects do not happen after causes.” When the effect is designated, the causal nexus occurs simultaneously as merely designated. The "causal nexus" is merely a valid and functional mental construct, which has no objective existence.

Similarly, when the whole is designated, the parts occur simultaneously as merely designated. When an object is designated, then the subject occurs simultaneously. If you are clinging to a real “mind-only” which exists in and of itself through a quality of giving rise to and knowing phenomena, then you are clinging to mind, in Chittamatra.

When anything is existing or not existing, it is only on the basis of mere designation onto a valid basis of designation. Therefore, phenomena do not objectively, intrinsically, or inherently exists, not exist, both exist and not exist, or neither exist and not-exist. There are no self-borne characteristics like in Bhavaviveka’s Svatantrika.

Things are not one, not many, not both, and not neither. That is the meaning of Prasangika emptiness: uncharacterized, referenceless, and without fabrication.

The "valid basis of designation" is a long discussion, but it has no self borne structure, characteristic marks, identity, causal web, etc. According to Dignaga and Dharmakirti it is the ineffable, undifferentiated ground that is designated. Because of this, form is emptiness. Emptiness is form. There is no distinction.

What appears already lacks inherent identity. If it occurs, then it's a mental designation. If it doesn't occur, then it's a mental designation. It was always empty. Therefore, the gate is gateless. There is no attainment and no non-attainment. There is no "person" to "gain realization," about how things already are. The ground condition is without reference points of existence and non-existence: that is your "buddha-nature" and "your face before you were born."

For example, there arises an ineffable, unconstructed ground condition, which can be divided into subject-object, and then the objective aspect can be further divided into a house, a kitchen, a body, and coffee cup. When the cup is there, the nexus of causes that brought the cup into being is also there. But both are only social agreement, confirmed through my ability to use the object within the social parameters associated with the term “cup.”

(sips coffee)

But when investigated, no aspect of the occurrence from top-to-bottom, left-to-right, front-to-back, inside-to-outside, and mind-to-matter can be found existing beyond a mere mental label. The rest of the Buddhist path - all methods - flow from this understanding.


Me: Focus on the insight of anatta in the two stanzas*. The rest will follow. The pce (pure consciousness experience) is an effortless everyday experience for me. Even now sitting at a food court waiting for food everything is experienced as vivid luminous aliveness - sights-sounds-smells, without self/Self.

Even after a tiring day at work, the gapless vivid luminosity simply does not “turn off”. It is not the result of effort but a natural ongoing actualising of insight.

By over-emphasising on the experience, the AF fail to bring out the key that makes PCE effortless.

J: Effortlessness is a key element in my practice. Thank you for confirming.

Me: It’s really about letting insight sink in. When the insight sinks in you cannot “turn it off” even if you want to. Until then, effort cannot help but arise. Contemplating to let insight arise is important.

There has to be realization that the stuff of transience is the very radiance of Awareness and the very radiance of Awareness is none other than the stuff of transience.

(There are some good articles in the AFT website, but it's not necessary to become a hardcore follower of their doctrines or dogmas)

* two stanzas of anatta:

Based on something I wrote to someone:

Whatever you call or vividly feel to be Awareness has always been based on a cognized manifestation of clarity. And not some changeless ontological background. Or rather Awareness is always experienced, what is unexperiencable or thought to be an unseen source of experience is really a fabrication of inherent existence out of luminous experience. See for yourself if this is true.

When we say "weather" is a label or imputation based on the everchanging clouds rolling by, wind blowing, rain falling and so forth, we are not really saying "weather" is a concept therefore go beyond concepts and realize reality as it is. That's not my point. The point is really that what we think or feel to be weather is really just something imputed based on the dynamic unfolding that I mentioned. That there never was a 'weather' that could exist in and of itself, apart from that basis -- it cannot be found to be an entity in itself apart from, nor within, that basis, but is designated in dependence on it.

So when we say 'merely labelled' we are not just saying 'go beyond the labels or concepts of awareness, weather, self and things' but rather it's that very real and vivid sense of what we call Awareness (although when uninvestigated is felt to be a changeless ontological source or background of phenomena) is really only based on the dynamic unfolding 'presencing' - manifesting experience, seen, sensed, touched, smelled, tasted, cognized, in whatever form manifestation takes place, even if it is 'formless presence' it is simply formless presence as cognized. And what feels to be one's very real 'cognizer' is really also just another imputation out of or depending on a cognized moment of 'presence-awareness' which when the quality of 'luminous clarity' is abstracted out of that luminous moment of manifestation turns into a sense of a cognizer.

We should understand dependent designation this way. What we feel to be very real, intimate, 'self' is dependently designated as such. Not saying that 'self' is a mere thought or label and therefore unimportant, go beyond thought... Not saying that 'seeing' is a mere label or 'hearing' is a mere label therefore go beyond that but that 'seeing' is really 'merely' designated (or felt to be a reality as such) based on vivid colours as its basis. When investigated, it cannot be found to exist inherently, either apart from them nor within them. The sense of self is really 'imputed' based on the aggregates just like 'weather' is imputed on.... and as such, no self-existing agent, entity, or weather could exist or perceive or act upon its own aggregates or experiences as it simply has no self-existence nor the capacity of agency.


Later, writing to Din Robinson who wrote

"resting as pure awareness is the final lie
there's no one that needs to do anything"

I wrote:

I agree that resting in pure awareness is a lie.

Not because there is no one that needs to do anything but because “Awareness” is merely designated/imputed on manifest self-luminous experience which is always manifesting afresh and spontaneously without a background self/Self to rest back in.

And then a moment of self luminous experience is captured and fabricated into a background.

Then comes the effort to rest or sink back into what one feels “Awareness” to be.

Not realising Awareness has no intrinsic existence or identity than whatever is manifesting.

Knowingness is always seen, smelt, heard, sensed, cognized. What is thought to be an unseen unexperiencable source or background of experience is simply a fabricated/abstracted/extracted image of inherent existence out of, or based on, a self luminous experience. There never was a background whatsoever.

Even a pure sense of formless Beingness is simply what’s experienced or cognized in that moment of direct taste or experience as a foreground nondual experience. And no more special or ultimate than any other self luminous experience or forms, always a taste of nondual foreground presence, as sound, sights, smells... in all its vivid aliveness.

Awareness is always based on an experience just like “weather” is imputed as such based on manifest conditions like wind blowing cloud forming rain falling and so forth. There is no weather apart or within them but merely designated in dependence on a valid basis of designation. Just like awareness.

Awareness has no one true face of its own but countless faces. Grasping at a one true face of Awareness to “rest in” is simply grasping at a dead and fabricated image of a prior experience of presence captured by the mind and fabricated into some changeless independently existing background.

When that delusion of “awareness as background or inherently existing” is seen through by realising in seeing always just scenery without seer, then naturally one is Always touching, seeing, hearing, Presence-Awareness as forms. A dynamic actualization of spontaneous action, manifestation, rather than a resting state.
In a previous post:

Conrad Goehausen: Yes, calm awareness, which is not a technique, but an aspect of our original nature.

Soh Wei Yu: Conrad Goehausen I think you have mistaken a formless awareness as a background reality as your true nature. That is dualistic. Have you realized your true nature as green grass without background?

Conrad Goehausen: Soh Wei Yu No, formless awareness is simply one aspect of our true nature. We are both formless and with form, and both, and neither.


My response:

From your post I gather you had non-dual experience. But the "I AM both formless and with form" -- the identification of I AM is the problem of all problems.

Just now I meditated. Thoughts subside, only leaving calm awareness, beingness, presence, bliss. But if I identify this as what I truly am -- the pure formless presence, changeless, inherently existing, then when forms and sounds arises, there is grasping at a dead image of what "awareness" is -- formless, calm, unaffected, behind all the noise.

In the realization of anatta, one realizes that "Presence" never existed in such a way - as an inherently existing, changeless Self, independent of all conditions, separate, or acting with agency. (A hearer is hearing a sound, or a seer is seeing a scenery) Instead, in hearing, there is always only sound, never a hearer, and sound arises as pure presence. There is no 'presence' in and of itself, no background, only foreground manifestation. In seeing, there is always only scenery, no seer. In meditation with eyes closed and senses shut, Presence manifests as formless presence-bliss. But that too is what is 'manifesting' at that moment. By grasping at it and imputing inherent existing, we grasp at a dead image and do not taste Presence as the manifold. Instead we are subtly referencing back to a background, which is effortful. In truth the 'background' does not exist, there is ever always foreground Presence, knowingness is always cognized and formation, even in formless presence. Imputing an unseen, unheard, uncognized are simply mind projections or imputations of intrinsic existence.

For example, after my meditation that I described earlier, where all that is left is calm awareness, my iPhone timer starts ringing. If I identify as formless awareness, then there is a distancing from the sound of ringing, there is no actualization of ringing as pure presence. Presence has no existence in and of itself apart from what is manifesting at that moment. When iPhone rings, consciousness is none other than that ringing.

You may then think "ok, so consciousness is a mirror, whatever comes it reflects, calm state comes it reflects calm state, no senses it reflects blank, iPhone ringing it reflects iPhone."

But that too is an illusion. Consciousness does not 'reflect' phenomena, it is phenomena, which manifests in dependence on conditions. Consciousness by nature manifests in dependence on conditions, not as a reflector, but as manifestation itself.

Anatta insight is direct insight into how Awareness is completely empty of its own intrinsic existence like there is no “weather” becoming or modulating into rain or wind. Weather doesn’t exist other than a conventional label based on those activities, as the basis of designation.

Therefore in the act of meditation itself, we are simply actualizing AS the particular experience we call 'sitting'. We are thus solely sitting. In sitting only sitting, not a 'me' sitting. Or rather, in sitting, universe is sitting, the activity of sitting is the actualization of the universe. When iPhone rings, just that ringing is the actualization of practice-enlightenment. When we open eyes, just the forms appearing is the dynamic ongoing actualization of practice-enlightenment, or buddha-nature.

We are not sitting to get to a state of experience, or get back to or sink back to a dead image of what we feel 'Presence' is, but simply actualizing any and all particular manifestations of that moment.
Labels: 0 comments | | edit post