Samsara and freedom from samsara is defined differently in different traditions.

In the Direct Path, it is said that even the Witness stage is liberation from samsara. In Buddhadharma's point of view, this is just another subtler version of samsara, as all identities whatsoever are completely relinquished at the time of liberation. Bahiya Sutta defines liberation. Also in another sutta, the Buddha acknowledged that other religious traditions claim to reach liberation, and yet is different from his version of liberation due to his unique rejection of the doctrine of self. In his very own words in that sutta, he said, 'The doctrines of others are devoid [64] of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar your lion's roar.' - https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html

In the Direct Path, after the collapse of Witness, there is nondual awareness, and yet this nondual awareness still has a reification of awareness as a oneness. This is still a subtle reification and thus precluded from the Buddhadharma's definition of liberation from samsara. If there is still any sense at all of being an ultimate Self, or being an ultimate reality that is unchanging, substantial, inherent, and so forth, that is not what Buddhadharma defines as liberation but simply another form of subtle (formless) state and reification. Buddhadharma's liberation cannot be attained as long as there is still the sense of being "an inherently existing, unchanging awareness as ground" or any notion of "atman-brahman" as ultimate reality.

And then Direct Path goes one step further to dissolve the notion of "awareness". This is starting to get closer to Buddhism but I'm not sure how far it goes.

Greg Goode wrote before, "It looks your Bahiya Sutta experience helped you see awareness in a different way, more .... empty. You had a background in a view that saw awareness as more inherent or essential or substantive?

I had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's treatise about the "prior entity," and I had been meditating on "emptiness is form" intensely for a year. These two threads came together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the "ten-thousand things" in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic, playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back. No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy everywhere..."

It will be interesting if the Direct Path leads to a similar insight. I just haven't seen followers of Advaita describe similar realizations, but if there is I'll be happy to read up more.

I have studied the doctrines of all major religions. I've read many of the Upanishads and I haven't found verses that describes something close to the Buddhadharma's version of liberation. I've also read the bible (I actually think Jesus's teachings are pretty close to Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism in some sense, based on the four gospels and especially if you take the gnostic gospel of thomas into consideration too), the quran, tao te ching, and so forth. I appreciate all of them. But I do not see them as leading towards the same goal.

In terms of non-Buddhists, there are a couple of non-Buddhists that are pretty close (yet not entirely similar) to the Buddhadharma's version of 'anatta insight'. Examples include: U.G. Krishnamurti, J. Krishnamurti, Actual Freedom, and so forth. Interestingly, all these guys rejected and refuted the "Atman-Brahman" concept. Their experiential insight is pretty close to what I call anatta. Particularly, Actual Freedom is also very clear in distinguishing itself from the True Self or One Mind realization as Richard has gone through these distinct phases. But even his teachings are quite problematic from the viewpoint of the Buddhadharma in various ways. But I think as far as experiential insight goes he comes closest to my insight of anatta, yet, I do not consider even his experience to be liberation. Also, the view of emptiness and dependent origination is lacking in these teachings. But if I have to approximate where I am in the framework of actual freedom teachings, I would say what I have attained holds similarities to 'actual freedom', and if I were to approximate where I am in the Advaita framework, I would say what I experience holds similarities with 'sahaja samadhi' as the experience of reality here is constant in life without needing to enter a special state of absorption or trance through meditation, yet it cannot really be equated that way.

...


Also it should be noted that 'anatta' and 'emptiness teachings' do not reject or negate Awareness but clarifies its nature.

As Thusness puts it to me years back,

6/3/2012 9:27 PM: John: I do not see practice apart from realizing the essence and nature of awareness
6/3/2012 9:30 PM: John: The only difference is seeing Awareness as an ultimate essence or realizing awareness as this Seamless activity that fills the entire Universe.
6/3/2012 9:32 PM: John: When we say there is no scent of a flower, the scent is the flower....that is becoz the mind, body, universe are all together deconstructed into this single flow, this scent and only this... Nothing else.
6/3/2012 9:33 PM: John: That is the Mind that is no mind.
6/3/2012 9:38 PM: John: There is no an Ultimate Mind that transcends anything in the Buddhist enlightenment. The mind Is this very manifestation of total exertion...wholly thus.
6/3/2012 9:42 PM: John: Therefore there is always no mind, always only this vibration of moving train, this cooling air of the aircon, this breath...
6/3/2012 9:43 PM: Soh Wei Yu: oic..
6/3/2012 9:47 PM: John: The question is after the 7 phases of insights can this be realized and experience and becomes the ongoing activity of practice in enlightenment and enlightenment in practice -- practice-enlightenment.

...

"Every religion is talking abt consciousness. It is nature of consciousness that is important. It is like talking about "Soh" from different ppl. Of course all is pointing to "Soh" but when someone say he is an American, has 10 sisters and is now studying in India...we cannot say that he is correct and it is the same because ultimately we r talking about "Soh"."


...

I apologize if the way I wrote sound offensive to others. I'm sure there will be people who disagree with the Buddhadharma's views of things or my view of things, that's ok. There's always plenty of different views. We can simply agree to disagree.

...

I often distinguish dissolving subject/object division from dissolving the notion of inherency. For example I have gone through a phase where after realising Witness, the Witness collapse into one mind, a single field of awareness where manifestation is undivided from awareness. Only one awareness exists just as all shapes of necklaces are merely superimpositions on one gold. This roughly corresponds to the nondual awareness after collapse of witness in DP. Yet, this Awareness is still seen and felt as inherently existing — have its own substance, ultimate, unchanging, inherently existing. This is despite dissolving the sense of subject/object division.

If that sense of one awareness (inherent) too gets dissolved (which DP purports to), that is getting similar to what I call anatta. As for my anatta insight, it is how Greg describes it above, a dissolving of even the advaitic oneness into the intimacy and directness and clarity of the 10,000 things with no background. In my case it is directly seeing how there can be no seer or seeing besides colors and no hearer or hearing besides sounds (whereas DP collapses these to Awareness, now it’s also collapsing Awareness into the 10,000 things). But its not so much of collapsing but seeing through the structure. Here, Awareness/Presence is no longer seen to exist by its own side, only the thousand faces of Presence. Then comes dependent origination and emptiness in my later progression.


...

Geovani Geo what you describe seems similar to my “one mind” phase as I just described above. I no longer perceive Essence or (inherent) existence. No non temporal existence (Brahman) Nor even temporal existences. There is not even temporal existence because the illusory presencing appearance does not amount to something arising for even a flickering instant just like moon reflections or mirages of cities do not amount to existence or arising of any kind. Only empty, essenceless dreamlike and holographic display or appearing, vividly clear radiance, seamless(ly interconnected), non-arising. My insights and progression of insights corresponds with André A. Pais

I will leave you with something from Traktung Rinpoche:

No essence No existence This joy

by Traktung Rinpoche:

There is nothing more disturbing than dharma’s pure message that is the undoing of identity …. the concrete, existent identity of self, of things, of mind. There is a nexus of meanings; we call it our lives - adornment of nothingness’ luminosity across emptiness’ expanse. It is our ownmost authenticity without there being any being, or essence or even existence to it at all.

The Greeks felt essence preceded existence. The existentialists felt that existence preceded essence. Buddha’s great realization disentangles this non-question in the realization of the absence of essence or existence in the unutterable mystery of suchness. Existence and essence are co-emergent substanceless empty appearing / appearance emptiness.

Let the dharma unmake you, disrobe your habits – even the habit called “me”, unconstruct the suredness you call you. In authentic dharma there is no ground to stand on and that no-ground is the most disturbing fact imaginable. …. but the same fact which causes the existentialist nausea is unutterable playfulness to the yogi.

my dark unlearnings began
with the innocent speech of leaf fall.

golden.

snow melt.
mud. fallen tree.

mind

spins, addled by secret scripts of
beetle track, patternings of
rainfall, diagrammatic log fire
ash.

listening.whole body. mitochondrial scholar stones.

i made a deal with moss and dirt a
n
d

l
e
a
r
n
e d about:

identity decomposed. about. little birds. about.
sky all over closer to here than when and this.
kiss.

your lips. memory. how freedom is more
under than above. measureless.
complete love.

- t.k.
 
 



Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu " where is there an object to contrast against an awareness? For awareness to be inherent it would have to have something to contrast itself to, like a limited transient object."

At One Mind, there is no longer the sense that awareness is something aware of something else. All waves of the ocean are just the ocean. It is all just pure Being/Consciousness that is however changeless and existing as a changeless field of light. Everything is subsumed into One, there is no multiplicity and therefore no way of awareness being aware of multiplicity, and no subject-object division. This One is however still being reified and felt as existing changelessly and independently (not alterable by any kind of conditions).

All shapes of the necklaces are subsumed into gold, and yet that gold is held to be the truly existing, changeless substance of all reality, the sole reality. It is this kind of inherent existence not as a separate subject or object in contrast to other separate subjects or objects but as the sole Oneness of all reality.
Manage

· Reply · 30m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu When I say the collapse of Awareness, I do not mean collapse of Awareness into the reified concept of separate objects, which has already been dissolved previously. What I mean is seeing that 'Awareness' is really just another label like 'weather' on the everchanging display of colors, light, sounds, etc which we can also call rain, wind, clouds, lightning. It does not exist in and of itself with some unchanging, intrinsic essence besides these display. There is no seeing besides color, no hearing besides sound, no awareness besides manifestation.
Manage

· Reply · 25m · Edited
Neil Ji

NJ: Well that might be part of your business or part of the emptiness business but that's not how the DP progresses... and you seem to categorize these things according to your own system of progression, sort of as levels of realization... never really got that, doesn't make much sense to me.

To me you have to take each path from their own perspective and basis and judge it on if it gets the job done. Not compare it to your favorite path and subsumed it based on those values...

You seem to miss the ultimate value of the DP and the awareness teachings ...
Manage

· Reply · 23m
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu DP progresses by getting to the Witness, dissolving all objectivity, dissolving Witness into nondual awareness (what I call One Mind), and finally even that one awareness dissolves. How that last part manifests is however crucial and interesting.
Manage

· Reply · 21m · Edited
Neil Ji

NJ: One way to say it is that Non dual awareness is not really even any "awareness" at all... there is nothing left.
Manage

· Reply · 20m


....

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu GG:: "
This what you conceive as "one awareness lacking borders and indistinguishable from manifestation" is what existence per-se is. It is the only necessary and indispensable requirement needed for manifestation to manifest. Such general possibility is not dependent on the particular manifestations that may happen. Am I being able to make any sense? I am not using any known system of school language."

That One Mind is just another view superimposed on experience. It is just a presumption on your part that existence is required for manifestation. It needs to be questioned, and it can be refuted. The insight here is that no existence is required for manifestation/appearance. There is no awareness behind manifestation, in fact no awareness besides manifestation. And what manifests do not 'exist' by way of essence or existence, but merely appears via dependent origination, cannot be pinned down anywhere.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 52m · Edited
GG:
GG: Actually it can be quite a surprising and significant realization that there is no such thing as existence w/o awareness. How else could we discuss it? Or... how else could discussion about it occur?
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 50m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu What we call 'discussion' is just another appearing.. you can say it is vividly known, but that is descriptive. It does not assert that there is an 'it' which exists. Appearance does not imply existence. There is no 'that which knows' although you can say the appearance is qualitatively vivid or 'aware'.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 50m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu In the same way there is no rainer that is raining, there is no that which rains, the raining does not imply the existence of some existent. The wind blowing does not mean there is a 'wind' besides blowing, the blowing does not imply the existence of something that is existent behind it, it does not imply that 'a wind exists'. In fact they are synonyms. Just saying "blowing" is sufficient, there is no wind besides that.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 44m · Edited
GG:
GG: "Appearance does not imply existence" makes absolutely no sense to me, Soh. Unless by "existence" you mean "existence as" as conventional existence.
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 48m
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu I mean there is no inherent existence -- existence that stands alone by itself 'here'. Or something that stands alone 'there'. Instead it's just appearance.

Like a hologram does not imply a person exists there, just appearance.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 46m · Edited
GG:
GG: "The wind blowing does not mean there is a 'wind' besides blowing, the blowing does not imply the existence of something that is existent behind it,"

Why besides and why behind? Any event or thing in whatever manner it may appear, exists. The false as false. The illusion as illusion. Why are you bringing in the behind?
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 44m
GG:
GG: Well then the hologram exists as mere hologram. No person of course.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 43m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Exist: "have objective reality or being." - dictionary

Appearance does not imply existence. For something to exist, that would imply there is substance to it, that there is an 'it' that exists independently by its own essence. That would also refute conditionality. Such an essence will be seen to exist changelessly, or perhaps changingly (existing for a short/long time). Either way, that is essence view.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 41m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu I should add, even 'subjective reality' is refuted here because there is no 'subject' besides the display/experience like 'weather' and 'wind' analogy I gave
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 42m
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu I gave the analogy of weather. Weather does not 'exist' and is merely labelled on the '....'
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 40m
GG:
GG: I see... you are clearly referring to conventional existence. I agree with that.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 40m
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Now, when the self/Self or awareness-as-background is seen through and awareness is realised to be none other than the display, the sense of One Awareness as the changeless existence/reality collapses into the radiance as ten thousand things. There is …See More
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 37m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu " I see... you are clearly referring to conventional existence. I agree with that."

What I mean is that the analogy of 'weather' and 'wind' is applied to 'Awareness' and 'Mind' and 'Self' (not just self as in the small capital self) so that it is seen to be empty of its own existence besides those myriad displays '...'

And even that is just the firstfold emptiness. That will collapse the 'one mind'. The secondfold emptiness is how this insight into essencelessness applies to the presencing/appearing.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 35m · Edited
DS:
DS: "For something to exist, that would imply there is substance to it"

Here is the evidence that existence for this fellow means form - and not consciousness.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 28m
DS:
DS: "the sense of One Awareness as the changeless existence/reality collapses into the radiance as ten thousand things"

Firstly, 'one awareness' is not a sense. It is the awareness by which a sense exists to be known.

Secondly, there is no "radiance as ten thousand things" without awareness. There can be nothing - ever - without the existence of formless consciousness.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 27m
GG:
GG: "Exist: "have objective reality or being." - dictionary"

That is objective reality, the conventional - as I said I understood you. The existence I am referring to is not objective. I mean, really, this is basic.
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 27m
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu No, what I mean is consciousness as well. In fact seeing through the intrinsic existence of consciousness is crucial to my direct realization of anatta and I was contemplating along that line because I have gone through the phase of Self-Realization an…See More
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 24m · Edited
DS:
DS: "My insight has penetrated this view of 'existence' or 'essence'."

Hardly the case that I can see.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 24m
GG:
GG: Your insight penetrated the existence as peer the dictionary - the conventional
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 23m
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu "
That is objective reality, the conventional - as I said I understood you. The existence I am referring to is not objective. I mean, really, this is basic."…See More
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 21m · Edited
GG:
GG: OK, lets swap to the one mind view. I like that.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 21m
DS:
DS: Anatta (no-self) or no subject - is a realization of the illusory nature of the manifest individual identity - and not a removal of conscious existence.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 20m
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu "Hardly the case that I can see."

Yes because you are seeing formless awareness as primary. To me, I have directly realized "formless awareness" but I now see that as just one face of presence/awareness, which does not exist in and of itself besides t…See More
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 18m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu "OK, lets swap to the one mind view. I like that."

You're already at One Mind. The next step is really the collapsing of one mind. It is much more freeing.

I, Thusness, and our blog have helped more than 25 people realise anatta directly for themselves. Anyone who realises this will not swap it for any other previous realizations.

E.g. Joel Agee wrote:

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../Joel%20Agee

Joel Agee Simple but profound and ongoing: a deconstruction of an unconscious habit of locating awareness anywhere else than in the moment-to-moment transient phenomena. Whoosh! No observer, no witness. No location!
September 2, 2012 at 1:44pm · Unlike · 10

Joel Agee I will try to describe what it is that rings true for me in Thusness’s words. I don’t have a theoretical preference for the early Buddhist teachings over the later ones, including Dzogchen. In fact I know very little about the Pali Canon. My approach isn’t conceptual or theoretical at all. I look directly into the nature of my own consciousness in silent, objectless sitting meditation – shikantaza if you will. Whatever doesn’t meet the test of direct experience holds no lasting interest for me.

Until fairly recently, the metaphor of the mirror and its reflections seemed a fitting image of my contemplative experience: that there is an unchanging, ever-present, imperturbable awareness that is the absolute ground and the very substance of phenomena, and that while this motionless, contentless awareness-presence is inseparable from the ceaseless coming and going of appearances, it also transcends everything that shows up, remaining untouched, unstained, absolute and indestructible.

A couple of years ago I discovered Soh’s blog, Awakening to Reality, and in it Soh’s account of his exploration of the Bahiya Sutta and the Zen Priest Alex Weith’s report on his realization of Anatta through practical application of the Bahiya Sutta. I saw then that Anatta was not fully realized in my experience. The illusory nature of a separate unchanging personal self had been seen through, but an unconscious identification with “Awareness” or “rigpa” had taken its place.

Since then, an unstoppable deconstruction of that impersonal background identity has been happening in my contemplation and in my daily life. There is still a noticeable attachment to the memory of that subtle Home Base. It shows up as a tendency to "lean back" from the unpredictable brilliance and dynamism of the moment into a static, subtly blissful background presence. But there is no longer a belief in an Awareness that is anything other than, or greater than, or deeper than, THIS sound, THIS smile or stirring of emotion, THIS glance of light. There is no Mirror that is not the reflections.

So the shift in my experience and practice is not a preference for one teaching over another. It’s an ongoing realization that direct contact with the grain and texture of moment-by-moment experience is what Dogen meant by “being awakened by the ten thousand things.”
January 2 at 3:20am · Unlike · 6 





.....

"Soh Wei Yu how did you ‘realize’ formless Awareness?

Because it’s beyond form, it is not realized by an experience of it.

Whatever is realized is an appearance in it.

To realize it is to recognize quite simply that you are aware."

How formless Awareness is realized is when all thoughts come to a standstill and what remains is a pure certainty of Being/Existence/Presence/Awareness that is self-aware beyond subject-object dichotomy. In my case that moment came after about two years of inquiring on 'Before birth, Who am I?'

It is formless, but it is not beyond experience -- although at that time it was not thought in this way. It was thought (felt) to be the ultimate Experiencer, the ultimate Background of experience, the ultimate objectless Witness, the subject that cannot be the object of observation. In actuality, it becomes the background only as an 'afterthought' (but this afterthought is felt to be very real due to the hypnotic and hallucinatory quality of our propensities that fabricate duality and inherency that superimposes on the luminous quality of our consciousness -- the background seems completely real to us), but it was not seen that way then.

Later on, it is realized that there is truly no 'beyond'. The formless Presence is no more special or ultimate than any given form or sound or color, etc, which all shares the same taste of luminous clarity and emptiness. This requires the seeing through the view that fabricates a center.

As Thusness also wrote in 2009:

"84. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4]
Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT
Hi theprisonergreco,

First is what exactly is the ‘background’? Actually it doesn’t exist. It is only an image of a ‘non-dual’ experience that is already gone. The dualistic mind fabricates a ‘background’ due to the poverty of its dualistic and inherent thinking mechanism. It ‘cannot’ understand or function without something to hold on to. That experience of the ‘I’ is a complete, non-dual foreground experience.

When the background subject is understood as an illusion, all transience phenomena reveal themselves as Presence. It is like naturally 'vipassanic' throughout. From the hissing sound of PC, to the vibration of the moving MRT train, to the sensation when the feet touches the ground, all these experiences are crystal clear, no less “I AM” than “I AM”. The Presence is still fully present, nothing is denied. -:) So the “I AM” is just like any other experiences when the subject-object split is gone. No different from an arising sound. It only becomes a static background as an after thought when our dualistic and inherent tendencies are in action.

The first 'I-ness' stage of experiencing awareness face to face is like a point on a sphere which you called it the center. You marked it.

Then later you realized that when you marked other points on the surface of a sphere, they have the same characteristics. This is the initial experience of non-dual. Once the insight of No-Self is stabilized, you just freely point to any point on the surface of the sphere -- all points are a center, hence there is no 'the' center. 'The' center does not exist: all points are a center.

After then practice move from 'concentrative' to 'effortlessness'. That said, after this initial non-dual insight, 'background' will still surface occasionally for another few years due to latent tendencies...

86. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4]
Mar 27 2009, 11:59 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 27 2009, 11:59 AM EDT
To be more exact, the so called 'background' consciousness is that pristine happening. There is no a 'background' and a 'pristine happening'. During the initial phase of non-dual, there is still habitual attempt to 'fix' this imaginary split that does not exist. It matures when we realized that anatta is a seal, not a stage; in hearing, always only sounds; in seeing always only colors, shapes and forms; in thinking, always only thoughts. Always and already so. -:)"


.....

NJ
NJ Soh Wei Yu that sounds more like a moment of meditation where you experienced a gap in thought, not a realization of formless awareness... I could be wrong... you dharma overground boys love to talk about your realizations, he he :-)
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Nope, it is not about a gap in thought, but pure certainty of Being. There is the quality of doubtless certainty of what you are. But it is completely non-conceptual realization. When a Zen master shouts KATZ, all thoughts stop, but the main point is not the stopping of thoughts, but the discovery of Presence, pure certainty of Presence.
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h · Edited

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu My e-book goes into the details - the I AM chapter. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../my-e-booke...
Manage
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
My e-book/e-journal
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · Remove Preview · 2h
DS
DS "formless Awareness is realized is when all thoughts come to a standstill and what remains is a pure certainty of Being/Existence/Presence/Awareness that is self-aware beyond subject-object dichotomy."

A standstill of thoughts - is a silence or gap which you are aware of. You can not say there was any such standstill if you weren't aware of it.

And the certainty isn't self-aware, because the certainty is an object you are aware of.

What you speak of is a classic misapprehension of a state for awareness.

· Reply · 2h
DS
DS A "discovery of Presence" is a thought in awareness.

· Reply · 2h
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu DS -- Self-Realization is non-conceptual doubtless Presence/Existence. It is not a conceptual subject-object knowledge. You're reading past me.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h · Edited
DS
DS Soh Wei Yu Self realization is "I am That which is eternally and limitlessly aware."
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h
NJ
NJ Whoa I didn't mean to agree with Darryl... we dont usually do that do we Darryl? 😂

I just meant that a gap in thought doesn't necessarily need to happen for you to realize you are awareness. It can happen during thought as well.
…See More
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h · Edited
DS
DS Gap is just another type of known object.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h
DS
DS It makes no difference to what you are.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h
DS
DS Though it can help to recognize what you are.
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h
NJ
NJ Yes that's my other point ... it can help you recognize who you are... that's why people cultivate the experience of object less awareness
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h
GG
GG None of what all of you are saying imply in some "awareness w/o phenomena". I am not concluding anything though...
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h
NJ
NJ Geovani, do you have a teacher or are you doing this on your own?
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h · Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu I should add that after my Self-Realization, I never felt at any moment afterwards that I needed to maintain thoughtlessness otherwise my realization is lost. There was no more 'losing it' or 'gaining it' syndrome after Self-Realization. Prior to that, I had glimpses of awareness/witness that felt 'unstable', but not after self-realization. There was no more sense that the Witness or Awareness or Presence could ever be lost.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h · Edited
DS
DS late for work...
3
Manage
HahaShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h 




Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu You are thinking Awareness is ultimately and inherently existing. You think emptiness does not apply to Awareness as it is true, ultimate existence.

I'm saying you're wrong. You need to investigate more. You need to challenge the notion that awareness could exist apart or besides manifestation. I'm going to sleep, endless arguments doesn't help unless you are open to investigate and realize it for yourself
Manage
· Reply · 5m · Edited· Reply · 4m
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Before I go to bed, I just want to give a hint. There are two lines of inquiries that helped my progress after I AM/Witness realization.

1) contemplating 'where does awareness end and manifestation begin' until Witness/phenomena collapses into a borderless one mind, one field of awareness where mind and manifestation can no longer be distinguished. This is *NOT* anatta. At this phase, the One Mind is still seen to be truly (inherently) existing, changeless

2) contemplating Bahiya Sutta -- in seeing only the seen, on hearing only the heard, (no seer or hearer besides) and same for all other senses. Until it is suddenly realized that the whole structure of Seer-Seeing-Seen doesn't apply and there is no seeing besides colors (no seer), no hearing besides sound (no hearer), no awareness besides manifestation. This is not just realising the lack of borders or duality but realizing the Absence of an inherently existing Self/Agent/Awareness behind manifestation. This is the realization of anatta.
Manage
· Reply · 2m · Edited
 
2 Responses
  1. Anonymous Says:

    Article above theres mention abt j.krisnamurthi and (their/his) experiential insight .... nope, j .k is all in the head,his talks comes purely frm the mind/head ....


  2. Soh Says:

    Disagree here. J.K. is very clear and insight is similar to anatta. Although it may sound intellectual to some.

    In 2009:

    (3:05 PM) Thusness: did JK said that: When this is a fact not an idea, then dualism and division between observer and observed comes to an end. The observer is the observed - they are not separate states. The observer and the observed are a joint phenomenon and when you experience that directly then you will find that the thing which you have dreaded as emptiness which makes you seek escape into various forms ...?

    (source: http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk209.htm )
    (3:07 PM) AEN: i think so why?
    (3:08 PM) Thusness: quite good...it never really occur to me he has put it so clear, though he is very persistent about no-self. :)
    (3:08 PM) AEN: icic..
    (3:09 PM) Thusness: His teaching though talk about no separate agent is still very much concentrative.
    Not so much of spontaneous perfection.
    (3:10 PM) AEN: oic..
    UGK leh? more on spontaneous?
    (3:10 PM) Thusness: same
    (3:10 PM) AEN: icic..
    (3:17 PM) Thusness: sometimes u should rejoice how fortunate it is for u to have right understanding of this teaching of anatta at this age.
    (3:18 PM) Thusness: u must have gathered tremendous merit to arrive at this point. :)