Conversations with Thusness 2009-2013 on I AM, One Mind, No Mind and Anatta:

(9:12 PM) Thusness:    no mind is an experience, it is not an insight
(9:14 PM) Thusness:    ppl that have experienced no-mind knows there is such experience and aims towards achieving it again.
(9:14 PM) Thusness:    but insight is different...it is a direct experiential realization.
(9:14 PM) AEN:    icic..
(9:14 PM) Thusness:    that all along it is so.

(11:19 PM) Thusness:    u may have no-mind as an experience and understood that there is such an experience as simple manifestation or just the radiant world
(11:19 PM) Thusness:    but still it remains as a stage
(11:19 PM) Thusness:    u have no idea that it is a wrong view
(11:20 PM) Thusness:    we do not 'see' that it is the wrong view that 'blinds'
a mistaken view shaping our entire experience
(11:22 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:23 PM) AEN:    dharma dan calls it the knot of perception rite
(11:23 PM) Thusness:    yes
(11:23 PM) AEN:    so no mind is a strage?
stage
(11:24 PM) Thusness:    no-mind is the peak of non-dual, the natural state of non-dual
(11:24 PM) AEN:    oic
(11:24 PM) Thusness:    where the background is completely gone
(11:25 PM) Thusness:    very often a practitioner in an advance phase of non-dual and One Mind, will naturally knows the importance of no-mind.
And that becomes the practice
they know they have to be there
(11:26 PM) Thusness:    however, to come to this natural state of non-dual where the background is deemed irrelevant, it requires insight of anatta.


(12:09 AM) Thusness:    and say yes, u realized ur mistake.  wrote too fast.
Awareness is just a label...
(12:11 AM) Thusness:    some of the texts u quoted are also misleading
(12:12 AM) Thusness:    when one spoke to others in longchen forum, some is to lead one into non-dual from "I AM" coz they can't accept anatta insight but is able to penetrate non-dual.
(12:13 AM) Thusness:    when anatta insight arises, one realizes there is no background
(12:14 AM) Thusness:    when insight of emptiness arise, then all is just sharing the same taste, luminous yet empty
(12:14 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:15 AM) Thusness:    that is, i do not see Awareness, just a luminous manifestation
there is no sense of Self/self
or Awareness
(12:16 AM) Thusness:    there is always only sound, forms, smell...sweetness....hardness...thoughts...
effortlessly manifesting
(12:16 AM) Thusness:    non-dually experienced
(12:18 AM) Thusness:    in terms of actual experience, what that is written in the forum is not enough
(12:18 AM) Thusness:    the intensity of luminosity isn't there.
(12:19 AM) Thusness:    first u go through the "I AM" for a period first
later u will understand what i mean


(12:12 AM) Thusness:    not by way of non-identification.
(12:13 AM) Thusness:    by realization -- the arising insight there the mirror does not exist
(12:15 AM) Thusness:    if at the back of one's mind, there is this belief of a self, then will experience of no-mind be intermittent or permanent?
(12:16 AM) AEN:    intermittent
(12:17 AM) Thusness:    so how is one without the realization have a permanent experience of no-mind?  There is no clarity, no doubtlessness of no-self, is it possible that there is a permanent and effortless experience of all sensate experiences without self?


Thusness: ...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. -:)




15/4/13 12:23:19 AM: John Tan: (One Mind) Means consciousness is of true existing like a container
15/4/13 12:23:54 AM: John Tan: Consciousness is not in the body but the body is in consciousness
15/4/13 12:24:25 AM: John Tan: Sound arises in consciousness
15/4/13 12:24:56 AM: John Tan: Therefore consciousness doesn't change
15/4/13 12:25:58 AM: John Tan: The other (No Mind) is as if consciousness is the substance of matter
15/4/13 12:27:36 AM: John Tan: When we say sound-consciousness, there is no such thing as sound and sound-consciousness
15/4/13 12:27:59 AM: John Tan: That sound is the sound-consciousness
15/4/13 12:28:24 AM: John Tan: There is no such thing as sound
15/4/13 12:28:36 AM: John Tan: Or sound-conscious
15/4/13 12:29:04 AM: John Tan: When we say I hear sound



15/4/13 12:34:19 AM: John Tan: How do u differentiate one mind from no mind to anatta?
15/4/13 12:34:43 AM: Soh Wei Yu: In no mind there is no subsuming involved there is only manifestation
15/4/13 12:34:47 AM: Soh Wei Yu: But as an experience
15/4/13 12:35:07 AM: Soh Wei Yu: In anatta there is insight into no agent in seeing just seen pure manifestation
15/4/13 12:35:20 AM: Soh Wei Yu: One mind is subsuming but yet nondual is experienced
15/4/13 12:37:11 AM: John Tan: One mind is u r always looking at an ultimate mind behind, u r not looking at manifestation
15/4/13 12:37:26 AM: Soh Wei Yu: But it's not I Am right
15/4/13 12:37:36 AM: John Tan: Yes it is not
15/4/13 12:38:18 AM: Soh Wei Yu: It's like integrating foreground as being an aspect of background
15/4/13 12:38:28 AM: John Tan: Everything is consumed into the source (for One Mind)
15/4/13 12:39:24 AM: John Tan: I m is just the pure background behind but external objects r not subsumed into it...like separate
15/4/13 12:39:48 AM: John Tan: I m I ....dualistic

15/4/13 12:41:53 AM: John Tan: In this case (One Mind) all is being consumed/subsumed into the source
15/4/13 12:42:45 AM: John Tan: Sound is consciousness is not one mind but no mind

15/4/13 12:44:02 AM: John Tan: When the hearer is gone and there is only sound, that sound is precisely consciousness
15/4/13 12:45:15 AM: John Tan: That is the experience of no-mind

15/4/13 12:50:31 AM: John Tan: No mind is like the mirror becomes transparent and there is just that
15/4/13 12:51:22 AM: John Tan: But the view is the reflection and the mirror is not the same
15/4/13 12:52:09 AM: John Tan: Like sky is not the flowing cloud


John TanFriday, November 22, 2013 at 8:25am UTC+08

But this is also good so that the point that a practitioner may hv clear experience of no mind but a view of one mind..
John TanFriday, November 22, 2013 at 8:26am UTC+08

Thus view, experience and realization


15/4/13 12:53:28 AM: John Tan: Anatta is a realization that there isn't a consciousness besides sound, scenery...etc
15/4/13 12:56:15 AM: John Tan: U c through reification of that agent and get in touch with the base manifestation  where the label rely upon
15/4/13 12:57:02 AM: John Tan: So sound is the actual consciousness is referring to
15/4/13 12:57:36 AM: John Tan: There is no consciousness other than that

15/4/13 1:01:13 AM: John Tan: When they see through reification, then phenomena has a different meaning
15/4/13 1:02:04 AM: John Tan: Seeing everything as awareness is not one mind
15/4/13 1:02:52 AM: John Tan: Seeing everything as the same unchanging mind is the problem
15/4/13 1:04:09 AM: John Tan: When u c through reification, u realized "awareness" is just a label point to these manifestations
15/4/13 1:04:32 AM: John Tan: So there is nothing wrong saying that
15/4/13 1:05:24 AM: John Tan: Only when we treat awareness to b of true existence then we r deluded because there isn't any
15/4/13 1:11:14 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I see..
15/4/13 1:11:36 AM: John Tan: In hearing, there is only sound
15/4/13 1:11:57 AM: John Tan: Hearing implies the presence of sound

14/5/13 9:39:15 PM: John Tan: One mind is different
14/5/13 9:40:04 PM: John Tan: One mind as I told u is the witness is gone but subsume into an overarching Awareness
14/5/13 9:40:31 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Is there a distinct phase of one mind in your seven stages?
14/5/13 9:40:48 PM: John Tan: Phase 4
14/5/13 9:41:23 PM: Soh Wei Yu: But u said phase 4 u already realised anatta and experience no mind?
14/5/13 9:41:51 PM: Soh Wei Yu: So does that mean the insight already arise by tendency to sink back to one mind is still there
14/5/13 9:42:03 PM: Soh Wei Yu: But
14/5/13 9:42:17 PM: John Tan: All such gray area is put onto phase 4 insight when view isn't completely clear
14/5/13 9:42:44 PM: John Tan: There is no way to describe the grey scale
14/5/13 9:43:24 PM: John Tan: Even in anatta there r so many different degree of refinements
14/5/13 9:43:34 PM: Soh Wei Yu: I see
14/5/13 9:43:59 PM: John Tan: But it is not practical to talk abt all
14/5/13 9:44:44 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. U mean not describable
14/5/13 9:45:32 PM: John Tan: No...not that it is not describable but not practical to describe
14/5/13 9:46:48 PM: John Tan: Like AF is part of the deviation looking into purely physical flesh and blood of pure experience ... Some went into details some does not
14/5/13 9:47:51 PM: Soh Wei Yu: What do u mean by went into details
14/5/13 9:48:54 PM: John Tan: It is like I M, there r all those experiences u undergone but I do not say they r diff phases


14/4/13 7:35:01 PM: John Tan: When u say "weather", does weather exist?
14/4/13 7:35:20 PM: Soh Wei Yu: No
14/4/13 7:35:42 PM: Soh Wei Yu: It's a convention imputed on a seamless activity
14/4/13 7:35:54 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Existence and non existence don't apply
14/4/13 7:36:02 PM: John Tan: What is the basis where this label rely on
14/4/13 7:36:16 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Rain clouds wind etc
14/4/13 7:36:25 PM: John Tan: Don't talk prasanga
14/4/13 7:36:36 PM: John Tan: Directly see
14/4/13 7:38:11 PM: John Tan: Rain too is a label
14/4/13 7:39:10 PM: John Tan: But in direct experience, there is no issue but when probed, u realized how one is confused abt the reification from language
14/4/13 7:39:52 PM: John Tan: And from there life/death/creation/cessation arise
14/4/13 7:40:06 PM: John Tan: And whole lots of attachment
14/4/13 7:40:25 PM: John Tan: But it does not mean there is no basis...get it?
14/4/13 7:40:45 PM: Soh Wei Yu: The basis is just the experience right
14/4/13 7:41:15 PM: John Tan: Yes which is plain and simple
14/4/13 7:41:50 PM: John Tan: When we say the weather is windy
14/4/13 7:42:04 PM: John Tan: Feel the wind, the blowing...
14/4/13 7:43:04 PM: John Tan: But when we look at language and mistaken verb for nouns there r big issues
14/4/13 7:43:22 PM: John Tan: So before we talk abt this and that
14/4/13 7:43:40 PM: John Tan: Understand what consciousness is and awareness is
14/4/13 7:43:45 PM: John Tan: Get it?
14/4/13 7:44:40 PM: John Tan: When we say weather, feel the sunshine, the wind, the rain
14/4/13 7:44:58 PM: John Tan: U do not search for weather
14/4/13 7:45:04 PM: John Tan: Get it?
14/4/13 7:45:57 PM: John Tan: Similarly, when we say awareness, look into scenery, sound, tactile sensations, scents and thoughts

It's not often that I get to walk in dark places in Singapore, there's street lights everywhere. Yesterday I was walking somewhere that was dark and yet the light of boundless presence was so dazzling. Truly, there can be no darkness when your whole body-mind-universe is light, the light that 'outshines' all lights and darknesses, and yet is also none other than the lights and darknesses, the sounds and the silence.

Was reminded of a verse in the Upanishads, "Verily, for him who thus knows this Brahma—Upanishad, the sun does not rise or set. For him it is day for ever."
Andre A Pais:

Geovani Geo existence is the nature or characteristic of existing phenomena. Without phenomena that exists, where is existence to be found? That's like believing we can find the shape of a body without the body... 😊
__

A question arises, though. Can consciousness ever be without experience? We know experience cannot arise without consciousness, for experience requires a sensitive field capable of registering it. But is the opposite also true – that is, is a consciousness empty of any type of experience possible? The answer is no. Consciousness too cannot exist without experience, for if it did, it would be conscious of no thing. A consciousness that is not conscious of anythingis not conscious at all.Something that is not conscious at all is therefore unsuitable to be posited as consciousness at all.

Awareness and experience are, indeed, synonymous – which can have some remarkable consequences. Experience without awareness is simply not possible. However, one could try to picture awareness without experience – like in some kind of pure or formless state.

Yet, an awareness devoid of experience is an awareness that is not aware of anything. What gives it, then, its aware nature if it is, in fact, unaware? Awareness is programmed to constantly know; if for an instant it wouldn't be aware of anything, it would become unconscious and therefore non-existent. Every particle or phenomenon is programmed to know, to seek its environment and interact. This constant movement of knowingness is the pulse of existence, a natural movement forward, the spontaneous pacing of creation, the very flow of time. This is what experience is at its most fundamental level – pure spontaneity or responsiveness .

What this means is that there is experience happening at every level of existence. Of course, not all types of experience are complex and self-aware like those of a human mind or even animals. But consciousness cannot ever be without content or information, otherwise it would drop into a state of nothingness, out of which nothing could arise again. Besides, we would find the absurd situation of something – manifest consciousness – turning into nothing – contentless consciousness. So experience is the name we give to the natural movement of existence – the primordial and inevitable interaction of emptiness and consciousness.

Awareness and experience are, therefore, never dividable. What this means is that, even in the most subtle and “inert” states of consciousness – what is usually called matter –, some type of experience is taking place. Awareness never dissolves into nothingness or oblivion, because experience, which is what constitutes it and gives it its “shape and color”, is never absent either. There is always knowingness going on.

“Monks, this samsara [cyclic existence] is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering about hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
“There comes a time, monks, when the great ocean dries up and evaporates and no longer exists, but still, I say, there is no making an end of suffering for those beings roaming and wandering about hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
“There comes a time, monks, when Sineru, the king of mountains, burns up and perishes and no longer exists, but still, I say, there is no making an end of suffering for those beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
“There comes a time, monks, when the great earth burns up and perishes and no longer exists, but still, I say, there is no making an end of suffering for those beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
“Suppose, monks, a dog tied up on a leash was bound to a strong post or pillar: it would just keep on running and revolving around that same post or pillar. So too, the uninstructed worldling regards form as self … feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self …. He just keeps running and revolving around form, around feeling, around perception, around volitional formations, around consciousness. As he keeps on running and revolving around them, he is not freed from form, not freed from feeling, not freed from perception, not freed from volitional formations, not freed from consciousness. He is not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and despair; not freed from suffering, I say.”
—The Buddha
Samyutta Nikaya, 22:99; II 149–50, translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi, excerpted from In the Buddha’s Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi © 2005 published by Wisdom Publications
I was asked what is the direct insight of emptiness.

I wrote:

The insight is how presence/appearance appears yet never truly exists (i.e. by way of inherent existence), like truly there... instead it's just mere substanceless appearance. Instead of essence, we see dependent origination.

It's an insight into seeing how 'essence' does not apply, not only to background/self but to foreground/presence/phenomena, therefore arising/abiding/ceasing also don't apply.

Because of this, there's no way to locate or pin down anything anywhere, therefore all the where, now, here, there don't apply, as pinning down something as 'there' requires the essence view.

It is not just an experience of all reality as 'dream-like' (this experience can arise by linking what appears to one's radiance) but a direct insight that overturns the wrong view of phenomena as having essence in the same manner as the direct insight into anatta overturns the wrong view of self or consciousness as having essence existing by its own side.
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