I just sent some excerpts to John Tan and he said

“Wow this is a damn good book

Who wrote that?

But I think need to be very careful not to assume that non-dual of subject/object naturally implies freedom from intellectual obscurations of internal/external, mind/matter.”


Download link:

https://cdn.amaravati.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/18/The_Island_-_Ajahn_Amaro_and_Pasanno_update_2015.pdf




These lectures by Zen Master Hui Lu 慧律法师 are about Avatamasaka Sutra (Hua Yan Sutra), anatta, manifestation as clarity, and total exertion. This is a Chinese lecture.



[6:26 PM, 5/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: This is nice https://youtu.be/8BRtkWUwfY8

[7:09 PM, 5/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: 一真、一真法界 is like anatta
[7:09 PM, 5/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Second part talks about limitless universe
[7:58 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: Very clear to u right?
[8:00 PM, 5/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah u watched?
[8:00 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: Yes

[8:07 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: He is just emphasizing anatta, manifestation as clarity and total exertion.

[8:13 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: If there is no I as a background, u r left with manifestation.
[8:15 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: If u want to bring out the nature of phenomena, 现象界
[8:16 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: U must see through first the background and point directly to this foreground as one's radiance clarity.
[8:17 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: So first the direct pointing is important, second eliminate the mistaken view that clarity is always hiding behind.
[8:18 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: In between, one must keep refining the view of emptiness and DO.
[8:18 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: His elaboration and emphasis of 重重因缘 is good
[8:19 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: And 刹那
[8:19 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: Both r important
[8:20 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: But total exertion of 华严 is not only that
[8:21 PM, 5/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic..
[8:21 PM, 5/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: in the second video he talks about limitless time, limitless space and using that limitless mind to experience everyday activities
[8:22 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: Second video?
[8:22 PM, 5/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1plAl9WLCA
[8:24 PM, 5/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oh theres actually 5 videos https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyvXiTM5fwpkppVhrKBw4rjrnkJD2rOuS
[8:24 PM, 5/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: only watched first two
[8:28 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: In the first video he talked about the mirror and reflection is also very good.
[8:29 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: But whether ppl can understand is a different matter.
[8:29 PM, 5/21/2020] Soh Wei Yu: oic.. yeah i remember he paused and ask do you understand? haha
[8:29 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: Yeah
[8:30 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: That reflection is the very mirror...not the mirrors that reflects, but the reflection as that mirror. I think that is very good.
[8:31 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: The way he described has a trigger point.
[8:31 PM, 5/21/2020] John Tan: I mean the way he puts it
  • Anurag Jain "I Am", if you mean it to be Self can never be an object of any perception so it's strange how you see it as 'one of the ten thousand things'. Self I that which witnesses the ten thousand things' including your thought which says I Am is one of the ten thousand things.
  • Hide 178 Replies
    • Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain only after anatta it is realised to be another condition

      Even consciousness without object, pure subjectivity is no longer seen as pure subjectivity


      But at the I AM level it is indeed seen as pure subject that cannot be made an object of observation.

      Pure I, not even am
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu the one who is talking about Self as subject is object to the Self.
  • Soh Wei Yu In I, there is only I. No subject or object.
  • Soh Wei Yu After anatta that too is another pure nondual condition. No different from in hearing just sound. So there is no reifying pure subjectivity.
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu. Who is the one who talks about it?
  • Soh Wei Yu self enquiry is only for leading to self realization

    Further realization requires other kinds of inquiry
  • Anurag Jain All realizations of every kind are object to Self. There are infinite realizations possible but all are objects to Self.
  • Soh Wei Yu
    Nov
    18

    Anatta and Pure Presence
    Someone told me about having been through insights of no self and then progressing to a realisation of the ground of being.

    I replied:

    Hi ____

    Thanks for the sharing.

    This is the I AM realization. Had that realisation after contemplating Before birth, who am I? For two years. It’s an important realization. Many people had insights into certain aspects of no self, impersonality, and “dry non dual experience” without doubtless realization of Presence. Therefore I AM realisation is a progression for them.

    Similarly in Zen, asking who am I is to directly experience presence. How about asking a koan of what is the cup? What is the chirping bird, the thunder clap? What is its purpose?

    When I talked about anatta, it is a direct insight of Presence and recognizing what we called background presence, is in the forms and colours, sounds and sensations, clean and pure. Authentication is be authenticated by all things. Also there is no presence other than that. What we call background is really just an image of foreground Presence, even when Presence is assuming its subtle formless all pervasiveness.

    However due to ignorance, we have a very inherent and dual view, if we do see through the nature of presence, the mind continues to be influenced by dualistic and inherent tendencies. Many teach to overcome it through mere non conceptuality but this is highly misleading.

    Thusness also wrote:

    The anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of no-self. But it must first have an intuitive insight of Presence. Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights
    Labels: Anatta, Luminosity |
  • Anurag Jain What you call anatta is nothing but avyakta Prakriti in Advaita.
  • Soh Wei Yu No, what i call anatta is totally unknown in advaita
  • Soh Wei Yu And also 98% or more of buddhist “realised” masters and teachers do not realise what I call anatta. They too do not go beyond I AM and one mind
  • Soh Wei Yu In the whole of china and taiwan, only two teachers I can find have realised what i realised -

    Zen Master Hui Lu and Zen Master Hong Wen Liang.


    You can see how rare it is.

    (Update by Soh: please do not mistaken this to be condescending to Advaita and other Buddhist teachers who do not speak from the insight of anatta. I do not intend to promote
    one-upmanship based on certain insights. I have great respect, and in fact gratitude, for Advaita and other Awareness teachings as they have helped me much in the past, and I continue to recommend these teachings to others depending on conditions. I see the value and preciousness of these teachings, even if certain aspects of them may not agree with my current view. Furthermore, I maintain as Ratnashree said, "I must reiterate that this difference in both the system is very important to fully understand both the systems properly and is not meant to demean either system." - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

    My reason for posting this is:
            1) Anurag posted something by a Buddhist master earlier that day, which sounded like Advaita, so I wanted to confirm with him that indeed, many Buddhist teachers fall into the category of Advaita view, it is not surprising to me. 2) To create discernment on the diversity of views even among a specific religion or tradition  3) I want others to take the teachings of Zen Master Hui Lu and Zen Master Hong Wen Liang seriously if they want to study anatta, total exertion and emptiness teachings from a realised master, and discern the essence of Buddha's intent, and happen to be Chinese.)
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu you will have to do more than assertions :-) There is nothing unknown to Advaita because Self is beyond space and time.
  • Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

    Look, we are arguing past each other. I have realised what you realised and you have not realised what I have realised. Of course I understand you are not convinced, so be it.


    I rather prefer Buddha’s version of omniscience since it lines up with my current insight:

    https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_24.html
  • AN 4:24  Kāḷaka Sutta | At Kāḷaka’s Park
    dhammatalks.org
    AN 4:24  Kāḷaka Sutta | At Kāḷaka’s Park
    AN 4:24  Kāḷaka Sutta | At Kāḷaka’s Park
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu I have realized that which has always been realized :-)
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu omniscience is a duality. In Self, which is partless, there is nothing apart from itself to be known. Self is knolwedge itself.

    Buddhism, by the way has come from the Vedas. It has commonalities with Sankhya.
  • Soh Wei Yu Buddha was a refuter of Samkhya, although he learnt from and attained what the two Samkhya teachers he had taught him, he left them in pursuit of further realisation.

    See the commentary and discourse at:


    https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN1.html

    Also:

    "What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage." - Lopon Malcolm

    “The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept 'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when you will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies. If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be confused.

    When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness.” - John Tan, 2005
  • MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
    dhammatalks.org
    MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
    MN 1  Mūlapariyāya Sutta | The Root Sequence
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu the perceiver is an object to Self. And the Self cannot be experienced. Please convey this to John Tan :-)
  • Anurag Jain And neither can the Self be known, because You Are Self.
  • Anurag Jain Buddha gives a view of dependent origination which is different from Sankhya but like Sankhya he gives a reality to Prakriti.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain you should read Boddhisattvacharyavatara chapter on Prajna. Samkhya view is completely obliberated there. I reccomend "Nectar of Manjushri's Speech" for easier read.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, please answer me whether Buddhism denies reality to the world of phenomena.
  • Robert Dominik In essence Buddhadharma has no view. The tathagata has done away with views.
  • Robert Dominik Oneness is just another view on the absolute.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, are you talking about absolute?!
  • Robert Dominik There are languages which don't have distinction between plural and singular with regards to many phenomena. Clinging to one is just yet another form of clinging to a concept - in this case a number.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, to the Self all languages are objects. All views are objects, right view, wrong view or no view.
  • Robert Dominik Also Buddha calls teaching that all pertains to one self or all is one self "completely" "a fool's teaching" in the Pali Canon. So even though Buddhadharma arose in a Vedic world - it doesn't buy into central ontological premise of the Vedas.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, it is talking of emptiness which is very much part of the "fools teaching" Buddha was referring to :-) Please read Katha Upanishad. The Self is beyond emptiness, beyond being and non-being.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain you don't understand emptiness clearly.
  • Robert Dominik So how about you read what I reccomended you and then I read that Upanishad? Then we can discuss, deal?
  • Anurag Jain The Anatta experience is an experience located in space and time. It did not exist at one time and then the insight arises.
  • Robert Dominik Anatta is a seal - not an experience.
  • Robert Dominik You don't know what Anatta is, do you? :P
  • Anurag Jain Robert, call it a seal. It does not exist at some time and then it comes to be known.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, I know that Anatta is known at one point and then it becomes known. I know that this knowing is an occurrence in time.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain haha the same could be said about the Self. It does not exist at some time and then it comes to be known xD
  • Anurag Jain Robert, no that's not the same with Self. It exists at all times.
  • Robert Dominik So claiming that about Anatta is as stupid as claiming that about the Self. It's just a misunderstanding on the nature of these realisations.
  • Robert Dominik And Anatta is always already so.
  • Anurag Jain Robert Self exist at all times. The insight happens in time.
  • Robert Dominik Same with Anatta. So you have failed to prove your point. In the meantime I've gotta go so have a good day :)
  • Anurag Jain Yes. Who knows Anatta?
  • Anurag Jain Robert. Have a good day :-)
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain as a PS: Anatta is revealed when the illusion of the self - including the knower - is extinguished ;)
  • Anurag Jain Robert and who knows that the knower is dropped:-)
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain doesn't apply. This question is based on an assumption which is baseless. Sorry. Ok really gotta go. All the best <3
  • Anurag Jain Robert, just an assertion :-)
Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

Robert is very clear. Anatta is a realisation of what is always already the case. Anyone who speaks of anatta as a stage or experience is deluded.

    Like
     · Reply · 4h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu my question was, who knows anatta? Clear and simple 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 4h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

That is a wrong question to ask for anatta as it has hidden assumptions.

We discussed before.

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/10/flawed-mode-of-enquiry_12.html


Flawed Mode of Enquiry
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
Flawed Mode of Enquiry
Flawed Mode of Enquiry

    Like
     · Reply · Remove Preview · 4h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan did you not go through the thread? Convey that Self cannot be experienced.

    Like
     · Reply · 2h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I am not going to teach concepts. I am going to teach elimination of all falsity (which includes all concepts)

    Like
     · Reply · 2h

John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain, u cannot experience Self.

    Like
     · Reply · 2h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan , absolutely. Soh shared some dialogue in which he talks about you talking of experience of Self. Please scroll up.

    Like
     · Reply · 2h


John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain, knowing is relative. To know is to measure and compare. Knowingness is beyond knowing. Knowingness is realized not by the relativity of a conditioned mind. U need to leap out of the conditioned.

I-I or I M is a direct and gapless authentication.
2

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan absolutely agreed.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Im speaking relatively.

If you prefer I will use words "there is no assumption of who in the absolute truth"

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Obviously the language is based on words like who or selves.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain an experience is an after thought.
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik So with your attachement to "who" you are showing you do not go beyond linguistically enforced concepts.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I can always ask the same question. "Who says that there is no assumption of who in the absolute truth"?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John Tan absolutely.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Anurag Jain but thats just hammering your assumption based question like a broken record.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I said we shall go into infinite regress 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Why are you walking naked on the street?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

John Tan
John Tan Anurag Jain to realize the I-I, a koan will b more appropriate to leap one out of the relative. As for Soh Wei Yu, yes. He knows what he is talking about...lol
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Yes the regress is caused by that concept of who. When you let go of it there is no regress.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John, I understand and agree to all that you are saying 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I can really imagine you with a hammer ready to strike me now. But "Who let's go off the concept of who". Sorry 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Anurag Jain the concept relaxes and unties on its own.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Like drawing on water.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Nobody has to make it so.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain And who knows that the concept is untied and has relaxed?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik And why you assume there is someone who knows?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, are you talking without knowing you are realized??!!

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Without what?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Whats that?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, without having realized anatta. You just said that

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Whats knowing?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Good question. Have you realized anatta Robert?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Relatively or absolutely speaking?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, say both the ways. You know the relative and absolute levels. Right?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Relatively - I realised Anatta.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, ok. So who knows that he has realized anatta?




............................... [lengthy conversation cut]



Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu After anatta, even the I-I is not seen as a “who”. It is not the subject behind all objects. It is realised that there never was a subject. I-I is just I-I, but not reified into a background. It is just another foreground manifestation, another “occurrence”. Likewise in hearing, only sound, no subject or object, knower or known. Seeing is only colors without seer-seeing-seen. And so on. Direct authentication in all and everything

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, do you like John Tan?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Doing this mantra over and over until they are programmed with the concepts of "who" and "knowing"?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Anurag Jain thats beside the point.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, I am not teaching you Advaita. You did not give me the permission 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Anurag Jain but self enquiry doesn not lead to Total Release

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Neti neti also

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

John Tan
John Tan Anurag, the Self cannot b the perceiver nor can the Self b the percieved. Why then do u still ask "Who"?

Though u may have the eureka authentication, If post authentication one is still within the who, what, where, when and why mode of enquiry, he will forever be playing hide and seek.

Anatta as Robert said, relook the entire matter in another way so happy exploring.
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Neti assumes that you will be left with that which cannot be negated. So starting the search you already reinforce false assumption.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu John Tan nice just as i was posting at the same time 😂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

Robert realised anatta

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John, the Self never asks questions 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Self enquiry assumes "I". The version with asking "who knows" assumes who and knowing.
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik Questions based on assumption do not lead to truth. They only reinforce another false assumption.
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain John, you are assuming that I am inquiring. I am not. I am asking questions to others.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h



......
Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu did you read the thread completely and my responses?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert,ha, ha that is not talking of Self as experience dear !

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

In anatta, one realises that the experiencer-experiencing-experience paradigm to be fundamentally flawed. This applies to everything, not only I-I. Then in hearing, hearing is only sound without hearer, and so on, is the same luminous taste as I-I

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu, did you go through this thread?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Robert DominikActive Now
Robert Dominik You werent clear on that. In any case what a "self" or "Self" is?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Robert, in Advaita they are different from an unenlightened view and same from an enlightened view.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

Yes, why?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain But we will have to cover a lot of ground to understand this

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu because, I do not deviate an inch from what he said.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain And he did not speak of anatta. He was speaking of Self in that thread.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu You mean you agree with John?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu that means you did not go through the thread 🙂

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu I agree with John too. But you fail to see that John agrees with Robert too, on anatta.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu You fail to understand anatta just like when you said anatta is an experience. It is not.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu talk about what John Tan wrote in this thread. Exactly the same words.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain ?

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu I meant quote his words again.

    Like


.........



Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anyway its not surprising at all. John Tan and I have gone through self realization.

The I-I is not itself the issue, the issue we and Robert are debating and John Tan is pointing out is that you are caging the I-I into a dualistic paradigm of knower-known and asking a question of who/etc based on dualistic assumptions.

All these do not apply at all after anatta is realised.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h · Edited


......



Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu John tan wrote:

Anurag Jain, knowing is relative. To know is to measure and compare. Knowingness is beyond knowing. Knowingness is realized not by the relativity of a conditioned mind. U need to leap out of the conditioned.

I-I or I M is a direct and gapless authentication.

...

Anurag Jain to realize the I-I, a koan will b more appropriate to leap one out of the relative. As for Soh Wei Yu, yes. He knows what he is talking about...lol

...

Anurag, the Self cannot b the perceiver nor can the Self b the percieved. Why then do u still ask "Who"?

Though u may have the eureka authentication, If post authentication one is still within the who, what, where, when and why mode of enquiry, he will forever be playing hide and seek.

Anatta as Robert said, relook the entire matter in another way so happy exploring.

    Like
     · Reply · 1h

...

Soh Wei Yu


     · Reply · Remove Preview · 29m

Anurag JainActive Now
Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu knowingness is Self.

    Like
     · Reply · 27m · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain You are talking about I-I. I am not denying, I am saying that this taste is found as all manifestation after anatta. Plus caging it in who/what/where/when/why enquiry and dualistic paradigm simply puts a limit to the boundless and limitless unfolding of this taste.

    Like
     · Reply · 21m · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Right now this same I-I taste is always unfolding in its intensity, naturally, effortlessly throughout day and night not just as a formless Presence but also as the very vivid foreground manifestation that we normally call sky, trees, and birds chirping. Even before these labels. Everything is brilliant radiating presence, knowingness, aliveness, intelligence. If we cage this taste into a ghostly entity hiding behind everything else, this is merely imposing artificial boundaries and limitations. Falling into the framework of experiencer-experiencing-experience instead of the direct authentication of this

    Like
     · Reply · 17m · Edited



  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu I was asking who/what/why to others....not for myself. I cleared that in my comments above.
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu, your language is different from mine but yes, I-I is in all states.
  • Soh Wei Yu Anurag Jain

    The same taste is in all states and manifestation and is none other than manifestation. But in terms of view your view is different because I do not posit a changeless background
  • Soh Wei Yu John tan:

    “The Absolute as separated from the transience is what I have indicated as the 'Background' in my 2 posts to theprisonergreco.


    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 afterthought 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]
    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. -:)

    Many non-dualists after the intuitive insight of the Absolute hold tightly to the Absolute. This is like attaching to a point on the surface of a sphere and calling it 'the one and only center'. Even for those Advaitins that have clear experiential insight of no-self (no object-subject split), an experience similar to that of anatta (First emptying of subject) are not spared from these tendencies. They continue to sink back to a Source.

    It is natural to reference back to the Source when we have not sufficiently dissolved the latent disposition but it must be correctly understood for what it is. Is this necessary and how could we rest in the Source when we cannot even locate its whereabout? Where is that resting place? Why sink back? Isn't that another illusion of the mind? The 'Background' is just a thought moment to recall or an attempt to reconfirm the Source. How is this necessary? Can we even be a thought moment apart? The tendency to grasp, to solidify experience into a 'center' is a habitual tendency of the mind at work. It is just a karmic tendency. Realize It! This is what I meant to Adam the difference between One-Mind and No-Mind.” - John Tan, 2009, excerpt from Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience
  • Soh Wei Yu Of course the above talks about “experience” but actually both I AM and anatta is a realization, not a passing experience

    The point is rather about no background and presence as manifestation
  • Robert Dominik "The same taste is in all states and manifestation and is none other than manifestation. But in terms of view your view is different because I do not posit a changeless background" <- it matches what Malcolm Smith says that the experience, the taste of nonconceptual Samadhi can be the same and equally strong in both Hindu and Buddhadarma traditions but the view is different and is the crucial, key factor of liberative power. So the usual problem is that people - and in some way they're right - that the experience is the same in all traditions. But that misses the point as Buddhadharma stresses the right view. That's why there is distinction between Shamatha and Vipassana.
  • Robert Dominik So three experiences of "non-thought", "clarity" and "bliss" are accessible to everyone on all the paths. However the unique import of Buddhadharma is that contextualising experience with wrong view leads to involuntary rebirth in the three realms of formless, form and desire while experiences in the absence of wrong views are a Path to final release.
  • Soh Wei Yu Robert Dominik

    The meditative experience of nonthought, clarity or bliss is not the realization of I AMness. This is where john tan and I agree with anurag. It is a realization
  • Soh Wei Yu http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../realization...

    1. On Experience and Realization


    Comments by Soh: Also see related article - I AM Experience/Glimpse/Recognition vs I AM Realization (Certainty of Being)

    One of the direct and immediate response I get after reading the articles by Rob Burbea and Rupert is that they missed one very and most important point when talking about the Eternal Witness Experience -- The Realization. They focus too much on the experience but overlook the realization. Honestly I do not like to make this distinction as I see realization also as a form of experience. However in this particular case, it seems appropriate as it could better illustrate what I am trying to convey. It also relates to the few occasions where you described to me your space-like experiences of Awareness and asked whether they correspond to the phase one insight of Eternal Witness. While your experiences are there, I told you ‘not exactly’ even though you told me you clearly experienced a pure sense of presence.

    So what is lacking? You do not lack the experience, you lack the realization. You may have the blissful sensation or feeling of vast and open spaciousness; you may experience a non-conceptual and objectless state; you may experience the mirror like clarity but all these experiences are not Realization. There is no ‘eureka’, no ‘aha’, no moment of immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood something undeniable and unshakable -- a conviction so powerful that no one, not even Buddha can sway you from this realization because the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. It is the direct and unshakable insight of ‘You’. This is the realization that a practitioner must have in order to realize the Zen satori. You will understand clearly why it is so difficult for those practitioners to forgo this ‘I AMness’ and accept the doctrine of anatta. Actually there is no forgoing of this ‘Witness’, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature. Like what Rob said, "keep the experience but refine the views".

    Lastly this realization is not an end by itself, it is the beginning. If we are truthful and not over exaggerate and get carried away by this initial glimpse, we will realize that we do not gain liberation from this realization; contrary we suffer more after this realization. However it is a powerful condition that motivates a practitioner to embark on a spiritual journey in search of true freedom. 🙂
  • Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    Realization and Experience…
    Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
  • Jax's (Jackson Peterson) Message
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    Jax's (Jackson Peterson)…
    Jax's (Jackson Peterson) Message
  • Robert Dominik Soh Wei Yu sure. I wasn't clear on that - what I was trying to underline is that there is difference with regards to the view while some "qualities" might appear to be the same.
  • Soh Wei Yu I underwent I AM realization less than a year after John Tan wrote that to me in september 2009. Before that i had glimpses
  • Anurag Jain Soh Wei Yu in Advaita, as indicated in Mandukya, Self is beyond Form and Formless.

    Also, after Self is known, all forms are also seen as Self only.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain in Buddhadharma we call that a wrong view.
  • Robert Dominik For more you can read the screens I've posted below.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, I know that. In Advaita we say all views are mind, thoughts and concepts which aee objects to Self.
  • Robert Dominik The Self posited above doesn't stand analysis posited below which reveals it's a mistaken way of cognizing.
  • Robert Dominik No philosopher or mystic of Advaita has never made any point that couldn't stand the Madhyamaka analysis presented there and never will.
  • Robert Dominik So they avoid confronting with it - rightly sensing it is so.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, Self is that which witnesses the one making positions and negations.
  • Robert Dominik Such Self is illusory.
  • Robert Dominik As it is revelead when one goes through contemplations provided there.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, Self is that which witnesses all these assertions.
  • Robert Dominik Also one stops asking questions based on "who" after going through these contemplations.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, Self is one that witnesses the questioner and the questions and the answers.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain so read these screens for yourself and see whether that Self of yours can stand that analysis?
  • Robert Dominik I dare you it is not so.
  • Anurag Jain Robert Dominik the Self is that which witnesses reading this screen and thinking and daring.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain nah this self is witnessed by another self.
  • Robert Dominik which is witnessed by another self
  • Robert Dominik which is even witnessed by a SupersuperSelf even beyond that self xD
  • Robert Dominik Until you get to a fractal in 1000dimension which is seen by Paramatmabhramaextrasupersayanself :D
  • Robert Dominik I respect for you it is ultimate truth and I can see honest conviction in you that I too shared when I was at the level of Advaita. I just say what you propose is seen as empty and shallow when you have the Buddhadharma realisation.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, Self is the one who witnesses all this history :-)

    My wife has come back home. Having some tea with her. Take care Roberts. Hope we shall have tea together some day too :-)
  • Robert Dominik The thing is both Soh Wei Yu and John Tan had the realisation of Self you speak of but they went deeper. Like many seekers you got stuck on something that seems ultimate to you. However what you say is pointless because unless you check for yourself and honestly and humbly follow pointers Soh and John give then your position has no value. As they have checked both your Self and Emptiness of Buddhadharma and you only checked the Self. Sorry but this is simply how it is and no amount of repeating Advaita claims will change it.
  • Robert Dominik If you were interested in truth and actual dialogue then you would suspend your arrogance and spend time earnestly contemplating what Buddhadharma says to verify for yourself. For now you are trying to convince people who have seen the larger perspective to cling to your narrow perspective.
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain for people who have realised both the "Self witnesses all of it" of Advaita and Emptiness of Buddhadharma - the Self is not liberation. There is also a master Ratnashree whos realisation of Self was confirmed by great Hindu sages. However he then met Buddhadharma and studied it until realising its teachings. According to him the teachings you advocate are mundane compared to the liberative insight of the Buddhadharma. So you can write "but the Self is witnessing all of it" or asking "who is witnessing all of this" like an Advaitron 9000 robot but this doesn't change anything and makes you seem ignorant in your being so sure in promoting your view even though you only see one side of this debate and not both sides like the people I've mentioned.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, I know all this :-) I winess all this too :-)
  • Robert Dominik Anurag Jain so the debate is meaningless as we could go on until the end of time saying:
  • Robert Dominik Self is empty - the Self sees that - Self is empty - the Self sees that
  • Robert Dominik It's completely pointless as in myself the mistake cognition of "witnessing" and "self" can arise never again - it's impossible. And as long as you will reject all possibility of investigating what Buddhadharma is about but will just promote "Self" view then it's going to be just going back and forth between me saying "Self you speak of is illusory" and you saying "Self is witnessing that" and so on and so on and so on
  • Anurag Jain Robert, yups. Self is the eternal Witness :-)
  • Robert Dominik So if you are unwilling or unable verify my points without rejecting them with your assumption then we're wasting our time here and it's better to drop the subject alltogether and just drink tea instead.
  • Anurag Jain Robert, I was just going to say that. Thank you so much for accepting my invitation for tea brother :-)