This is a reminder that if you are interested in Arcaya Malcolm Smith's teaching on Dzogchen - Dzogchen Retreat with Arcaya Malcolm - please sign up now. Registration for TWS online retreat closes in 2 days, Aug. 7th.

I can't say everyone is going to resonate with these teachings, since it depends on one's proclivities, etc. But personally, John Tan and I find what Arcaya Malcolm Smith teaches to be highly resonating, so both of us will be attending the online retreat.

I have just updated this page which contains a collection of some of Malcolm's writings concerning the view of Dzogchen: Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm


[12:16 AM, 8/5/2020] John Tan: https://youtu.be/QYcMqaAtmZ4

[12:17 AM, 8/5/2020] John Tan: I like guy newland.
[12:18 AM, 8/5/2020] John Tan: Dzogchen, madhyamaka from Nyingma perspective...he choose mipham beacon of certainty
[12:19 AM, 8/5/2020] John Tan: Go watch
[12:34 AM, 8/5/2020] John Tan: Damn happy listening to this youtube

[9:09 PM, 8/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Just saw this in chnn book [Crystal and the Way of Light]:

we could even go so far as to say that, essentially, in Dzogchen, the Base is the primordial state, the Path is the primordial state, and the Fruit is the primordial state—and that there is thus a perfect continuity between them in that they all refer to the same thing: the true condition of the individual and the universe.
[11:34 PM, 8/4/2020] John Tan: Yes.
[11:37 PM, 8/4/2020] John Tan: Practice as if you r buddha but u r not yet Buddha.
[11:38 PM, 8/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[11:41 PM, 8/4/2020] John Tan: I think U pasted to me right?  Something like result is taken as the basis.
[11:42 PM, 8/4/2020] John Tan: So not from the view that life is impermanent, no-self and suffering.
[12:14 AM, 8/5/2020] Soh Wei Yu: What do u mean
[12:14 AM, 8/5/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oh taking buddha nature rather than impermanence no self suffering as basis and path of practicing?
[12:15 AM, 8/5/2020] John Tan: Yes
[12:34 AM, 8/5/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Do you mean these excerpts by Malcolm:

There are two ways be free of grasping: regarding all things as impure and rejecting them as such (Hinayāna and common Mahāyāna), and regarding all things as pure and accepting them as such. The latter method more rapid, but requires special methods, so that it is not merely an intellectual posture.

...

In sūtra there is no antidotal method of conceiving the appearance of things as pure which are typically conceived by ordinary sentient being as impure. Emptiness, in sutra, is provided as cure for this, in terms of nature, but not in terms of appearance. Vajrayāna address both nature and appearance; sūtra only addresses nature, not appearance.

...


In common Mahāyāna, like Hinayāna schools, relatively speaking, phenomena, other than path dharmas, are still compounded, suffering, and not-self, and hence impure. Their ultimate nature, emptiness, is pure.

In uncommon Mahāyāna Secret Mantra, phenomena are rendered pure through special methods which change our attitude towards phenomena.
[12:34 AM, 8/5/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ok
[12:35 AM, 8/5/2020] John Tan: Yeah

For Chinese readers only:

Recently compiled more articles (almost 130 pages) I previously didn't add to the document by Zen Master Hong Wen Liang - https://app.box.com/s/c0ir271dp8xkxow1ydy26xu8kg90z24d

For the full updated list of Zen Master Hong Wen Liang's writings (hundreds of pages), see https://app.box.com/s/ceb9i7wsk0lkfl2sjex97ai56l1k52pf
A common misunderstanding is that Buddha taught "life is suffering". As Alan Smith pointed out, there is often an overemphasis on  suffering, but actually in Buddhism, there is only suffering when there  is appropriation and clinging. To be clear: Buddha has never said "life is suffering", however, he did teach right from the beginning in his first discourse on the four noble truths that "appropriated aggregates are suffering", and by appropriated I mean tainted with I-making and mine-making.

In the Pali suttas, clinging and appropriation are not equated with the sheer aggregates ( https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN44.html ), and as Stian mentioned, he thinks aggregates are almost never mentioned in the sense of 'sheer aggregates' in the Pali canon. I think you get glimpses of how are 'sheer aggregates experienced by Buddha/arahants' in scriptures like Bahiya Sutta and Kalaka Sutta. In any case, the appropriation is what causes suffering, and the end of appropriation is the end of suffering.

In Bahiya Sutta ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html ), the end of appropriation is equated to the end of suffering, and it is the definition of Nirvana ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddha-teachings.html ). The first discourse he taught was on the four noble truths and one of his five students attained stream entry then, and the second discourse ( https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-anatta-lakkhana-sutta.html ) he taught was on anatta and all the five monks became arahants.

Now when we come to the Mahayana teachings, all aggregates are taught to be primordially pure and luminous. Does this negate the Pali suttas which says appropriated aggregates are suffering? No, it does not, if understood correctly in context.

Here's some nice clarifications on Dhammawheel:

badge icon


"
Sobhana wrote:
The Buddha sums up his definition of dukkha with: "aggregates subject to clinging are suffering" (pancu­padanak­khan­dha).
What is the meaning and what are the implications?"
"Since "upadana" means "appropriation",
more accurate translation would be "appropriated aggregates are suffering". This implies that suffering continues as long as the aggregates are appropriated, identified with.
Best wishes!
Post by vinasp » Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:10 am
Hi everyone,
I intend to quote some discourses which speak of the cessation of the clinging aggregates, using the alternative term 'sakkaya.'
One problem with this term is that every translator seems to use a different word for it.
Bhikkhu Bodhi uses 'identity', Ven. Thanissaro uses 'identification'.
However, I first need to show that 'identity' does indeed mean the five aggregates subject to clinging, this is stated in MN 44
"Lady,'identity, identity' is said. What is called identity by the Blessed One?"
"Friend Visakha, these five aggregates affected by clinging are called identity by the Blessed One..."
[Bhikkhu Bodhi, MLDB,- MN 44.2]
When I looked on suttacentral I found that they were not using BB's translation for MN 44, but the one that they are using is very good, it is by Anandajoti Bhikkhu.
“ ‘Embodiment, embodiment,’ is said, Noble Lady. What, Noble Lady, is said to be embodiment by the Gracious One?”
“These five constituents (of mind and body) that provide fuel for attachment, friend Visākha, are said to be embodiment by the Gracious One, as follows:
the form constituent that provides fuel for attachment, the feelings constituent that provides fuel for attachment, the perceptions constituent that provides fuel for attachment, the (mental) processes constituent that provides fuel for attachment, the consciousness constituent that provides fuel for attachment...." [suttacentral.net - MN 44]
Clinging is a mistranslation of 'upadana', fuel or nutriment is much better, I prefer 'sustain' because this sustaining is the cause of 'bhava' (becoming or existence), the continuation of the existence of the apparent self.
“These five constituents (of mind and body) that provide fuel for attachment ..."
Should be understood as: “These five constituents (of mind and body) that provide fuel for becoming (bhava).."
See also SN 12.11 where the 'four nutriments' are said to have craving as their source or origin. This is Dependent Origination with the four nutriments replacing clinging (upadana).
Regards, Vincent.


....


“Yes, upadana-khandha means 'object of clinging' ('aggregate of clinging').
It does not mean a potential object of clinging but it means an object of actual clinging.
Therefore, a lamp is not an upadanakhandha until there is attachment to the lamp as 'my lamp'.
It follows the word compound 'upadanakhandha' can be translated as 'aggregates subject to clinging' or 'aggregates of clinging'.


.....

[11:32 AM, 8/2/2020] John Tan: Tsongkhapa spoke about appropriated aggregates in his lam-rim chen-mo.

[11:32 AM, 8/2/2020] John Tan: Mmk [Mūlamadhyamakakārikā] also

....


https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29517&p=425812#p425812
Re: The 3 marks of what, exactly?
Unread post by vinasp » Sun May 21, 2017 11:55 am
Hi everyone,
"Bhikkhus, form is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perception is impermanent, volitional formations are impermanent, consciousness is impermanent....." SN 22.12
“Bhikkhus, form is suffering, feeling is suffering, perception is suffering, volitional formations are suffering, consciousness is suffering....." SN 22.13
“Bhikkhus, form is nonself, feeling is nonself, perception is nonself, volitional formations are nonself, consciousness is nonself....." SN 22.14
These may appear to be talking about the five aggregates, but I think that the five clinging aggregates are meant. All three continue in this way:
"Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”
Clearly, the aggregates mentioned at the start are those of an unliberated individual.
Another possibility is that 'form is suffering', and the rest, are not meant to be understood as ontological statements, but as how these things should be regarded. This explains 'seeing thus' as what leads to liberation.
Actual form is experienced, but the 'form aggregate' may mean a habit of regarding form in the wrong way, as permanent, a source of pleasure, and in relation to a self. If so, then the form aggregate will vanish when seen in the right way.
It seems that the discourses do not always make an explicit distinction between the aggregates and the clinging aggregates.
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, while not entirely rejecting the distinction, follows the Abhidhamma and Commentaries, arguing that the Arahant is still described by clinging aggregates.
Perhaps we should assume that almost all teaching on the aggregates is about the five clinging aggregates.
Regards, Vincent.


.........

Also related:

Fetter

"The eye is not the fetter of forms, nor are forms the fetter of the eye. Whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there. The ear is not the fetter of sounds... The nose is not the fetter of aromas... The tongue is not the fetter of flavors... The body is not the fetter of tactile sensations... The intellect is not the fetter of ideas, nor are ideas the fetter of the intellect. Whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there." -- Buddha, SN 35.191 (PTS: S IV 162) 

"My son, we are not bound by appearances; we are bound by our clinging to them." - Tilopa to Naropa

"The five senses arising with their objects are unimpeded radiance.
What is born from not grasping at objects is the unborn basic state.
Attachment to appearances may be unceasing but reverse it: meditate naturally settled.
Empty appearances arising free from the intellect is the path of natural expressions.
Do not see appearances as problems, let go of clinging.
There will come a time when you will arrive in the valley of one taste meditation." - Yang Gönpa
John Tan sent me the Aspiration Prayers of Mahamudra by the 3rd Karmapa today and said "I like Mahamudra... beautifully expressed"

Another facebook debate with Mr J, who holds the view that Advaita and Dzogchen is the same, which Soh points out is wrong.


Soh Wei Yu
m7tSponsotrSedh
· Shared with Your friends
Friends
“But what exactly is this “witness” we are talking about? It is the manifestation itself! It is the appearance itself! There is no Source to fall back, the Appearance is the Source! Including the moment to moment of thoughts. The problem is we choose, but all is really it. There is nothing to choose.
There is no mirror reflecting
Manifestation alone IS.
From blinking your eyes, raising a hand...jumps...flowers, sky, chirping birds, footsteps...every single moment...nothing is not it! There is just IT. The instantaneous moment is total intelligence, total life, total clarity. Everything Knows, it's it. There is no two, there is one.”
- John Tan, 2006
More details: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
55 Comments
Comments

Mr. J
Or better: there is only the mirror, no reflections. Look into any reflection or manifestation and you will discover the one looking into the manifestation is itself the mirror.

     · Reply
     · 5h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
Different realisation.
In your case, you did not realise mirror is empty of itself.
1

     · Reply
     · 5h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
the mirror is empty of not only itself, but has no content at all.

     · Reply
     · 5h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
If mirror is empty of itself, it is always only instantiation or manifestation.
If mirror has no content, it is a view of inherent existence and thus cannot be empty.
For example:
Fire is empty of itself and therefore is none other than burning. Besides burning there is no fire.
If fire has no burning, you are reifying a formless entity called fire that is divorced from burning.
1

     · Reply
     · 5h · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Even a formless sense of presence is just another manifestation, no more ultimate or special than a sound or sight.

     · Reply
     · 5h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
you are establishing a view of relative relationism. But Awareness is the independent context of any transient contents.
The Gradual Path versus the Sudden Path
The gradual paths believe by refining and purifying the mind, that the mind itself will transform back into being the Buddha Mind; like ice melting back into water.
But the schools of the sudden path see the Buddha Mind as being unrelated to our ordinary mind. From the sudden path view, the mind and Buddha Mind are of completely different natures, like an apple and a shoe.
Gradual path followers are saying that you could refine, purify and transform a shoe (ordinary mind) to eventually become an apple ( Buddha Mind).
The mind is a dependently arisen composite of various pranas. The Buddha Mind is not prana and is not dependently originated. Refining pranas will only end up as a group of refined pranas, not Buddha Mind.
The Buddha Mind or rigpa, is more like empty space; the empty space in which the pranas as mind, appear and disappear. Thoughts are prana, memories are prana, imagination is prana, the identity of “me” is prana and the self image is prana.
The Buddha Mind is like the empty space of a mirror, where the mind and all pranas or energies are the reflections. A reflection can never become the mirror. The mind can never become a Buddha Mind or rigpa.
The mind as intellect tries to learn the highest truth in order to become a Buddha. But any truth would just be more prana, no matter how sophisticated or transcendent in meaning the pranic thought would be.
Meditating to quiet or purify the mind is a total waste of time, because the Buddha Mind is already, always fully present.
It is only the Buddha Mind or rigpa which is aware. The mind and thought are prana and prana is not aware and can never be.
Returning to my silly analogy; most teachers point to your shoe (mind) and say “polish it” until it turns into an apple. It won’t happen any more than refining or purifying or stilling the the mind, will turn it into a Buddha Mind or rigpa.
Instead the “sudden school” teachers point directly to the apple (Buddha Mind, rigpa) and ignore the shoe (mind) altogether.
It’s like going to a store to buy a new mirror while the salesperson keeps talking about the wide range of various images and reflections it can reflect, instead of talking about the mirror itself.
Dzogchen’s rigpa, Advaita’s “turiya”, and especially Samkhya’s purusha, all only point to a pre-existing and changeless awareness itself, which is always already free, unaffected by mind, traumas, body, experiences and is always unchanging and pure.
Rigpa Awareness is effortless and always present as the empty, aware space in which mind, thoughts, self identities and perceptions arise dependently and vanish
automatically.
Rigpa is equally, fully present when the mind is turbulent and confused, as it is when the mind is still and perfectly clear.
Rigpa is outside of space and time while pervading the cognitive space of space and time.
A clue here is: only rigpa is aware: the mind and intellect are always unconscious energy which never awakens or becomes aware, any more than your shoe will awaken and become aware with lots of polishing.

     · Reply
     · 5h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
Anything short of no mirror realisation is not Buddhadharma but Hinduism.
Falling into the faults of eternalism and non Buddhist views.

     · Reply
     · 5h

Soh Wei Yu
There is no liberation in such a case.
1

     · Reply
     · 5h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
yes! There is no liberation in any case! There is no entity or self to be liberated either as the “transience” of John’s view nor in the view of Advaita, Samkhya or Dzogchen!

     · Reply
     · 5h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
You have fallen into the faults of not only eternalism, but also nihilism.

     · Reply
     · 5h

Dieter Vollmuth
Jax: Show us the mirror...
1

     · Reply
     · 4h · Edited

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
both eternalism and nihilism are fictional dualisms. Nothing “is”, nor is not, nor is either, nor is not either.

     · Reply
     · 4h

Mr. J
Dieter Vollmuth
“that” which would “see” the mirror that I would show you, is the mirror. 😉

     · Reply
     · 4h

Dieter Vollmuth
So - then you "see" a mirror in the mass of perception. I don't see such a thing.

     · Reply
     · 4h · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
Jul
09
Difference between "neo advaita nihilism" and Anatta
“[3:29 PM, 6/25/2020] John Tan: Thought of how to explain the difference in anatta and advaita nihilism.
[3:40 PM, 6/25/2020] John Tan: When a person in ignorance, why is he so blinded? If there is no I, shouldn't him be already free?
Sentient being: if there is no I in ignorance, then you are therefore free.
Anatta: There is no I in ignorance, you are precisely THAT ignorance, therefore fully and entirely blinded.
What anatta insight is telling us is the "I" and "ignorance" are the same phenomenon. This also tells us that even when in ignorant, there is complete and effortless non-dual experience, anatta is a seal.
[2:52 PM, 6/27/2020] Soh Wei Yu: The Beauty of Virtue
Thought is movement between “what is” and “what should be.” Thought is the time to cover that space, and as long as there is division between this and that psychologically, the movement is the time of thought. So thought is time as movement. Is there time as movement, as thought, when there is only observation of “what is”? That is, not observation as the observer and the observed, but only observation without the movement of going beyond “what is.” It is very important for the mind to understand this, because thought can create most marvelous images of what is sacred and holy, which all religions have done. All religions are based on thought. All religions are the organization of thought, in belief, in dogma, in rituals. So unless there is complete understanding of thought as time and movement, the mind cannot possibly go beyond itself.
We are trained, educated, drilled to change “what is” into “what should be,” the ideal, and that takes time. That whole movement of thought to cover the space between “what is” and “what should be” is the time to change “what is” into “what should be”—but the observer is the observed, therefore there is nothing to change, there is only “what is.” The observer doesn’t know what to do with “what is,” therefore he tries various methods to change “what is,” controls “what is,” tries to suppress “what is.” But the observer is the observed: the “what is” is the observer. Anger, jealousy, are also the observer; there isn’t jealousy separate from the observer—both are one. When there is no movement as thought in time to change “what is,” when thought perceives that there is no possibility of changing “what is,” then that which is—“what is”—ceases entirely, because the observer is the observed.
Go into this very deeply and you will see for yourself. It is really quite simple. If I dislike someone, the dislike is not different from the “me” or the “you.” The entity that dislikes is dislike itself; it is not separate. And when thought says, “I must get over my dislike,” then it is movement in time to get over that which actually is, which is created by thought. So the observer—the entity—and the thing called “dislike” are the same. Therefore there is complete immobility. It is not the immobility of being static, it is complete motionlessness and therefore complete silence. So time as movement, time as thought achieving a result, has come totally to an end, and therefore action is instantaneous. So the mind has laid the foundation and is free from disorder; and therefore there is the flowering and the beauty of virtue. In that foundation is the basis of relationship between you and another. In that relationship there is no activity of image; there is only relationship, not one image adjusting itself to the other image. There is only “what is” and not the changing of “what is.” The changing of “what is,” or transforming of “what is,” is the movement of thought in time.
When you have come to that point, the mind and the brain cells also become totally still. The brain which holds memories, experience, knowledge, can and must function in the field of the known. But now that mind, that brain, is free from the activity of time and thought. Then the mind is completely still. All this takes place without effort. All this must take place without any sense of discipline, control, which belong to disorder.
You know, what we are saying is totally different from what the gurus, the “masters,” the Zen philosophers say, because in this there is no authority, there is no following another. If you follow somebody, you are not only destroying yourself but also the other. A religious mind has no authority whatsoever. But it has intelligence and it applies that intelligence. In the world of action there is the authority of the scientist, the doctor, the man who teaches you how to drive, but otherwise there is no authority, there is no guru.
So, if you have gone as deeply as that, then the mind has established order in relationship, and understands the whole complex disorder of our daily lives. Out of the comprehension of that disorder, out of the awareness of it, in which there is no choice, comes the beauty of virtue, which is not cultivated, which is not brought about by thought. That virtue is love, order, and if the mind has established that with deep roots, it is immovable, unchangeable. And then you can inquire into the whole movement of time. Then the mind is completely still. There is no observer, there is no experiencer, there is no thinker.
There are various forms of sensory and extrasensory perception. Clairvoyance, healing, all kinds of things take place, but they are all secondary, and a mind that is really concerned with the discovery of what is truth, what is sacred, will never touch them.
The mind then is free to observe. Then there is that which man has sought through centuries, the unnameable, the timeless. And there is no verbal expression of it. The image that is created by thought completely and utterly ceases because there is no entity that wants to express it in words. Your mind can only discover it, or come upon it, when you have this strange thing called love, compassion, not only for your neighbor, but for the animals, the trees, for everything.
Then such a mind itself becomes sacred.
~ J Krishnamurti, 'This Light in Oneself: True Meditation'
[2:53 PM, 6/27/2020] Soh Wei Yu: reminds me of what you said 'you are the ignorance'
[6:52 AM, 6/28/2020] John Tan: Yes”

     · Reply
     · 4h

Soh Wei Yu
p.s. John Tan also said years ago,
"After this insight, one must also be clear of the way of anatta and the path of practice. Many wrongly conclude that because there is no-self, there is nothing to do and nothing to practice. This is precisely using "self view" to understand "anatta" despite having the insight.
It does not mean because there is no-self, there is nothing to practice; rather it is because there is no self, there is only ignorance and the chain of afflicted activities. Practice therefore is about overcoming ignorance and these chain of afflictive activities. There is no agent but there is attention. Therefore practice is about wisdom, vipassana, mindfulness and concentration. If there is no mastery over these practices, there is no liberation. So one should not bullshit and psycho ourselves into the wrong path of no-practice and waste the invaluable insight of anatta. That said, there is the passive mode of practice of choiceless awareness, but one should not misunderstand it as the "default way" and such practice can hardly be considered "mastery" of anything, much less liberation."
In 2013, Thusness said, "Anapanasati is good. After your insight [into anatta], master a form of technique that can bring you to that the state of anatta without going through a thought process." and on choiceless awareness Thusness further commented, "Nothing wrong with choice. Only problem is choice + awareness. It is that subtle thought, the thought that misapprehend (Soh: falsely imputes/fabricates) the additional "agent"."
“A state of freedom is always a natural state, that is a state of mind free from self/Self. You should familiarize yourself with the taste first. Like doing breathing meditation until there is no-self and left with the inhaling and exhaling... then understand what is meant by releasing.”
Labels: Anatta, Karmic Tendencies |

     · Reply
     · 4h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
Mirror is mistaken to be that which sees, reflections are mistaken to be that which is seen.
Caught in this duality suffering never ceases.
There is no mirror besides reflections, reflections are the mirroring. Empty, lucid and self-liberating.
3

     · Reply
     · 4h

Soh Wei Yu
The Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra
Composed by
The Lord Protector Rangjung Dorje
The Third Gyalwa Karmapa
Namoguru,
Gurus and yidams, deities of the mandala,
Buddhas of the three times in the ten directions and your sons and daughters,
Please consider us with kindness and understanding, and
Grant your blessing that these aspirations may be accomplished exactly as we ask.
Sprung from the snow mountain of pure intentions and actions
Of myself and all sentient beings without limit,
May the river of accumulated virtue of the threefold purity
Flow into the ocean of the four bodies of the Victorious Ones.
So long as this is not accomplished,
Through all my lifetimes, birth upon birth,
May not even the words "evil deeds" and "suffering" be heard
And may we enjoy the splendour
and goodness of oceans of happiness and virtue.
Having obtained the supreme freedoms
and conjunctions of the precious human existence,
endowed with faith, energy, and intelligence,
Having attended on a worthy spiritual friend
and received the pith of the holy instructions,
May we practice these properly, just as we have received them,
without obstacle or interruption.
In all our lives, may we practice and enjoy the holy dharma.
Hearing and studying the scriptures and
reasonings free us from the obscuration of not knowing,
Contemplating the oral instructions disperses the darkness of doubt.
In the light born of meditation what is shines forth just as it is.
May the brightness of the three prajnas grow in power.
By understanding the meaning of the ground,
which is the two truths free from the extremes of eternalism and nihilism
And by practising the supreme path of the two accumulations,
free from the extremes of exaggeration and denial,
Is attained the fruit of well-being for oneself and others,
free from the extremes of samsara and nirvana.
May all beings meet the dharma which neither errs nor misleads.
The ground of purification is the mind itself,
indivisible cognitive clarity and emptiness.
That which purifies is the great vajra yoga of mahamudra.
What is to be purified are the adventitious,
temporary contaminations of confusion,
May the fruit of purification, the stainless dharmakaya, be manifest.
Resolving doubts about the ground brings conviction in the view.
Then keeping one's awareness unwavering in accordance with the view,
is the subtle pith of meditation.
Putting all aspects of meditation into practice is the supreme action.
The view, the meditation, the action--may there be confidence in these.
All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.
Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind
Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,
manifesting as everything whatsoever.
Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut.
Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self.
By the power of this dualistic fixation, beings wander in the realms of samsaric existence.
May ignorance, the root of confusion, he discovered and cut.
It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.
May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, he realised.
If one says, "This is it," there is nothing to show.
If one says, "This is not it," there is nothing to deny.
The true nature of phenomena,
which transcends conceptual understanding, is unconditioned.
May conviction he gained in the ultimate, perfect truth.
Not realising it, one circles in the ocean of samsara.
If it is realised, buddha is not anything other.
It is completely devoid of any "This is it," or "This is not it."
May this simple secret, this ultimate essence of phenomena,
which is the basis of everything, be realised.
Appearance is mind and emptiness is mind.
Realisation is mind and confusion is mind.
Arising is mind and cessation is mind.
May all doubts about mind be resolved.
Not adulterating meditation with conceptual striving or mentally created meditation,
Unmoved by the winds of everyday busyness,
Knowing how to rest in the uncontrived, natural spontaneous flow,
May the practice of resting in mind's true nature be skilfully sustained.
The waves of subtle and coarse thoughts calm down by themselves in their own place,
And the unmoving waters of mind rest naturally.
Free from dullness, torpor, and, murkiness,
May the ocean of shamatha be unmoving and stable.
Looking again and again at the mind which cannot be looked at,
The meaning which cannot be seen is vividly seen, just as it is.
Thus cutting doubts about how it is or is not,
May the unconfused genuine self-nature he known by self-nature itself.
Looking at objects, the mind devoid of objects is seen;
Looking at mind, its empty nature devoid of mind is seen;
Looking at both of these, dualistic clinging is self-liberated.
May the nature of mind, the clear light nature of what is, be realised.
Free from mental fabrication, it is the great seal, mahamudra.
Free from extremes, it is the great middle way, madhyamika.
The consummation of everything, it is also called the great perfection, dzogchen.
May there be confidence that by understanding one,
the essential meaning of all is realised.
Great bliss free from attachment is unceasing.
Luminosity free from fixation on characteristics is unobscured.
Nonthought transcending conceptual mind is spontaneous presence.
May the effortless enjoyment of these experiences be continuous.
Longing for good and clinging to experiences are self-liberated.
Negative thoughts and confusion purify naturally in ultimate space.
In ordinary mind there is no rejecting and accepting, loss and gain.
May simplicity, the truth of the ultimate essence of everything, be realised.
The true nature of beings is always buddha.
Not realising that, they wander in endless samsara.
For the boundless suffering of sentient beings
May unbearable compassion be conceived in our being.
When the energy of unbearable compassion is unceasing,
In expressions of loving kindness,
the truth of its essential emptiness is nakedly clear.
This unity is the supreme unerring path.
Inseparable from it, may we meditate day and night.
By the power of meditation arise the eyes and supernormal perceptions,
Sentient beings are ripened and buddha fields are perfectly purified,
The aspirations that accomplish the qualities of a buddha are fulfilled.
By bringing these three to utmost fruition-fulfilling,
ripening and purifying-may utmost buddhahood be manifest.
By the power of the compassion of the Victorious Ones of the ten directions
and their sons and daughters,
And by the power of all the pure virtue that exists,
May the pure aspirations of myself and all sentient beings
Be accomplished exactly as we wish.

     · Reply
     · 4h

Mr. J
Dieter Vollmuth
no... that which sees and knows is the mirror. The mirror can never be objectified, known or seen. It’s pure subjectivity while never being in juxtaposition with an objectified “seen”.

     · Reply
     · 4h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
these examples only talk about dependently originated “mind”. But fail to notice rigpa or Dharmakaya, the background space in which the mind and universe appear and disappear.

     · Reply
     · 3h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
in any moment of experience, dualism isn’t possible.

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
Background is hinduism, not dzogchen.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html
Dzogchen teacher Arcaya Malcolm Smith:
The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.
[Quoting gad rgyangs: Consciousness is always a phenomenon.] So is the basis. They are both dharmas.
Or as the Great Garuda has it when refuting Madhyamaka:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.
An 12th century commentary on this text states (but not this passage):
Amazing bodhicitta (the identity of everything that becomes the basis of pursuing the meaning that cannot be seen nor realized elsewhere than one’s vidyā) is wholly the wisdom of the mind distinct as the nine consciousnesses that lack a nature.
In the end, Dzogchen is really just another Buddhist meditative phenomenology of the mind and person and that is all.
gad rgyangs wrote:
Then why speak of a basis at all? just speak of skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, and be done with it.
Malcolm wrote:
Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.
gad rgyangs wrote:
There is no question of the basis being an entity, thats not the point. Rigpa is precisely what it says in the yeshe sangthal: instant presence experienced against/within the "backdrop" (metaphor) of a "vast dimension of emptiness" (metaphor).
Malcolm wrote:
It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty.
gad rgyangs wrote:
When all appearances cease, what are you left with?
Malcolm wrote:
They never cease....
gad rgyangs wrote:
In the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.
rigpa is ontological not epistemic: its not about some state of consciousness before dualism vision, it is about the basis/abgrund of all possible appearances, including our consciousness in whatever state its in or could ever be in.
Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, I just don't agree with you and think you are just falling in the Hindu brahman trap.
Sherlock wrote:
Isn't the difference between transpersonal and personal also a form of dualism?
Malcolm wrote:
The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta.
Malcolm wrote:
[Quoting gad rgyangs: in the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.]
'The way that great transference body arises:
when all appearances have gradually been exhausted,
when one focuses one’s awareness on the appearances strewn about
on the luminous maṇḍala of the five fingers of one’s hand,
the environment and inhabitants of the universe
returning from that appearance are perceived as like moon in the water.
One’s body is just a reflection,
self-apparent as the illusory body of wisdom;
one obtains a vajra-like body.
One sees one’s body as transparent inside and out.
The impure eyes of others cannot see one’s body as transparent,
but only the body as it was before...'
Shabkar, Key to One Hundred Doors of Samadhi
Outer appearances do not disappear even when great transference body is attained. What disappears are the inner visions, that is what is exhausted, not the outer universe with its planets, stars, galaxies, mountains, oceans, cliffs, houses, people and sentient beings.
M
gad rgyangs wrote:
I'm talking about the perception of the relationship between nothing and something. The question of what jargon to use when talking around it is secondary, although not without historical interest.
Malcolm wrote:
Rigpa is just knowing, the noetic quality of a mind. That is all it is.
Malcolm wrote:
Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.
Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,
Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

     · Reply
     · Remove Preview
     · 3h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
again, Malcolm only knows “mind” the skandhas; not rigpa or Dharmakaya.

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
John tan, 2007:
(11:29 PM) Thusness: when we say there is a background that does not change, we are falling into this trap.
(11:29 PM) AEN: oic..
(11:29 PM) Thusness: so when there is stress, u cannot say that something behind is always not stressed.
(11:29 PM) Thusness: this is an illusion
(11:30 PM) Thusness: u cannot say that u have insight into the unchanging
(11:30 PM) Thusness: instead, u must 'c' the condition for the arising of stress.
(11:30 PM) AEN: icic
(11:30 PM) Thusness: otherwise where is the solution?
(11:30 PM) AEN: ya
(11:31 PM) Thusness: when u practice, u practice to c.
(11:31 PM) AEN: icic
(11:31 PM) Thusness: that is the clarity of buddha's nature.
(11:31 PM) AEN: oic
(11:31 PM) Thusness: that is, it is pain.
(11:31 PM) Thusness: clearly so.
(11:31 PM) AEN: icic
(11:31 PM) Thusness: it must be as clear as it can be.
(11:31 PM) Thusness: arises and ceases
(11:31 PM) Thusness: get it?
(11:32 PM) AEN: ya
(11:32 PM) Thusness: now the clarity is never affected
(11:32 PM) Thusness: why?
(11:32 PM) Thusness: because there is pain
(11:32 PM) Thusness: otherwise it becomes dull.
(11:32 PM) Thusness: something is wrong
(11:33 PM) Thusness: or it becomes a stone
(11:33 PM) AEN: oic..
(11:33 PM) Thusness: that is why mindfulness leads to enlightenment
(11:33 PM) AEN: icic
(11:34 PM) Thusness: now when we c this, we do not have image
(11:34 PM) Thusness: we cannot have
(11:34 PM) AEN: oic
(11:34 PM) Thusness: because it is not anything at all
(11:34 PM) AEN: icic
(11:34 PM) Thusness: there is no way to know
(11:35 PM) Thusness: but if u say all those attributes, it becomes predictable
(11:35 PM) Thusness: it becomes something
(11:35 PM) AEN: oic
(11:35 PM) Thusness: it has an image
(11:35 PM) Thusness: it is a background
(11:35 PM) AEN: oic
(11:36 PM) Thusness: when one experience something like the background, it is a form of samadhi
(11:36 PM) Thusness: it is a merge with the image
(11:37 PM) Thusness: but if one arises and ceases without background, then that is insight
(11:37 PM) AEN: oic
(11:37 PM) AEN: u mean stage 1 and 2 is samadhi?
(11:37 PM) AEN: but u said theres difference rite
(11:37 PM) AEN: between samadhi and stage 1
(11:37 PM) Thusness: yeah
(11:38 PM) Thusness: what is important is to have insight, the directness until u reaches non-dual
(11:38 PM) AEN: icic
(11:38 PM) Thusness: then when non-dual is peak, there is self-liberation.
(11:38 PM) AEN: oic
(11:38 PM) Thusness: however self liberation has 2 very important characteristics
(11:38 PM) Thusness: one is completely non-attached
(11:38 PM) Thusness: the other is fearlessness
(11:38 PM) AEN: icic
(11:39 PM) AEN: fearlessness means if u look down from a tall building u also not scared? 😛
(11:39 PM) Thusness: no lah
(11:39 PM) Thusness: means no fear
(11:39 PM) Thusness: even the entire body is gone
(11:39 PM) AEN: oic then isnt wat i said true
(11:39 PM) Thusness: everything is gone
(11:39 PM) AEN: lol
(11:39 PM) AEN: icic
(11:40 PM) Thusness: it is very important
(11:40 PM) Thusness: and non-attachment
(11:40 PM) AEN: oic
(11:40 PM) Thusness: then u can experience the highest form of non-dual
(11:40 PM) AEN: icic
(11:40 PM) Thusness: that is self-liberation in all moments
(11:40 PM) AEN: oic
(11:41 PM) Thusness: tat is why one must continue to practice second door
(11:41 PM) Thusness: the passing away
(11:41 PM) Thusness: that is the reason i posted in the steven case.
(11:41 PM) AEN: icic
(11:42 PM) AEN: btw u said if theres background its samadhi
(11:43 PM) AEN: but u also said samadhi is different from stage 1 and 2 rite
(11:43 PM) AEN: cos theres no clarity or something
(11:43 PM) Thusness: the most is samadhi
(11:43 PM) AEN: huh
(11:43 PM) Thusness: but u must also understand that, the presence experience is not a background hor
(11:43 PM) Thusness: it is only misunderstood as a background
(11:43 PM) AEN: oic
(11:44 PM) Thusness: the actual experience is not a form of background
(11:44 PM) AEN: so a person when they enter samadhi, they may not experience presence
(11:44 PM) AEN: but a stage 1 and 2 experience presence and mistakes it as background
(11:44 PM) Thusness: only when we attempt to understand, we misinterpret it.
(11:44 PM) AEN: oic
(11:44 PM) Thusness: so when it becomes a background, u can only get it as a merge with that image thought has created from the experience of presence.
(11:45 PM) AEN: icic
(11:45 PM) Thusness: in this case there is the experience of it, but there is no prajna wisdom.
(11:45 PM) AEN: oic
(11:45 PM) Thusness: there is no wisdom because ignorance is taking place and is strong.
(11:45 PM) AEN: icic
(11:46 PM) Thusness: therefore there is no insight, but there is experience.
(11:46 PM) AEN: oic
(11:46 PM) AEN: but a person who enters samadhi may not necessarily experience stage 1/presence isnt it?
(11:47 PM) AEN: like u said a person does chanting may not experience presence but enters into samadhi
(11:47 PM) Thusness: when u practice wu wei fa, u must not posit a background...though u will have the tendency to do so due to the root of ignorance.
(11:47 PM) AEN: icic
(11:47 PM) Thusness: so u must know and keep this in mind.
(11:47 PM) Thusness: that is what i said about building a solid base on the seals
(11:48 PM) AEN: oic
(11:48 PM) Thusness: although u do not experience, u must measure it by the seals
(11:48 PM) Thusness: then u will not be lost and u continue and not deviate from the path
(11:48 PM) AEN: icic
(11:49 PM) AEN: building a solid base on the seals means what
(11:49 PM) AEN: experience mindfulness ?
(11:49 PM) Thusness: but if u practice wu wei fa and posit a background
(11:49 PM) Thusness: then the background will take over.
(11:49 PM) AEN: oic
(11:49 PM) Thusness: and u sink further and much deeper
(11:50 PM) Thusness: because the wu wei fa instead of saving u, u sank deeper into ignorance.
(11:50 PM) AEN: icic
(11:50 PM) Thusness: and next time even wu wei fa also can't save u from it.
(11:50 PM) AEN: oic
(11:51 PM) Thusness: because u have fused it into the background
(11:51 PM) AEN: icic
(11:51 PM) Thusness: so how are u going to use it to help u break it anymore?
(11:51 PM) Thusness: the background anymore?
(11:51 PM) AEN: oic
(11:51 PM) Thusness: the purpose of DO is to break the entity concept
(11:52 PM) Thusness: now u have used DO to strengthen the entity concept, isn't it very dangerous?
(11:53 PM) AEN: oic
(11:53 PM) AEN: ya
(11:53 PM) Thusness: so next time what and which teaching can lead u out?
(11:53 PM) AEN: oic
(11:53 PM) Thusness: that seed that is planted is difficult to eliminate
(11:54 PM) Thusness: so first no-self (non-dual), then emptiness, then self liberation
(11:54 PM) AEN: icic
(11:54 PM) AEN: btw i practise self-inquiry a few times... but isit bad to practise? like wld it strengthen the ‘background’ even more
(11:55 PM) Thusness: that is why meditation is very important
(11:55 PM) AEN: oic
(11:55 PM) Thusness: u retire and retreat
(11:55 PM) Thusness: when our wisdom isn't there, it is better to practice this way
(11:56 PM) AEN: icic..
(11:56 PM) Thusness: until we truly experience self liberation after the 3 stages

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
He realised rigpa. He was asked to teach by dzogchen master who completed his path

     · Reply
     · 3h · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
“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

     · Reply
     · 3h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
“behind” or background is like this; visualize a dog with your eyes closed. The dog appears in front of Awareness. The awareness seems as an unseen, Knower not at the position of the dog, but “behind” the did. Check this out.. let’s disc… See More

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
At the I AM phase I always felt that phenomena arise and cease within the limitless background of impersonal awareness.
After anatta I saw that the background is merely a misinterpretation and never has it existed that way.

     · Reply
     · 3h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
the purusha in Samkhya is exactly this independent Consciousness. It’s what is aware. All perceptions are permanently unconscious.

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
I saw through the illusion of background 9 years ago

     · Reply
     · 3h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
Ok, what saw this?

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
Faulty question. There is no subject that saw. Everything, colors, sounds, are self luminous and self seen. Even the I AM presence misinterpreted to be a background is just another foreground self-luminous self-seen taste of Presence

     · Reply
     · 3h · Edited

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
but you said “I saw through this illusion 9 years ago”. Who or what saw this that didn’t see this previously?

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
The “I” here is just a convention. Manifestation sees

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
Seer seeing seen are all just conventions
Like fire burning burned

     · Reply
     · 3h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
huh? What is the “manifestation” that “sees through” and understands?

     · Reply
     · 3h

Mr. J
Thoughts can’t understand.. they are just prana.

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
sounds hear, colors see

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
Gil fronsdil excerpts on anatta 15+ years ago:
There are two forms of knowing that come into play in mindfulness. One form of knowing has to do with sensing. Sensing our experience. Then the question is, where does sensing occur? So if you sense your hand right now. Where does the sensing occur in your hand. Does it occur in the foot, where does it happen? Does the sensing happen in the mind?
...In your hand. Of course. Something happens in your hand, that gives you the sensations right, and I call that sensing. Sensing the hand in the hand. The hand is having its own experience of the hand. Your foot is not experiencing your hands. But that hand is having its own experience of the hand. The mind can know what that experience is, but the
hand is sensing itself. Vibrations, tension, warmth, coolness. The sensations happen right there in the hand. The hand is sensing itself. There is a kind of awareness that exists in the location of where we are experiencing it. Does that make some sense? Any of you are confused at this point?
...Part of what mindfulness practice involves is relaxing into the sensing of the experience. And just allowing ourselves to become the sensations of experience. Bringing a sense of presence or involvement... allow ourselves to really kick in that sensory experience... whatever happens in life, whatever experience we are having, has an element of also being sensory. "Awakening beckons us within everything" is a suggestion - Go in, and dive in to the immediacy of how it is being sensed. That's a nondual world. There is no duality between the experience and the sensation, the sensation and the sensing of it. There is a sensation and sensing of it right there, right? There is no sensation
without a sensing, even though you might not be paying attention to it, there is a kind of sensing that goes on there. So part of Buddhist practice is to delve into this non-dualistic world... this undivided world of how the sensing is happening in and of itself. Most of us hold ourselves distinct from it, apart from it. We judge it, measure it, define
it against ourselves, but if we relax and delve into the immediacy of life... then there is something in there that the Buddha-seed can begin to blossom and grow.
~ Gil Fronsdal on Buddha Nature, 2004
----------------
(another part)... And as that gets kind of being settled and dealt with in practice, in order to get deeper and more fully into our experience, we also have to somehow deal with [inaudible] very very subtle, which the traditions call a sense of I Amness. That I Am. And it can seem very innocent, very obvious, that I'm not a doctor, I'm not this and I'm not that, I'm not going to hold onto that as my identity. But you know, I am. I think, therefore I am. I sense, there I am. I am conscious, therefore I am. There is some kind of Agent, some kind of Being, some kind of Amness here. Just a sense of presence, and that presence that kinds of vibrates, that presence kinds of knows itself... just a kind of sense of Amness. And people say, well yeah, that Amness just IS, it's non-dual. There's no outside or inside, just a sense of amness. The Buddhist traditions says if you want to enter this immediacy of life, enter into the experience of life fully, you also have to come to terms with the very subtle sense of Amness, and let that dissolve and fall away, and then that opens up into the world of awakening, of freedom.
~ Gil Fronsdal on Buddha Nature, 2004
"Gil Fronsdal (1954) is a Buddhist who has practiced Zen and Vipassana since the 1970s, and is currently a Buddhist teacher who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is the guiding teacher of the Insight Meditation Center (IMC) of Redwood City, California. He is one of the best-known American Buddhists. He has a PhD in Buddhist Studies from Stanford University. His
many dharma talks available online contain basic information on meditation and Buddhism, as well as subtle concepts of Buddhism explained at the level of the lay person." he also received dharma transmission from a zen abbot."

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
Nov
30
Gesture of Awareness
Thusness and I think this is a book with great clarity.
.............
A few excerpts from Gesture of Awareness by Charles Genoud:
When we develop true intimacy with our body, we become intimate with ourselves. We learn to be present as a whole. We open to discovery of our essence when the dichotomy of body-mind is dropped.
This is precisely the purpose of the practice of Gesture of Awareness.
In this practice we explore movement to discover the nature of awareness. We inquire even of the sensation of tension in the neck – becoming aware not of the sensation but of the consciousness of it; becoming aware not of the consciousness of it, but of the essence of the consciousness. One does not always have to practice Gesture of Awareness, though, in such a gradual way.
If the body is just a thought, the play of awareness, then ultimately an intimate knowledge of the body is an intimate knowledge of awareness...
..........
....Are we present
in what we do
at every instant?
Or are we doing
the not-yet-here,
that which we are wishing for
In the simplicity
of the experience,
is the doing of what we do
happening
anywhere?
The action is
not located anywhere.
In order for something
to be placed somewhere there needs
to be at least two phenomena.
When there is only one,
there is nothing with respect to
where it may be located.
Bodily sensations are not in the body -
for the sensations themselves,
the sensations are not happening anywhere.
From the left hand’s point of view,
it is not located anywhere.
It is nowhere.
Nothing to improve.
If there were only one universe
and therefore nothing outside it,
could we located the universe?
Here without any possibility
of there is devoid of signification.
Here nondualistically
is meaningless.
Now here
nowhere.
...........
Can the most dense place
of presence be found in the head
or heart or wherever else?
is the place with the densest sense of being
right in the experience itself?
Is the place with the densest sense of being
right in bodily sensation
when there is bodily sensation?
right in the experience itself:
in a thought
when there is a thought?
What if we bring our attention,
our awareness, to a specific place,
any specific place, any part of the body?
If we try as meditators to bring our awareness to our walking we’ll be
in the profane place in front of the temple.
When we bring our attention somewhere
we’re in the profane world.
Bringing our awareness
to any experience means we’re not
in the most dense place of existence.
We don’t need to bring our awareness anywhere -
awareness is always within the arising
of the experience itself.
We don’t need to make any separation
between bodily sensations and awareness.
Bodily sensations are already awareness.
Thought is already awareness.
We don’t need to bring
awareness to the thought.
What we’re exploring
is not the body
but the body’s awareness.
We’re just exploring
the body of awareness.
We may wonder where
the body’s awareness is,
imagining it’s in the body.
but the body’s awareness will only be
in the body if we stand outside ourselves
trying to figure out where it is.
The center gives orientation.
It’s not located anywhere.
The experience of the body’s awareness
or the thought’s awareness is not located anywhere
from the standpoint of the experience.
There is nothing outside
the experience of the body’s awareness.
Awareness is not located anywhere.
It is not situated in space.
for space would then be something known by
experience: it’s not a characteristic
of awareness itself.
In our exploration
it’s not necessary
to direct our awareness.
Rather, let awareness
play out on its own.
Rest simply with experiences,
with bodily sensations,
thoughts.
If one tries to bring awareness
someplace then one may not
be complete.
And so now you know
where the place to be is.
..........

     · Reply
     · 3h

Soh Wei Yu
In spiritual circles, workshops, talks, and retreats
words like here and now are used like mantras,
as if they express truth.
Don’t the words here and now
depend on place, on time -
on before and after?
Don’t they express dualism?
Don’t the words here and now
express a fragmented understanding?
We may find this notion that things
don’t happen in place or time
more challenging.
An experience happens somewhere only when
we place ourselves outside the experience
as an observer, as an experiencer.
An experience happens
somewhere only with respect to
another somewhere.
When we are the experience itself,
can it be experienced
at any place?
When we bring our attention
somewhere, don’t we create a place?
When I move my attention to my arm,
mindful of sensations in my arm,
am I not making a place, a world?
isn’t this how we structure
our daily lives, our reality?
This structure of our lives,
our reality, is exactly
what we’re questioning.
We’re questioning the way we create
a world through attitude and language
and purposeful mindfulness.
When we believe in the world
in which we live,
when we believe in separation,
when we believe in duality,
in subject and object, we’re creating
our cage, our prison, our chains.
Or we may keep on creating the world,
while yet realizing the fictional
aspect of our creation.
Though they may sound harsh,
these two words – achronic and atopic -
illuminate with their precision.
No time, no place,
no when, no where.
In order to explore this,
we may have to stop following
our tendency to be an observer,
our tendency to observe
our experiences, our thoughts.
If we set ourselves up as an observer
of our thoughts we could locate them
with respect to this observer.
If we are just thoughts – if we are
the arising thoughts – where could
we locate them, and with respect to what?
can we say a thought is here, or there?
Here or there
is the thought that we are
when here arises with the simultaneous
impossibility of there -
it has no meaning.
This may be said to be true
for all experiences.
Tasting, thinking, smelling, hearing,
tactile sensation, seeing -
the simplicity of our experiences -
where do they happen?
The seeing itself, and not the object -
where does seeing happen?
Can we say it’s happening in front of us,
or behind us, or inside, or outside,
and with respect to what?
We may inquire of all our senses
in this way without building
any sense of location.
Can I just walk, just experience
bodily sensations, and not invent stories?
If there is nothing other than bodily sensations, in which space could I move?
Toward what, away from what?
In our work, we don’t need to cultivate
the attempt to be mindful
of something specific.
Just walking, just seeing,
just hearing – we don’t need to try to walk or see or hear.
maybe we’re as absent as
the characters in Blanchot’s novel:
we are nowhere.
Yet that is
to be questioned.
.............
In trying to find anything
real in the form that appears,
one is left with nothing,
yet this nothing
allows form to appear,
the flowers to blossom.
The dreamlike can play,
interact,
gather together and separate.
.................
In observing there is just simply presence.
A presence without anyone.
When the action
not subject to aim rests
in itself, where is separation?
In wholly doing something -
acting totally in oneness -
there’s no aim, no result,
no I, no actor,
only act.
............
Mental images are traces -
traces, habitual patterns.
As we need to rest
on something which seems stable,
firm, we cling to traces.
On the traceless, therefore
timeless,
we project the notion of time and duration.
To find comfort and security
we make something
out of an ungraspable reality.
We grasp so quickly
conceptualize so conditionally,
that we’re never aware of the traceless.
Holding on to an experience by means of a concept,
I solidify it:
I make it into something,
a something
that can be opposed to something else.
........
We don’t need to read fiction
to be in a dream-like reality
as there is no real world
behind the dream,
behind the traces.
........
We live in an illusory world,
an illusory world that we share,
an illusion kept alive
by tacit convention.
The reality of our everyday life
depends on shared conditionality -
it is a common dream,
not a private one.
Can you move your hand
in a circular way, not holding on
to traces;
can you move your hand
and not be drawn in by the notion of a circle? Let’s explore.
Know when you are dealing with traces.
Know when you are just experiencing.
................
the Buddha says:
In seeing, just seeing; in hearing, just hearing;
in tasting, just tasting; in smelling, just smelling;
in feeling, just feeling; in thinking, just thinking.
It was enough for the Brahmin,
who awakened.
But what does
just mean?
It means the elimination
of the reality of a tangible subject
and tangible object;
it leaves seeing whole.
A seeing in which the totality
of my being participates..
A seeing beyond any notion
of inside and outside.
A seeing without a seer;
a seeing without anything seen.
it leaves intimacy,
an intimacy leaving only presence,
only awareness.
How is I-less seeing,
I-less hearing
possible?
When wind blows,
do we look for a blower
apart from the blowing?
When fire burns,
do we look for burner
apart from the fire?
Can’t I see the way the wind blows
can feel the way fire burns when I lie
on the floor with my eyes closed?
Is there any rester apart from the resting?
is there any feeler separated
from feeling bodily sensations?
The sense of being at rest
on the floor
or on one’s back
creates separation,
creates duality.
Is the notion of floor,
or the notion of back, anything but
imagination, a construct based
on the sensation of hardness, of coldness?
A construct useful if we’re to clean the floor, useful
if we need to protect our back,
but it misleads
if we’re concerned with intimacy,
with full presence.
Can I rest on the floor
like the fire burns?
Can I walk
like the wind blows?....
Labels: Anatta, Books and Websites Recommendations, Charles Genoud, Dzogchen, Emptiness, Luminosity, Non Dual, Theravada 0 comments | |

     · Reply
     · 3h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
read all of it! But you are avoiding “what saw this 9 years ago, retains that memory and sees it, what it didn’t see previously.” All I read is about the “experienced” but nothing about what is conscious of the experience. Experiences occ… See More

     · Reply
     · 2h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
Experience is itself conscious and there is no consciousness besides experience. Just experience alone is radiant. Experience dependently originates

     · Reply
     · 2h · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
This is the point of the opening post.
“From blinking your eyes, raising a hand...jumps...flowers, sky, chirping birds, footsteps...every single moment...nothing is not it! There is just IT. The instantaneous moment is total intelligence, total life, total clarity. Everything Knows, it's it. There is no two, there is one.”
- John Tan, 2006
More details: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

     · Reply
     · Remove Preview
     · 2h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
yes, this post is talking about non-dual experience, but seems that you are hiding this obvious “awareness that knows” behind a smoke screen of immediacy and a type of ordinary sensory experience, as though that was the ultimate appearing a… See More

     · Reply
     · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
No, you are hiding awareness as a background.
When anatta is realised, nothing can be hidden, total intelligence, life and clarity is always fully manifest. Nothing hidden and never has been.

     · Reply
     · 1h

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 |

         · Reply
         · 1h

Write a reply...

Lewis Stevens
Very nice...... let's here more from John Tan.

     · Reply
     · 5h

Soh Wei Yu
Lewis Stevens
Here’s more:
“What is presence now? Everything... Taste saliva, smell, think, what is that? Snap of a finger, sing. All ordinary activity, zero effort therefore nothing attained. Yet is full accomplishment. In esoteric terms, eat God, taste God, see God, hear God...lol. That is the first thing I told Mr. J few years back when he first messaged me 😂 If a mirror is there, this is not possible. If clarity isn't empty, this isn't possible. Not even slightest effort is needed. Do you feel it? Grabbing of my legs as if I am grabbing presence! Do you have this experience already? When there is no mirror, then entire existence is just lights-sounds-sensations as single presence. Presence is grabbing presence. The movement to grab legs is Presence.. the sensation of grabbing legs is Presence.. For me even typing or blinking my eyes. For fear that it is misunderstood, don't talk about it. Right understanding is no presence, for every single sense of knowingness is different. Otherwise Mr. J will say nonsense... lol. When there is a mirror, this is not possible. Think I wrote to longchen (Sim Pern Chong) about 10 years ago.” - John Tan
“An interesting comment Mr. J. After realization… Just eat God, breathe God, smell God and see God… Lastly be fully unestablished and liberate God.” - John Tan, 2012
(Soh: Lest readers misinterpret that John is affirming a substantialist notion of a ‘God’, it should be noted that by the phase of Anatta realization, there is simply no more reifications or conceivings of a metaphysical ‘God’ or ‘Creator’ of any kind, and John was simply using the lingo of Mr. J to convey the complete absence of a background substratum of Presence and the total luminosity of Presencing-as-manifestation to Mr. J using Mr. J’s ‘esoteric lingo’. Even the word ‘Presence’ is not referring to some static entity here - ‘Presencing’ is perhaps a better term, for as James M. Corrigan wrote, “...Awareness is not something other than the “presencing” (i.e. naturing) of appearances. It is not a thing. It is not part of a thing. It is not an “aspect” of a process… ...it is the process—not some aspect of it”

     · Reply
     · 4h

Lewis Stevens
very cool....cheers!
1

     · Reply
     · 4h

Mr. J
Soh Wei Yu
ok, .. so what happens in Alzheimers? The totality of consciousness becomes incoherent impulses and memory fragments, loss of memory and finally death where “experiences”, such as “colors”, “sounds” and sensory perceptions cease. Death means total cessation?

     · Reply
     · 3h · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Mr. J
The idea that there is a “consciousness” that “becomes something” is wrong.
Consciousness is named after conditions.
“But before u talk about total exertion let's look at fluxing...
Buddha named consciousness after its ayatanas. This is to prevent us from abstracting and reifying a pure self standing consciousness. In other words, consciousness is in a perpetual state of fluxing and if u where to slice a moment out of this stream of consciousness-ing, it is always one of the six types of consciousness -- eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mental-consciousness.” - John Tan, 2020 http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-total-exertion-of-success.html
Sutta: https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi
The Total Exertion of Success
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
The Total Exertion of Success
The Total Exertion of Success

     · Reply
     · Remove Preview
     · 1h

Soh Wei Yu
As for the mind continuum, it is not restricted to one life, but it too is dependently originating.
Arcaya Malcolm:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html
Malcolm wrote:
Not even dharmakāya is "truly existent".
smcj wrote:
There is not 100% agreement on that.
Malcolm wrote:
People who think dharmakāya is truly existent are simply wrong, and suffer from an eternalist bias.
In reality the three kāyas are also conventions.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
I am talking about even the awareness of these four things [space, the two cessations and emptiness].
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I understand. All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
isn't this cause, too, an object of awareness? Isn't there awareness of this cause? If awareness of this cause is awareness itself, then isn't this awareness of awareness? What causes awareness of awareness, if not awareness?
If awareness is the cause of awareness, isn't it its own cause?
Malcolm wrote:
Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.
Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,
Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
I am not referring to cognition, rather, the causes of that cognition.
Malcolm wrote:
Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all.
If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land.
Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma.
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

 · Reply
 · Remove Preview
 · 1h

Labels: 0 comments | | edit post