xabir2005

Even though everything is empty, like a dream and illusory, nonetheless sentient beings are deceived by appearances and believe in a self and a real world, so even within their dream they suffer. It is like being in a nightmare not knowing that the nightmare is only a dream. Awakening means you realize the dream as illusory. So it becomes like lucid dreaming, you no longer suffer because of the dream and you can even control and do whatever you like in the dream. So even though everything is primordially pure, realizing it is what makes a difference. Waking up is what is important, much like if a beggar has a diamond hidden in his pillow but does not realize it, he will not benefit from it and still be poor. Because sentient beings, though illusory, have mistakenly taken self and phenomena as real, they are suffering. This why it is sensible to have compassion for them. So it is said that emptiness and compassion is inseparable. Aspirants of Mahayana give rise to the thought of bodhicitta and vow to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all suffering sentient beings. Not only do we want to wake ourselves up, we want to wake everyone up. The attainment of Buddhahood is the highest attainment and result of Mahayana/Bodhisattva practice, but it is true that even Buddhahood is illusory and thus not something to be clung to. The only truth here is that of emptiness. As for rebirth, yes I believe in literal rebirth. Apart from Buddha who remember countless past lives, lots of practitioners I personally know have clear vivid memory of their past lives. Furthermore there are research done by scientists like dr ian stevensons which back rebirth, and such research into children's past lives (they are able to prove the child's memories are right) are fascinating and even published in well known scientific and medical journals. Anyway remembering past lives through meditation is not rare.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/12/experience-realization-view-practice.html Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition Posted by: An Eternal Now Here's something I just added to my e-book. I was trained in these 3 aspects and Thusness asked me to write something clearer about 'experience, realization and view' and synchronistically I actually had the same thought on that day. I think I'm going to add this as one of those preface chapters before I start with the journal section in my e-book. So the 3 aspects I'm talking about are: 1. The Experience 2. The Realization 3. The Implications of View However, for the sake of this article and benefit for readers, I will add two more: 4. The Practice 5. The Result/Fruition ... so this is going to be a very long article... I can feel it as I am writing now, hehe. Oh and one more thing: I put Practice after the first three instead of dealing with practice in the first part because I want people to know what they are doing their practice for, and the reason why they are doing those practices, how those practices result in realization and their effects on View. You will understand as you read further. This article documents my insight and experience and journey. Even though whatever I said is authentic, spoken from experience, accurate, it is not meant to be an authoritative map for everyone - not everyone goes through these insights in the same linear fashion (the Buddha only teach people to realize Anatta and Shunyata in the traditional Pali texts and did not talk about Self-Inquiry or Self-Realization, for instance), however it is true that all traditions of Buddhism (provided that there is right guidance and training) will eventually result in these various kinds of insights and experience, despite going through a different path or practice. It should also be understood that when people talk about "no-self", it could imply a number of things... from impersonality, to non-dual, to anatta. In worse case it is being misunderstood as dissociation (I, the observer, dissociates from phenomena as not myself). Therefore, we should always understand the context of 'no self' that is being said by the practitioner or person and not always assume that the 'no self' must be the same as the 'no self' you have in mind. Due to lack of clarity, very often 'anatta' is confused with 'impersonality', or 'anatta' with 'non-duality'. They are not the same even if there may be overlaps or aspects of each in one's experience. One must be careful to distinguish them and not confuse one with another. I will now start explaining 'experience'. There are a number of important experiences related to our true nature: 1. Pure Presence/Witness This is the case when practitioners have experienced a pure radiance of presence, awareness, in the gap between two thoughts. Having recognised this pure presence-awareness, one tries to sustain this recognition in daily life. In daily life, one may sense this as a background witnessing presence, a space-like awareness in the background of things. It is felt to be something stable and unchanging though we often lose sight of it due to fixation on the contents of experience or thoughts (like focusing on the drawing and losing sight of the canvas). This is related to the 'I AM', but still, this is the experience, not the realization. 2. Impersonality This is the case when practitioners experienced that everything is an expression of a universal cosmic intelligence. There is therefore no sense of a personal doer... rather, it feels like I and everything is being lived by a higher power, being expressed by a higher cosmic intelligence. But this is still dualistic – there is still this sense of separation between a 'cosmic intelligence' and the 'world of experience', so it is still dualistic. I experienced impersonality after the I AM realization, however some people experience it before I AM realization. Theistic Christians may not have I AM realization (it depends), however through their surrendering to Christ, they can drop their sense of personal doership and experience the sense of 'being lived by Christ', as in Galatians: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.". This is an experience of impersonality that may or may not come with the realization of I AM. 3. Non-dual into One Mind. Where subject and object division collapsed into a single seamless experience of one Naked Awareness. There is a difference between a temporary non-dual experience and non-dual insight. Explained later. 4. No-Mind Where even the naked Awareness is totally forgotten and dissolved into simply scenery, sound, arising thoughts and passing scent. This is the experience of Anatta, but not the realization of Anatta. Explained later. 5. Sunyata (Emptiness) It is when the 'self' is completely transcended into dependently originated activity. The play of dharma. There is a difference between this as a peak experience and the realization of emptiness/dependent origination. Explained later. Next is the 'Realization': 1. The Realization of I AM Having an experience of witnessing, or a state of pure presence, is not the same as having attained self-realization - in that case the practitioner can be said to have an experience, but not insight/realization. I have had experiences of Presence and Witnessing consciousness since 2007, but not the realization until February 2010 after almost two years of self-inquiry practice. Self-realization is attained when there is a certainty of Being - an irrefutable and doubtless realization of Pure Presence-Existence or Consciousness or Beingness or Existence as being one's true identity. There is nothing clearer or undoubtable or irrefutable than You! Eureka. One realizes the luminous essence of mind but is unable to see it as all manifestations under differing conditions (that would be non-dual and beyond). In this phase of insight one sees all thoughts and experiences as coming from and subsiding within this Ground of Being, but the Beingness as a noumenon is unaffected by the comings and goings of phenomenon, like the movie images passing through the screen, or the waves coming and going within an unchanging ocean. Seeing a subtle distinction between the Noumenal and Phenomenal, one clings to the pure thoughtless beingness (which is non-conceptual thought) as one's purest identity, as if it is the true unchanging self or ground Behind all things - one clings to a formless background source or witness of phenomena. Since view of duality and inherency is strong, Awareness is seen as an eternal witnessing presence, a pure formless perceiving subject. So it is seen that I am here, as an eternal unchanging Witness/Watcher of the passing thoughts and feelings, I simply witness but is not affected by, nor judges that one sees - nonetheless there is a separation between the Observer and the Observed. A true experience is being distorted by the mind's tendency at projecting duality and inherency (to things, self, awareness, etc) Also, in my experience the I AM experience after the initial realization is tainted with a slight sense of personality and locality. That is, even though the mind knows how to experience Presence beyond all concepts, the mind still cannot separate Presence from that slight and subtle sense of personality, until about two months after the realization, that sense of a localized witness completely dissolved into a non-localized, impersonal space of witnessing-awareness-presence (but still dualistic and 'background'). At this level, the I AM is separated from Personality, and it is seen as if everything and everyone in the world share the same source or same space, like if a vase breaks, the air inside the vase completely merges with the air of the entire environment such that there is no sense of a division between an 'inside space' or an 'outside space', such that everything shares the same space, as an analogy of all-pervading presence. This all-pervading presence, though stripped of any sense of a locality or a sense of personality, still pertains to the thought level (non-conceptual thought). One does not experience the same 'taste' in the other sense doors - like sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. Nevertheless, if this experience of 'all-pervading presence' is sustained, it can lead to an oceanic samadhi experience. p.s. (updated) Just one day after writing this chapter, I found a book by the same name as mine, 'Who am I?' by Pandit Shriram Sharma Archaya. He distinguishes the Soul, the Inner Self/the Inner Witness/the 'Nucleus of your World', from the Universal Self or the Omnipresent Supreme Being which is the supreme source of even that Inner Self and everything else in the world. He says that one has to realise the Inner Self first before realizing the unity or oneness of that Inner Self with that Universal Self, Atman=Brahman. This is precisely what I'm talking about - the difference between the initial experience and realization of I AM (as the inner Self), then the maturation into the Universal I AM. This is the difference between Thusness Stage 1 and 2. In the Universal I AM, it is just this "unified field" in which "everything belongs to everyone", and that in this phase "A Yogi is one whose individuality has been consciously united (merged) with the cosmic Self." Everything and everyone is impersonally expressed and lived by this pervasive source, as stated by him, "particles of universally pervasive intelligence and energy, cosmic consciousness [Chetna] and life, are activating infinite systems, forms and forces of this cosmos." 2. The Realization of Non-Dual, into One Mind Having an experience of non-duality is not the same as having a realization... for example, you may have a temporary experience where the sense of separation between experiencer and experience suddenly and temporarily dissolves or there is the sense that subject and object has merged... temporarily. I had such experiences since 2006 (I had a number of similar experiences since then in following years, differing in intensity and length), the first time I had it was when looking at a tree - at that point the sense of an observer suddenly disappeared into oblivion and there is just the amazing greenery, the colours, shapes, and movement of the tree swaying with the wind with an amazingly intense clarity and aliveness as if every leaves on the tree is crystal-like. This had a lot of 'Wow' factor to it because of the huge contrast between the Self-mode of experience and the No-Self mode of experience (imagine dropping a one ton load off your shoulders, the huge contrast makes you go Wow!) This is not yet the realization of non-duality... the realization that separation has been false right from the beginning... there never was separation. When non-dual realization (that there never was subject-object duality) arise, non-dual experience becomes effortless and has a more ordinary, mundane quality to it (even though not any less rich or intense or alive), as everywhere I go, it is just this sensate world presenting itself in an intimate, non-dual, clean, perfect, wonderful way, something that 'I' cannot 'get out of' even if I wanted to because there is simply no illusion and sense of self/Self that could get out of this mode of perceiving, and there is nothing I needed to do to experience that (i.e. effortless), something that has no entry and exit. In the absence of the 'huge contrast' effected in a short glimpse of non-dual experience prior to insight, there is less of the 'Wow' factor, more of being ordinary, mundane, and yet no less magnificent and wonderful. You also become doubtless that the taste of luminosity experienced in I AM is exactly the same taste in all six entries - sights, sounds, smell, taste, touch, thought. So now you realize the "one taste of luminosity" and effortlessly experience pure luminosity and presence-awareness in and as the transience. You realize that the I AM (nonceptual thought) that you realized and experienced is simply luminosity and NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) in one particular state or manifestation or realm, by no means the totality, but by not realizing this you reified one state into the purest and most ultimate identity (a note however: the ‘one taste’ spoken in Mahamudra tradition is not just one taste of luminosity but the one taste of the union of luminosity and emptiness), and thus you no longer "choose" or have "preference" on a purer state of presence to abide, since you see that I AM is no more I AM than a transient sound or sight or thought, everything shares the same taste of luminosity/awareness, and of non-duality. Here the tendency to refer back to a background is reduced as a result of this seeing.. Hence merely having temporary non-dual samadhis are *not* enlightenment... why? The realization that there never was separation to begin with, hasn't arisen. Therefore you can only have temporary glimpses and experiences of non-dual... where the latent dualistic tendencies continue to surface... and not have seamless, effortless seeing. And even after seeing through this separation, you may have the realization of non-dual but still fall into substantial non-duality, or One Mind. Why? This is because though we have overcome the bond of duality, our view of reality is still seeing it as 'inherent'. Our view or framework has it that reality must have an inherent essence or substance to it, something permanent, independent, ultimate. So though everything is experienced without separation, the mind still can't overcome the idea of a source. There is no overcoming the idea of an ultimate metaphysical essence, something unchanging and ultimate, even with insight into the non-duality of subject and object. With this view of inherency, Awareness is seen as inherent, even though previously it was as if things were happening 'In' Awareness but now all manifestations ARE Awareness, or rather, Awareness is manifesting 'AS' everything (rather than things happening 'IN' Awareness which would be dualistic). Awareness is not apart from manifestation. Nonetheless, the mind keeps coming back to a 'source', a 'One Naked Awareness', a 'One Mind' which manifests as the many (All is Mind - everything is You! The trees, the mountains, the rivers, all You and yet not You - no duality or division of subject and object), and is unable to break-through and find the constant need to rest in an ultimate reality in which everything is a part of... a Mind, an Awareness, a Self.... Or one tries to be non-dual by attempts to reconfirm the non-dual or one mind (thinking the sound and sights is You, trying to subsume everything into Mind, trying to be nondual with or intimiate with sights and sounds) which is another form of effort arising due to ignorance – the ignorance of the fact of anatta that always already, seeing is just the seen, no seer, and therefore no effort or attempts to reconfirm is necessary. All effort is due to the illusion of ‘self’. What this results in is a subtle tendency to cling, to sink back to a ground, a source, or attempt to reconfirm, and so transience cannot be fully and effortlessly appreciated for what it is. It is an important phase however, as for the first time phenomena are no longer seen as 'happening IN Awareness' but 'happening AS Awareness' – Awareness is its object of perception, Awareness is expressing itself as every moment of manifest perception. It should be understood that even in this phase, at the peak of One Mind, one will have glimpses of No Mind as *temporary peak experiences* where the source/Awareness is temporarily forgotten into 'just the scenery, the taste, the sound, etc'. Very often, people try to master the state of No Mind without realizing anatta, thus no fundamental transformation of view can occur. Since no fundamental change in view has taken place (the view is still of 'inherent Source'), one can still fall back from that peak experience and reference back to the One Awareness. That is, until you see that the idea itself is merely a thought, and everything is merely thoughts, sights, sounds, disjoint, disperse, insubstantial. There, a change of view takes place... the result of, 3. The Realization of Anatta Here, experience remains non-dual but without the view of 'everything is inside me/everything is an expression of ME/everything is ME' but 'there is just thoughts, sight, sound, taste' – just manifestation. More precisely (as it is realized for me in October 2010 when I was doing Basic Military Training): in that moment of seeing, you realize that the seeing is JUST the experience of scenery! There is no 'seer is seeing the secenery' - the view of 'seer seeing the seen' is completely eradicated by the realization that 'in seeing ALWAYS just the seen, Seeing is just the seen'. In seeing, always just the shapes, colours, forms, textures, details of manifestation. The illusion of agency is seen through forever. BUT... this is not the end of story for anatta and no-agency. The initial entry into Anatta for me was the aspect of Thusness's Second Stanza of Anatta, however the First Stanza was not as clear for me at the moment (for some people, they enter through the first stanza, but for me and those focusing on non-dual luminosity, insight comes through second stanza first). The two stanzas of Anatta can be found in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html Few months later, even though it has already been seen that ‘seeing is always the sights, sounds, colours and shapes, never a seer’, I began to notice this subtle remaining tendency to cling to a Here and Now. Somehow, I still want to return to a Here, a Now, like 'The actual world right here and now', which I can 'ground myself in', like I needed to ground in something truly existing, like I needed to return to being actual, here, now, whatever you want to call it. At that point when I detected this subtle movement I instantly recognised it to be illusory and dropped it, however I still could not find a natural resolution to that. Until, shortly maybe two weeks later, a deeper insight arose and I saw how Here/Now or something I can ground myself in doesn't apply when the "brilliant, self-luminous, vivid, alive, wonderful textures and forms and shapes and colours and details of the universe", all sense perceptions and thoughts, are in reality insubstantial, ephemeral groundless, disjoint, unsupported and spontaneous, there was a deeper freedom and effortlessness. It is this insight into all as insubstantial, ephemeral, bubble-like, disjoint and self-releasing manifestations that allows this overcoming of a subtle view of something inherent. There is no observer observing something changing: simply that the "sensate world" is simply these disjoint manifestations without anything linking each sensation to another, without some inherent ground that could link manifestations, so manifestations are 'scattered'. Somewhere this time, Thusness wrote me a post in blog: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/02/putting-aside-presence-penetrate-deeply.html Prior to this insight, there isn't the insight into phenomena as being 'scattered' without a linking basis (well there already was but it needs refinement)... the moment you say there is an ‘Actual World Here/Now’, or a Mind, or an Awareness, or a Presence that is constant throughout all experiences, that pervades and arise as all appearances, you have failed to see the 'no-linking', 'disjointed', 'unsupported' nature of manifestation – an insight which breaks a subtle clinging to an inherent ground, resulting in greater freedom. Only one who realizes anatta and thus becoming a stream entrant will start to understand the purpose of Buddhist practice. Buddhist practice is not about being lock-in to a most special or ultimate state of consciousness. Due to the false view that there is some inherently existing ultimate Self or state, such a spiritual aspirant may see the ultimate spiritual goal as permanent abidance in that purest unchanging state or reality or Source. This is actually a practice at grasping, not letting go, and therefore will not reach the Buddhist goal of the cessation of all clinging and afflictions (Nirvana). The Buddha's teachings on the other hand teaches us to realize no self, no me, no mine, in anything - including 'awareness', 'consciousness'. It does not mean consciousness is denied but the inherency of consciousness is seen through. One sees that the notion of agency, or an ultimate awareness observing or manifesting things is an illusion... in seeing there is just the seen without seer, no agent, no source behind things. So there is not 'awareness and manifestation' and not even 'awareness manifesting as everything' since 'awareness' is only 'manifestation'. There is no 'The Awareness', rather it is deconstructed into the six constituent streams of consciousnesses therefore vastly different from the monistic kind of non-duality (One Mind) - rather there are the visual, auditory, nasal, gustatory, tactile, and mental consciousness, all are processes of activities manifesting according to causes and conditions (such as the sense organ, the sense object, and all kinds of various causes and conditions). So all experiences are constantly self-releasing because there is no 'inherent view', the view of something inherent, that causes us to grasp, abide, cling to. In short, what this realization entails is the deconstruction of 'Awareness' into the six streams of dependently originated consciousness, without a cognizer, through the realization that in seeing always just the colours, shapes and forms, and in hearing always just the sounds (the diverse appearance of manifestation). There is just a process and stream of activities of knowing without knower, and each manifestation of cognizance is distinct, disjoint, it is just a diverse display of manifold rather than a collapsing of multiplicity into Oneness such as in the case of One Mind. When the sense of self/Self is sufficiently deconstructed, you also begin to experience everything as being a stream of activities that dependently originates. You directly see and experience everything as the activity resultant of the interaction of the entire universe of causal conditions... the total exertion of the universe, the totality of causes and conditions, gives rise to this moment of manifestation. Effectively, there is no self, no universe, no solidity, and all there ever is is an interdependent process of causes and conditions meeting to give rise to an activity, followed by another interaction that gives rise to more activities, ad infinitum. Therefore, dependent origination allows us not only to see "just manifestation" as in anatta, but also to see "manifestation" as the dynamic interdependent process of ungraspable, unlocatable, and empty (yet vivid, dynamically manifesting) activities. However, without anatta, without the utter and complete deconstruction and removal of the sense of self/Self, we will not be able to experience everything as the total exertion of all causal conditions. It is only when the sense of self/Self is totally relinquished that we can experience ourselves AS this causal process, without any sense of an agency or personality. Therefore, the insight and experience of dependent origination requires the full maturation of Anatta and No-Mind as a requisite. Anatta and dependent origination are therefore linked, but not the same. You can realize anatta but not realize dependent origination, but you cannot truly experience and realize dependent origination without anatta (i.e. through dualistic and inherent thought or view). For example, normally we view ourselves as actors, and doers, of our bodily action and speech. We think we are a controller of our thoughts, feelings, and experiences. When we realize anatta, this doer, controller, perceiver, agent is seen to be false and illusory - there never was an agent. This makes it possible for us to penetrate deeper into 'how' manifestation occurs? At this point, an intuitive seeing happens - whatever manifests, manifests as an activity via causality, the sound of 'da da da' on the keyboard does not come from ME, they are not MINE, but the words formulating in the mind, leading almost instantly to a physical movement and action to press the buttons on the keyboard, leading instantly to a manifested auditory experience of the 'da da da' sound.... one seamless impersonal, interdependent and causal process of activities, manifesting upon the aggregation of causes and conditions, subsiding due to the fading away of causes and conditions. One cannot even say that the 'da da da' is the sound of the keyboard any more than it is the sound of the words formulating in my mind - it is just this single causal, impersonal process of activities happening without any agency or source (be it internal or external), happening entirely by causal aggregation. 4. The Realization of Emptiness (Shunyata) Effectively with the realization of Anatta, the substantiality of any self/Self is totally seen through. There is no such thing as a 'self' or an ultimate 'Self' with the capital S at all - always, in seeing just sights, in hearing only sounds, in sensing - just tactile sensations. Manifesting and liberating upon inception... moment by moment. Once seen, there is no longer any more clinging to some ultimate Source or metaphysical essence/substance. Instead, one finds delight in the direct revelation of the sensate world moment by moment, seeing, hearing, tasting, all wonderful, all marvellous, how alive... words can never capture it, the practitioner is no longer concerned with concepts and contents, but instead 'grooves' in the minutest details of every sensation. Freedom from sense of self/Self is very freeing and blissful. However, having said so much, there is a danger of reifying the sensate world into an actual, substantial, tangible, inherently existing objective universe. This is the phase after the realization of Anatta, and before the realization of Shunyata. At this phase, it is as Thusness have said, "Before the insight anatta first arose, you still risked the danger of seeing the physical as inherent and truly existing. Therefore there is a period that you are lost, unsure and AF [Actualism/Actual Freedom - a teaching that aims to eradicate all sense of self/Self and emotions] seems appealing - a sign that you have not extended the insight of emptiness to phenomena though you kept saying twofold emptiness.", and after Shunyata it is more like "There is just aggregates that are like foams, bubbles, ethereal having all the same taste without substantiality and implicitly non-dual. No sense of body, mind and the world, nothing actual or truly there." So what is the realization of Shunyata? When observing a thought in the beginning of June 2011, observing where it came from, where it goes to, where it stays, it's discovered (again, a eureka moment) that the thought is utterly illusory (and likewise all forms and sense perception are the same)! Empty! No-arising, no-staying, no-cessation! Insubstantial! Coreless! Substanceless! Hollow! Unlocatable! Without an origin! Without a destination! Cannot be pinned down! Cannot be grasped! Cannot be found! And yet, as empty as it is, still, like a magician's trick, an apparition, an illusion, vividly manifesting due to interdependent origination out of nowhere, in nowhere! How amazing it is! A sense of wonder and bliss arose in light of this realization, a newfound freedom and liberation. And as wonderful as it sound, there is still nonetheless a growing dispassion to the entire show - it is like a TV show, and when you see that your whole life is like a TV show - utterly empty of any substance, you can no longer become so passionate about it. You see it as it truly is - a dream-like movie playing out. This is the arising of true dispassion and non-attachment. It should be understood that everything is dream-like, mind-only, in the sense of Emptiness is not the same as Substantial Non-duality of One Mind. It is now seen that everything is really no different from a thought - as in as baseless and empty as a projected thought like a dream, though it doesn't literally mean everything (including sense perceptions) are mere figment of imagination or projection (if you stop thinking, illusory perceptions still manifest due to natural dependent origination). Since everything is dream-like and illusory, they are fundamentally no different from a thought or a dream, and it is in this sense we can say that everything is mind-only. So all is mind in terms of emptiness signifies this dreamlike nature, vastly different from all is mind from substantialist perspective. So in short, there is a very big difference between substantialist non-dual of One-Mind and what I said here. In this experience, there is no background reality. It is NOT 'The world is illusory, only Brahman is Real'. It is not about the background Awareness (there is no awareness apart from manifestation!) but rather the foreground aggregates that I am talking about - A thought. Everything is as insubstantial and illusory as a thought or a dream. There is just the aggregates that are like foams, bubbles, ethereal, having all the same taste (of luminosity and emptiness) without substantiality and implicitly non-dual. No sense of body, mind and the world, nothing actual or truly there or here. Anatta (firstfold emptiness, pertaining to self/soul) makes clear many of the Buddha's teachings about anatta, especially Bahiya Sutta, Anattalakkhana Sutta, and so on. Whereas this realization of Shunyata (as in secondfold emptiness, pertaining to objects) makes clear another set of teachings by Buddha such as the Phena Sutta, and the Mahayana Sutras like the Heart Sutra and Prajnaparamita Sutras. The realization of twofold emptiness is traditionally (in Mahayana traditions) deemed as the basic criteria for realizing the first bhumi Bodhisattva in the path to Buddhahood, whereas the realization of anatta (no subjective self) is the realization of stream-entry in the path to Arhantship. Implication of Views The implication of views wasn’t very clear to me until more recent months (some time after I realized Anatta and Shunyata), when I began to see that what was causing grasping, clinging, the wrong way of perception, sense of self and so on was actually the latent view of inherency and duality. Even though previously realization has arisen that clearly done damage to such views, the impact of views in our experience and living wasn’t fully clear until more recently. What is view? View is a deeply held notion, belief, position, stance, with regards to the reality of self and objects. This view has direct implications on how we view things - how we form a mental conception of self and things which causes grasping and contraction. When you want to cut ignorance, you go for its roots, not cut off its leaves and branches. In this analogy, sense of self/Self is its manifest form (leaves and branches) in the form of a sense of contraction, alienation and self-grasping in the form of craving and emotions, while the latent view is its roots. As an example: if you view that your self abides in the heart center, then you may sense a contraction in the heart center, if your belief/position is that your self abides in the head, you may sense a contraction or clinging there, as well as that sense of alienation from the sensate world at large, a sense that there is this seer behind the eyes looking outwards at the world in a distance. That felt-sense of contraction and alienation, that sense of self/Self, is its manifest form, while the self-view/position/belief/ignorance is its root. This is why we cannot successively get rid of the sense of self/Self by will and effort without effectively cutting off self-view from its root through a paradigm shift via realization. There times of peak experiences which everyone has experienced some time in their lives (usually in childhood) where the sense of a self/Self goes into temporary abeyance and there is just the sensate world, magnificent and wonderful, untainted by any sense of self or emotional contents, just the pristine purity and clarity of the sensate world at large. Yet most of us tend to forget those moments, and continue our lives not transformed by such experiences at all. Why is that so? Our self-view is intact, and no amount of glimpses of PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) or NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) is fundamentally going to transform us unless we cut off the roots of ignorance. It should be understood that these latent tendencies or view of inherency and duality runs so deep down in our psyche that it is not merely a matter of conceptual belief but a deeply rooted, habitual way of perceiving things through a particular paradigm or framework... so deep and habitual that it cannot be removed even if one has come to an intellectual conclusion or inference that the doctrine of anatta and emptiness is actually something that makes more sense than the view of duality and self. For instance, I myself have faith and am convinced intellectually about the truth of anatta and emptiness way before I had a direct experiential realization that effectively resulted in the liberation of false view. But I can say in those years where I remain a mere intellectual or conceptual conviction or inferred understanding of this matter, I do not experience any sense of a freedom from self-contraction, from afflictive emotions, and so on... all these come from tendencies so deeply latent that it cannot be resolved by a mere intellectual transformation of views and beliefs (such as by training yourself in the Madhyamaka reasonings). For false view run far deeper into our psyche that require you to truly realize things from experiential awakening/knowledge and vision of things as they are. Also, a lot of people think 'The Right View is No View' which is true since all metaphysical views pertain to false views of existence and non-existence, however the way they go about resolving the problem is by 'forgetting all concepts'. They think that by suspending all beliefs, by forgetting all concepts and sitting quietly in a state of pure awareness, somehow merely by that, they can overcome false views. Let me offer something for you think about: every day we go into a state of deep sleep where all our beliefs, concepts, views, thoughts are temporarily suspended. But when we wake up, what happens? We are as ignorant as ever. Our framework of viewing self and reality is still the same. We still experience the same problems, the same sufferings, the same afflictions. This analogy should clearly show you that sustaining a state of non-conceptuality or mastering a state of 'forgetting the self' is not going to result in a fundamental change or transformation or effortless seeing, unless true wisdom and insight arises. I shall offer two more analogies which are related: a person deluded as to see a rope as a snake, will live in fear, trying to tame the snake, trying to get rid of the snake, escape from the snake. Maybe he managed a way to distant himself from the snake, yet the belief that the snake is still there is nevertheless going to haunt him. Even if he managed to master the state of forgetting the snake, he is nonetheless in a state of delusion. He has not seen as it truly is: the snake is simply a rope. In another analogy, the child believes in the existence of santa claus and awaits eagerly for arrival of his presents on Christmas day. One day the parents decide that it's time the child be told the truth about santa claus. To do this, beating the hell out of the child is not going to work. You simply need to tell the child that santa claus doesn't truly exist. In these analogies, I try to showcase how trying to deal with the problem of false views through means of 'forgetting conceptuality, forgetting the self' is as useless or deluded as 'trying to forget the snake, trying to tame the snake, trying to beat the hell out of the child' when the simple, direct and only true solution is only to realize that there is only a rope, and that santa claus isn't real. Only Awakening liberates us from a bondage that is without basis. Without the right contemplation and instilling of right view, you can 'sit quietly in pure awareness' for an entire lifetime without waking up. I cannot stress this point enough because this is a very prevalent erroneous understanding - even someone at the I AM level of realization will talk about non-conceptuality, non-conceptual Presence-Awareness and think it is final. Same goes for other stages. By overemphasizing on non-conceptuality, they will miss the subtler aspects of insight, they will fail to grasp right view, they will fail to tackle the subtler imprints and mental framework of viewing dualistically and inherently. They will not even see their framework of perceiving self and things as false that is causing some subtle effort and clinging (to a Self or to an actual ground here/now or to an actual world), just like you will never see your dream as a dream until well... you wake up. As Zen writer and speaker Ted Biringer says, "Accurate understanding is not authentic realization. At the same time, authentic realization can hardly be expected to occur without accurate understanding. And while an absence of "right understanding" almost excludes the possibility of authentic realization, the presence of "wrong understanding" excludes even the slimmest hope of success. If we aspire to realize what Zen practice-enlightenment truly is, then, as Dogen says, "We should inquire into it, and we should experience it." To follow his guidance here we will need to understand his view of what "it" is that needs to be inquired into, and who the "we" is that is to do the inquiring." Non-conceptuality does not mean non-attachment. For example when you realize the I AM, you cling to that pure non-conceptual beingness and consciousness as your true identity. You cling to that pure non-conceptual thought very tightly – you wish to abide in that purest state of presence 24/7. This clinging prevents us from experiencing Presence AS the Transience. This is a form of clinging to something non-conceptual. So know that going beyond concepts does not mean overcoming the view of inherency and its resultant clinging clinging. Even in the substantial non-dual phase, there is still clinging to a Source, a One Mind – even though experience is non-dual and non-conceptual. But when inherent view is dissolved, we see there is absolutely nothing we can cling to, and this is the beginning of Right View and the Path to Nirvana – the cessation of clinging and craving. So as you can see, non-conceptual, even non-dual experience does not liberate - so we have to use the intellect to understand right view, and then investigate it in our experience. This is like a fire that in the end burns up the candle it is burning on, consuming itself in the process, leaving no trace even of itself. In other words, conceptual understanding of right view, coupled with investigative practice, results in true realization that dissolves concepts leaving non-conceptual wisdom - but without that process of investigating and trying to understand right view, merely remaining in a state of non-conceptuality isn't going to help you get free. People who fear engaging in thought, trying to understand the right view, challenging their views and understanding of things, are unfortunately going to stick with their own deluded framework of perceiving things. Now having diverted our attention so much, let us return to the subject at hand. There are two kinds of views (with sub categories): 1. View of Subject-Object Duality The view of subject-object duality is prevalent in everyone up to the realization of I AM. If you have not realized I AM, it is felt as a sense of alienation, separation, distance, between I as a subjective perceiver inside my head looking at the world 'outside' from a distance. Having realized the I AM, one no longer doubts one's Existence, Pure Presence, Consciousness. It cannot be unseen, because luminosity is the unconditioned characteristic or essence of mind that can never be removed from sight. In that moment of realization, there is no longer any doubts as it is a direct non-conceptual realization of a fundamental fact of reality. Yet, due to the taints of dualistic view, this luminosity is abstracted from other experiences (from sense perceptions, thoughts, etc). Due to the view that there is a subjective self, or observer, apart from the perceived objects, there is always this split between Me, the Observing Awareness, and 'that' - the observed objects. Even if one perceives Awareness to be an infinite background container and manifestations to be finite appearances popping in and out of this background container awareness like waves on the ocean, there is always this split between 'awareness' and 'contents of awareness'. Contents of awareness appears 'in' awareness, but is not awareness. The view that Awareness is a container for phenomena but is not a phenomena is a kind of dualistic view/position/stance that is unfounded, but in ignorance taken to be true. This is the subject-object dualistic division. When one realizes non-duality, one no longer sees awareness as the background container of appearances. However even though dualistic bond is gone and one no longer sees distance, separation, inside or outside, but an intimacy with everything, nonetheless there can still be the bond of inherency - seeing Awareness as something inherent (independent, unchanging), a subtle clinging to the view of a Subjective Self even though usually seen as impersonal [in fact probably seen to be universal] and furthermore without subject-object division: 'IT' is inseparable from, and manifesting itself as, all appearances. 2. View of Inherency The view of inherency is twofold: the view that a subjective self [whether personal or universal], and the view that objects/phenomena have intrinsic, objective substantiality (whether gross such as 'a tree', or subtle, such as elemental existence of atoms). All metaphysical views come down to 'is' or 'is not'. Either something exist, or something does not exist. The former is eternalism, the latter is nihilism. Both views are extremes and to be rejected according to Buddha. What is subjective self? Self is seen as being an unchanging subject - in other words, moment by moment, the objects of the field of experience come and go, but there is this unchanging subject or Self that remains unchanged and independent of the objective field of things and events. There is something that is me (what I feel as subjectively existing, unchanging and independent), and something that is not me (that which is experienced apart from myself). The former is subjective self, the latter is the objective pole. For example, the view that there is a self in here, in this body, that remains unchanged even as the body undergoes birth, growing, ageing, and so on, even death for some (view of eternalism - a soul remains unchanged and continues into eternity even after death) or perhaps only in this life (view of annihilation - the self ceases upon death) constitutes the view of a subjective self or soul. If you were to lose your hand, you still feel "I am the same old me". That view that the self remains unchanged pertains to the stance or position of an existent self. However, exactly how we view subjective self can get more complicated than that, and this view changes and transforms accordingly, it differs from person to person, and depends also on your spiritual practice and experience (if you have one). The view of what Self is can be very coarse or subtle. For most people, their view of self is not very clear - if you ask them do you think you exist? They will say 'yeah, of course I do'. If you ask them, do you feel you exist as a self? They will say 'yes, of course I FEEL [perceive/project/believe/sense] that I do exist'. But if you ask them, where you located? They usually cannot answer you immediately. They may give you vague answers like, well, I'm here, of course. But if you probe them where is the 'here' they refer to, they need to think. They aren't sure (unless they have contemplated about it before). You ask them, are you located in your hands, your legs, and so on? Doesn't seem like likely candidates since if you remove your hands or legs, you still feel like you're there, unchanged - in other words hands and legs are seen as possessions (mine) rather than self (me). As they try to pinpoint where the Self is, usually some will point to the center behind the eyes inside the head, or somewhere in the heart region. Depending on where they cling to as their seat of the Self, they will feel some tension, tightness, and contraction to that region of self. Also, regardless of where you pinpoint your self to be at, there is always this ongoing sense of alienation from the sensate world at large, a sense that there is this seer behind the eyes looking outwards at the world in a distance. This clinging to a subjective self veils us from having an intimate, non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception of the sensate world as it is. It keeps "us" in a distance (there will always be a sense of distance when there is a sense of a separate self). This view of self transforms when you undertake practice of self-inquiry. At the moment of self-realization, the view of Self completely undergoes a life-changing shift. There is this undoubtable insight of what Consciousness IS, what Existence IS, what Presence IS. And this Consciousness is undoubtably present, intimate, YOU, closer than your breathe. This undeniable fact of BEING is taken to be the true self. It has nothing to do with the body, nothing to do with the world... so the previous views of a self being inside the body or having to do with a body is overthrown. Rather, all experiences (including the body and mind) are seen to be happening TO a background pure existence-consciousness... and soon (for me in two months) it becomes the ultimate impersonal container of everything - the trees, the door, the floor, the birds, the mountains, everything is not happening outside of me, but is all happening in one universal space - Consciousness doesn't belong to me any more than it belongs to the door or the cat's, it is all just One Existence, One Life expressing itself in every form and being. At this point the view of Self becomes more impersonal - you see that this entire universe is simply an expression of this impersonal, universal space, and that this universal source is what you truly are. So again, the view of Self shifts accordingly to your progression in insight and experience. Still, the view of Self is tight - coarse in fact, because now you have a very solid (rather than vague) sense of what You are, in contrast to the uncertainty of what Self is before Self-Realization. This view can potentially be a hindrance to progress because if you cling too tightly to the view that this I AM or Beingness (which actually simply is a manifestation pertaining to the non-conceptual thought realm) is your truest identity, something most special and ultimate, you will crave or cling very tightly to it. This will prevent non-dual from being experienced in other sense doors and experiences. But if you are able to let go of this clinging, focus on advancing the I AM in terms of the four aspects and with the right pointers and contemplation, your practice progresses and you will come to a point of realization that Awareness/Consciousness/Existence has never been separated in terms of a subject and an object. This is the point where dualistic view is removed (as mentioned earlier) but not the inherent self view yet. All perceptions, experiences, manifestations, sights and sounds are completely non-dual with Consciousness. In other words, they are not happening TO or IN Consciousness, but AS Consciousness. Consciousness is itself taking shape and experiencing itself as the mountains, the rivers, everything IS Consciousness in expression, everything is Consciousness, All is Mind. At this point, the view of Self shifts again - now it is no longer a Subjective Witness, the sense of a subjective Witness completely dissolves... into One Mind, an indivisible/undivided field of Consciousness expressing itself as everything. The view of Self at this point takes this One Mind, this undivided One Naked Awareness to be the Self. Even though it is indivisible from everything, expresses itself in everything, nevertheless this One Awareness is unchanging and truly existing. Non-duality at this point is understood not as no duality (in which case there is absolutely no Subject, not even an unchanging Awareness), but as the inseparability of subject and object, a collapsing of dualities into Oneness. As an analogy, Awareness is seen to be an unchanging mirror, which nevertheless cannot be separated or divided from the contents in the mirror - Awareness and the contents of Awareness are completely One - there is only One seamless field of experiencing - the One Naked Awareness. Even though seamless, even though not seen as anything personal or separate, Awareness is still seen as an unchanging Subjective Self manifesting itself as the field of experience. So this seamless One is now deemed as the Self. When we come to the realization of Anatta, the last vestige of (Subjective) Self-View collapses, resulting in what Buddha calls Stream-Entry and the eradication of self-view (sakkayaditthi). At this point, NOTHING at all - not even Consciousness can be deemed as a Self. And how is this so? By seeing Awareness, deemed as Self, as also not-self, in the manner of 'in seeing always just the seen', 'seeing is just the experience of sight' - not I, not me, not mine, only a selfless process of self-luminous activities without agency. You know self-view has been overthrown when there is through experiential knowledge and vision that there is no self to be found inside or apart from the process of five aggregation. There is simply no You in reference to what is seen and experienced in any manner (to, in, etc) - in seeing just the seen. At this point you see as the suttas state, that the aggregation cannot be said to be happening TO a self, IN a self, nor can it be deemed a self exists IN the aggregates (like a soul located inside the body). As the Buddha explains, "But, lady, how does self-identity not come about?" "There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form." in Udana Sutta, and in Bahiya Sutta he says "When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." Once the Subjective Self-View has been dissolved through anatta realization, the view of objective existence still occurs. Even though there is no view or sense that there is a seer seeing the red flower - only the experience of the red flower, nevertheless the view of objective existence is that the sensate world we experience actually references an objectively existing world, such that if I close my eye, the red flower I previously saw is actually still truly existing out there in a substantial manner. Perhaps, for more intellectual people, they can adopt a more agnostic kind of view with regards to the world - perhaps it is real, perhaps it is unreal, but whether the world truly exists out there however cannot be known by me. Or perhaps, they can even adopt the view of emptiness (through inference and study on emptiness teachings), yet without true experiential realization, the view of objective existence cannot be dissolved... just as even if you adopt the view of anatta through inference (through analogies such as the Chandrakirti's sevenfold reasoning), nonetheless as I said earlier, with this inferred understanding you will still experience clinging to the sense of self, a sense of contraction and alienation despite the intellectual acceptance of the doctrine, until you have resolved this matter through direct experiential insight. However, to get a sense of how this view of objective existence is actually untenable, with the example of the red flower I said earlier as an example (that whether I close my eyes, the red flower truly exists out there), consider this: If we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence. When realization is experientially realized, the entire sensate world, including all thoughts, are seen to be completely empty of any inherent objective existence. You can no longer believe or view objects as having an independent core or substance out there. There is simply no way of clinging at sensate world in terms of 'the flower exists in this way' - there is no more clinging to objects and characteristics or objects as possessing certain characteristics, no longer false views about being able to locate or pin down an actuality of objects, no more grasping them as truly existent. Everything appears as completely illusory yet vividly appearing, having a magical quality (literally 'appearing like magic') to them. In Conclusion Non-conceptuality, or even non-duality of subject and object does not mean non-attachment. As Thusness says: non-dual luminosity is blissful, but not liberating. Many people think the non-conceptual Presence of I AM, or the non-conceptual and non-dual luminosity free of subject and object is liberation. It is not. You can also see from my explanations above on 'view of inherency' that the view of duality is simply a subset of the view of inherency (one particular way the self is seen - as a separate subject), and removing the view of duality does not mean removing all views of inherency (having relinquished the view of a dualistic self or a perceiver separate from objects, you can still cling to a unified self or One Mind). The complete dissolution of views pertaining to duality and inherency (therefore Right View is No View) is what results in non clinging, because all clinging have their basis in taking self and things as true existents, as something to cling on to. For example to be able to cling on to something, you must be able to establish something which you can cling to. To be able to cling to the sense of self, the view of self must be in tact, to be able to cling to objects, the view of objective existence must be in tact... in the same way that in order to cling or crave after santa claus, you must believe in the existence of santa claus, to fear the snake in the rope, you must truly be deluded enough to perceive the rope as a snake. All views are mental proliferations, all mental proliferations cause suffering. As Nagarjuna says, "Not known from another; peaceful; lacking proliferation with proliferations; non-conceptual; undifferentiated — that is the characteristic of reality." A fully awakened person (a Buddha) who never leaves a state of equipoise on reality does not have views, does not even have concepts and thoughts. His or her actions and speech arise spontaneously out of pure wisdom, not through relying on imagination, fabrication, concepts or conventions. His state can never be conceived through the conceptual intellect. The Practice I think the topic of Practice is dealt with more in-depth in other sections of the e-book, therefore I am going to skim through this portion here. There are many kinds of practices one can engage in in order to give rise to realization. There are neo-Advaita teachers who teach that "no practice is necessary, no realization is needed", I say bullshit to that. As long as ignorance, false view of reality is in effect, we are going to experience suffering, afflictive emotions, sense of self, self-contraction and all that. Even though there never was truly a self and all these are a result of pure delusion, nonetheless, unless we wake up, we can never be liberated from suffering. There are "pure now-ists" that say, all thoughts of awakening are a dream, your true self is fully evident Here and Now. Well that's ok as a pointer - but to take it as a suggestion that no practice or no realization is necessary? Bullshit again, and even though your true nature is fully evident in the present, unless you realize it, it is as useless as a diamond hidden under a beggar’s pillow unnoticed - the beggar is still going to be poor, perhaps for his entire life, which is tragic to say the least. Then there are some of those teachers who think that "there is no practice guaranteed to lead to realization". Well in a sense yes, I cannot guarantee if you will realize your true nature today, tomorrow, one year, or ten years. Nobody can. If some teacher guarantees you that you will certainly attain awakening if you follow him for two years, he's outright lying and probably a fraud trying to buy followers through false promises. This is not to say that awakening within two years is impossible or even farfetched (far from it as I myself took less than two years of self-inquiry to attain Self-Realization) - but there simply cannot be guarantees like this. There is no fixed or guaranteed timeframe for awakening like there are fixed timeframe for graduation from a university. But what I can say is that whatever I practiced, I am confident if done sincerely with right understanding, will surely lead to awakening. You simply cannot apply any formulas like 'today you study this, tomorrow you study that, the following day you'll get your certificate' to awakening. But those teachers who didn't offer a method simply aren't offering people any solution at all - as if their own awakening happened by chance. (They may say that practice and meditation is as useful/useless as walking down the beach since awakening can happen in both instances) In that case their awakening is completely useless and not beneficial to anyone else, and it is a waste of time trying to understand what they say since they don't offer you a solution or method or way where you too can wake up. Well, perhaps you might say, their 'method' is simply to keep repeating the same things over and over again and then someday perhaps, you will finally get it. Well, good luck with that, because it is my experience that merely listening is insufficient - a form of contemplation, investigation, is what is necessary (from my experience) to effectively result in true realization. You may listen to the same doctrine over and over again, and totally get it intellectually and score 100/100 on a 'non-duality exam' (like I did way before I had any real realizations), but no transformation can happen unless you truly see it for yourself, and that is by investigating and contemplating on them yourself in your own experience. The reason some of those teachers utter bullshit that puts down practice and realization is because of their lack of clarity. They don't know how to help you awaken - but I know how to. Sorry if this sounds kind of arrogant, but I assure you it is not, it is just honesty in stating some plain facts for those sensible enough to see it. As a matter of fact, there are many teachers out there who also offer valid methods and ways and practices that can effectively lead to realization. I am far from the only one that talk about practice (lots of teachers and practitioners talk about it - especially in Buddhism, and even traditional Advaita) - I am only explaining one way, a way that worked for me. When I talk about practice, I often mention that practice has two types: direct path, and gradual path. Of course I don't mean there are only two types of practices in the world, in reality there are countless kinds of practices (though they do still fall under the category of either direct or gradual) from practitioners following countless lineages and teachers and traditions (in Buddhism there is this saying that there are 84000 Dharma Doors to awakening, 84000 being merely a metaphorical number signifying countless, Dharma Doors can mean practices and gateways to realization), most of which I am not familiar of. I say: more power to them, and go for whatever works. If that practice works for you, or resonates with you, go for it. I am not selling you something and saying that you MUST follow the method I offer (remember: I am not a guru, just someone offering his two cents based on personal experience), or that somehow only this method is going to work, or that this method is THE TRUE AND ONLY way. It is not. It is just one of the many ways... but one that has worked very effectively for me and many others. To me my way is the best way, but this is entirely subjective - to someone else whose other ways worked for them, their way is the best way, and so on. To make a 'one for all' statement is to become biased since it does not allow for alternatives. So what exactly is direct path? What is gradual path? Direct path does not mean if you take up this practice, you will attain awakening today or tomorrow (it took me 1 year 10 months of self-inquiry to realize I AM and a couple of months more to realize the further stages of insights, which nonetheless I don't consider too long, and I consider the time I took to realize these stuff as not so surprising given the directness and effectiveness of the direct path contemplation). It is direct, because the practice focus on a form of very direct contemplation on the nature of self and reality that results in a direct realization of the nature of reality. It does not focus on cultivating experiences (such as merely experiencing awareness, presence, space-like awareness, or any other aspects of experience that becomes natural and implicit after realization). Rather, it goes right to the core of things, very quickly resulting in a direct realization of our true nature. As an analogy I consider self-inquiry (Who am I? that leads to I AM realization), Zen koans (but I'm not a Zen master so can't offer more insights on that), contemplation on non-dual (where does awareness end and manifestation begin, where is the border between awareness and manifestation, etc), contemplation on anatta like Bahiya Sutta (in seeing always just the seen) or Thusness's two stanzas of anatta, contemplating on where thought arise from, where thought abides and where thought goes to (effective for shunyata insight), all these are forms of direct path contemplation. As for gradual practice: for example, practicing 'Awareness Watching Awareness', turning the light of awareness upon itself and so on is a gradual method that focus on the experience of I AM but eventually can lead to realization after the experience has matured and stabilized. Even stuff like Kundalini can result in I AM experiences of cosmic consciousness, and that too is a gradual path practice (though one I am not familiar with). Vipassana practice and mindfulness practice (experiencing the minutest details of the senses as clear as can be) as Thusness and I understand it can result in Anatta realization in a more gradual manner. But I should say, when I advice people on how to move from non-dual to anatta, I always advice both direct path contemplation and also the practice of vipassana and mindfulness. So it is not always an 'either/or' case. In a way both can support each other. Without a clear sense of non-dual luminosity, it is also hard for a real effective contemplation on Bahiya Sutta. Without any prior experience of non-conceptual Pure Presence, it is also not easy for self-inquiry to be so effective as one will be looking into conceptual thoughts for answers rather than looking at the reality of their non-conceptual Presence. For example Ch'an Master Hsu Yun focus primarily on self-inquiry, but also talks in one instance about 'turning hearing inwards to perceive one's self-nature', which is basically the practice of 'Awareness Watching Awareness' that Michael Langford talks about. The main focus however, if you want to practice direct path, is to focus on inquiring 'Who am I?' My practice and the practice I advice is going to differ according to your aims, and where you are in your practice. By that I mean for example, when I had no inkling about what my real nature is, I took up the practice of self-inquiry to realize the I AM. But after the I AM, you should focus on the four aspects of I AM. To move into non-dual, the practice is not self-inquiry any more. You can put self-inquiry aside. Instead you should focus on the four aspects, in my case with impersonality first, then later emphasis shifted to the aspect of intensity of luminosity (practice shifts from experiencing luminosity as the background Source to experiencing luminosity as the foreground sensate world and aggregates - sights, sounds, bodily sensations and so on), plus with a particular form of contemplation that challenges the view of boundaries, subject and object, inside and outside. After arising insight into non-dual, you should then investigate into anatta like in Bahiya Sutta (in seeing just the seen). After anatta you should investigate on the 'disjoint, unsupported', as well as contemplate on Shunyata. So again these kind of practices and contemplations differ according to the phase of practice you're at. You should shift your practice as you progress - otherwise if after Self-Realization you get stuck on trying to abide in the I AM 24/7, you cannot progress into further stages of freedom and effortlessness that require deeper realizations. Some people get stuck in I AM for their whole lives not knowing there is anything further in spirituality. So do not stagnate for too long. Know the maps, know where you are and know how to practice accordingly, and your path will be faster and you will attain liberation more quickly. But if you have not gotten into any of these stuff, it's best to begin and focus on self-inquiry with the aim of Self-Realization. More practical advice on this subject can be found in the Conversations on Self-Inquiry section of the ebook. Apart from these direct path contemplations, daily practice of meditation (both in sitting and daily lives) is helpful, if not for gaining enough mental stability and calmness for true insights to arise, but also to develop the quality of tranquillity and deep samadhi (which will not easily arise without disciplined daily sittings, regardless of whether you have awakened to your true nature or not). In tranquillity, you learn how to drop your attachment to your body and mind, to all thoughts. This leads to tranquilizing of all mental and bodily agitations so that you can enter into a state of meditative absorption which can be very blissful. In meditation, you learn to let go of everything - mind, body, life, teachings, concepts, worries, concerns, agitations, basically Everything. During those days when I practiced Self-Inquiry, Thusness taught me to dedicate sessions everyday apart from self-inquiry, to the practice of Dropping, which is the tranquillity practice I talked about. Of course we should practice letting go in everyday lives as well, but dedicating fixed periods for sitting meditation is also important. In fact, the whole purpose of Buddha's teachings is to teach us how to let go - of everything, relinquishing all clinging and craving. To be able to do this, there must be insight and tranquillity. As the Buddha said, both insights and tranquillity in tandem is what allows complete liberation from afflictions to take place - both are necessary, both are required. But I do not focus too much about meditation in this book (not that it is not important - far from it), because I wish to focus more on the insight front and leave the details of meditation for other books which have elucidated on those topics far better than I. As an intro, you should read Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's "Clarifying the Natural State" and his more detailed and technical "Mahamudra: The Moonlight" along with Thrangu Rinpoche's commentaries on these texts in books "Crystal Clear" and "Essentials of Mahamudra". All these books are full of deep meditative insights and experiences from clearly awakened masters. In Buddhism, we say that a person who wishes to attain awakening and liberation should master three fronts: morality, samadhi, and insight/wisdom. This e-book focuses on the insight/wisdom front, but by no means implying that morality and samadhi are unimportant. However, many other books have dealt with these topics to a much greater degree than I, and I do not have something better to offer than them in this regards. But basically, if you have truthfulness, harmlessness and generosity in your life, this is going to be of beneficial help to your pursuits in samadhi and wisdom, because a mind attached to lying, harming, and selfishness is going to cause afflictive hindrances (hatred, guilt, greed, and other mental disturbances or hindrances) preventing true samadhi and insight from arising. The cultivation of virtue itself can also cause a wholesome joyous mind, and a joyous mind or a mind imbued with good mental qualities like loving-kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity is conducive to the cultivation of concentration and insight. The cultivation of virtues also result in merits, which are an important requisite for awakening, a topic I shall not elaborate here but is already explained in other forum threads such as http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/409161?page=1#posts-9963001 The Result/Fruition You may be wondering, what is all these fuss about? Why should I bother with these stuff? Why get awakened? What is the results out of this? Is there any practical transformations in life? There are many "awakened persons" who say there are no perceivable differences apart from perhaps having a sense of resolving these stuff, the end of seeking, the end of false notions about self, maybe more clarity in life. But to me, in my experience, when you have sufficiently deep insight and experience, a far more profound and life-changing transformation takes place. As spoken in the other chapter in the e-book on maps of awakening, speaking from experience, I can report a gradual emotional transformation or attenuation after the initial insight into anatta. I shall not repeat the details here but summarize them. Here's what I know can be attained through deep awakening (at this moment these are the ones more apparent to me but as time progresses there could be more): - a permanent freedom from all delusions of pertaining to the view of an existing self or object - freedom from any sense of self, separation, alienation from the world, self-contraction - freedom from attachment to a sense of a body-mind, drop off body-mind - no more inside and outside or any kind of boundaries and weight - freedom from craving, anger, fears, sorrow, attachments, or any afflictive emotions - pure bliss and wonder and delight in the intimate and intense aliveness of every moment's experience due to effortless and perpetual NDNCDIMOP: non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception of reality - deep sense of wakefulness, clarity and aliveness - sleep need reduced by up to half, wakefulness and alertness increased very much - thought activity decreases, discursive thoughts lessens tremendously, replaced by NDNCDIMOP - thoughts that do arise self-releases without trace According to Buddha, when you achieve full awakening in the Hinayana level (the attainment of personal liberation, Arhantship), it also confer things like 'ending the cycle of rebirth' in the literal sense of not having to be reborn again and again in this world of suffering - but then I shall not dwell into this, understanding that not all readers may accept such a doctrine (I do - and past lives are something that can be recalled in meditation so to me it is more than just a theory or a belief, furthermore scientific research like those by Dr. Ian Stevensons backs rebirth). If you are into Mahayana like I do, my aim is to attain full Buddhahood for the sake of benefitting mass sentient beings which is not merely personal liberation - Buddhahood confers things like great compassion, mastery of skillful means in teaching, omniscience, mastery of supernatural powers and the ten virtues (paramis) and so on. I am not a Buddha - just learning and practicing to be one. Anyhow, the effects of awakening I have currently observed are the natural result of having discovered a true and accurate way of perceiving things, freed from the view and sense of self and objects, resulting in just the NDNCDIMOP of the sensate world as it is. It should be understood that you should not focus on removing emotions head on, or removing thoughts head on, or removing sense of self head on. Why? If you do not go for the roots, but try to cut off the branches, then you leave the root intact. Your delusion is intact even if you managed to 'get rid of the sense of self' (just like your delusion is intact even if you managed to distant yourself from the illusory snake that actually is a rope). But once you cut off the root ignorance, the branches are dealt with, or they naturally fall away easily. So when realization occurs, you honour realization first, understanding that there is no liberation from afflictions without first liberation from ignorance via true knowledge and vision of things as they are. You don't sit in meditation all day trying to cultivate 'thoughtlessness'. You don't try sitting in meditation all day to 'get rid of the self' or 'get rid of emotions'. These are naturally dealt with in the maturation of true insight and experience. They are a natural result of clarity. Also, if self-view and sense of self is not relinquished, people generally treat 'letting go' as a form of dissociative practice. 'I' or the 'witnessing awareness' dissociate from 'my feelings', as if there are two things that can separate from each other. This simply strengthens the delusion of self, leading to more clinging, not liberation. This is why Thusness warned a long time ago: "...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another form of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. When it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force yourself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...." Even if you are able to achieve a state of letting go to a high degree and you enter into samadhi, this is merely a temporary state where afflictions are temporarily in abeyance or suppressed. This is ok - but keep in mind they are merely suppressed, not uprooted. Only wisdom in tandem with samadhi can uproot afflictions permanently. One last thing: Buddha teach practice (such as the four foundations of mindfulness, seven factors of awakening, and so on) from his awakened experience, sort of like working backwards for sentient beings, translating his experience into practices. In other words, the experience of pure alertness, clarity, equanimity, and so on... are qualities natural in one's experience after realization, but before realization they are difficult to be experienced effortlessly (though that doesn't mean we shouldn't practice to experience them). It should be known that there is a difference between practice after realization and the practice before realization. After realization, practice is effortless, without any attempt to modify experience - just resting in the natural equipoise on reality. Such can also be spoken of as 'non-meditation' since it is not really effortful practice. It should be understood however that only an awakened person can experience 'non-meditation', an unawakened person attempting to do 'non-meditation' will only fall under the power of their own conditioning. For example they may mistake lazing around and day-dreaming with 'non-meditation', which is a tragedy. The conditioning here means falling into the magical spell of duality, the stories about 'me' and 'the world', the stories of 'I', 'me', and 'mine'. An awakened person who realizes the nature of reality is able to overcome his view of inherent and duality, because there is no deluded views about 'I', no 'mine', and no 'other' (objects), the awakened person does not give rise to delusion and attachment (therefore requires no effort or antidote) and is naturally and effortlessly authenticated by the unity of luminosity and emptiness (Buddha-nature) in the midst of their life, not just in sitting meditation. For such a practitioner, all thoughts and perceptions are in a state of self-releasing or self-liberation, no effortful practice or antidote is necessary because what self-releases does not cause harm or delusion. Due to the view of emptiness naturally being authenticated in daily life, a person does not grasp on 'I', 'me', 'mine' and 'things', and due to non-grasping, there is also no need to make special effort to 'let go' - there is no problems (attachment due to inherent view) that need to be remedied. As an analogy: a person suffering hallucination may imagine there to be a beautiful paradise in front of him, so he chases after the mirage experiencing craving, attachment, and suffering. Because of his sickness, the person needs to be treated with an antidote - some kind of medication to prevent the outbursts of mania. Such is the dilemma of sentient beings. Seeing things as real and inherent, we grasp and crave after them, but an awakened person knows better - there is no person, nor object that is real - everything is illusory. Having no delusions about it, such a person does not give rise to grasping and naturally no remedy is needed. Such an awakened being is also not delusioned about there being a 'special state' that he therefore craves after (after all, everything is empty) - he is not seeking after some nice transcendental experience, therefore no effort is required, but is simply liberated on the spot. The need for effort and meditation only arise when one feels some suffering, deviation, or distraction that requires 'antidote', but for one who effortlessly rests in the equipoise on reality, does not require antidote, meditation and effort. But until then, meditate hard, practice hard to awaken (and it doesn't mean after awakening you don't need to sit, but it becomes effortless without agenda or attempt to modify our experience - even the Buddha does regular sitting meditation just because it is healthy and promotes well-being). Do not underestimate the power of our karmic conditioning - it affects our every moment experience until awakening. Also, before realization, it is truly difficult to experience things like 'the luminosity of the textures and forms of manifestation', 'non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception' and things like that. As Thusness said to me before, to stress on these things to people is to cause them more unnecessary frustrations. They simply cannot see it, even though we (after realization) see it all the time - we can't even unsee it. So the practical thing is not to emphasize these things to them again and again, but advice them to set aside time every day to meditate, practice mindfulness, practice contemplation. Eventually when realization arises, these qualities become effortless. But you can't tell them to experience mindfulness 24/7 - that is just not possible. It would be very good already if they can experience pure clarity in their relatively brief period of sitting meditation, let alone for the entire day. But after Anatta, it seems that this brilliant non-dual luminosity is very effortless - I don't need to practice anything to be in NDNCDIMOP or the pure consciousness experience. I don't need to practice 30 minutes of mindfulness or meditation to reach a state of pure consciousness or NDNCDIMOP. Every ordinary and mundane experience even in daily life and non-meditation setting is already implicitly so. Before awakening, such experiences seem hard to attain, and are rare and intermittent, requiring much effort in practicing mindfulness and meditation, but after awakening it becomes realized and experienced as the natural state, experienced in real-time in everyday living. Like Simpo said, "IMO, before the insight of no-self, it is quite hard to not get caught at the content level. This is because, before the non-dual, non-conceptual experience/insight, one does not know how 'not getting caught' in the content is like." That is why insight is important. But don't worry if you don't experience all those qualities before awakening - it is very difficult to, but it becomes natural after insight, so just focus on insight.

Kind of off topic but... Something I want to add. I don't mean to say that there is anything bad with evangelism even though I am not an evangelist. If anything, I find that there is a lack of effort in evangelising the dharma nowadays, contrast to the time of the Buddha, and I am not helping much. I think it is selfish if you have found some gems which can be shared with others without you losing anything yourself, and yet you are unwilling to share it. In those days, monks were asked by Buddha to go to different directions, places and cities to preach and receive alms from people of all walks of life. Therefore in not a long time they were able to spread the dharma far and wide. "Buddhism is the first missionary religion in the history of humanity with a universal message of salvation for all mankind. The Buddha after His Enlightenment sent out sixty-one disciples in different directions asking them to preach the doctrine for the weal and welfare of mankind. He is said in one of the earliest texts to have been born for the good and happiness of humanity” (manussaloke hitasukhataya jato (Sn 683). Addressed as “the King of kings” (rajabhiraja, Sn 553). He says, “I am a King, the supreme King of Righteousness, with righteousness do I extend my kingdom, a kingdom which cannot be destroyed.” (Sn 554)."

Glad someone enjoyed it

Means the same as realizing 'there is no weather in or apart from the everchanging rain, wind, clouds, sunlight, etc' Anatta removes the view of source, and the view of an ultimate reality, which is different. If appearance is without core and essence, then it is illusory like a mirage, a dream, and so on. A mirage is apparent but without core or substance, a bubble is apparent without core or substance.

In Buddhism, faith is important for progress. So examine a teaching, if Buddha's message appeals to reason (therefore not dogma), have faith in the teachings and practice, so that one day you can transcend mere belief into truly knowing and experiecing for yourself. I am not a buddha with endless skillful means, I have limited ability at expressing my realization, which may improve as time goes by. Just because you see an apple doesn't mean your vocabulary is going to improve at describing it. And anyway it is pretty pointless to - unless you really want to teach a lot of people (I am not a teacher - merely sharing my realization and experience, hopefully it may be of help to a few). Awakening and liberation doesn't mean you have great skillful means. A Pratyekabuddha is known to awaken outside the dispensation of the Buddha, but without the teaching of Buddha, he is unable to articulate and express it to others or teach others. Actually you are the one who brought out all these religion things - I never 'evangelise' but simply share my experience. I never even mentioned 'Buddhism' in my first post. In fact I even said that you can utilize self-inquiry, vedanta etc according to your circumstance, and go for 'pragmatic dharma - whatever works'. As I said earlier, this is a discussion of my realization and experience, and I have no intentions on trying to convince people of other views, but you brought in things about this and that... vedanta vs my view or whatever. And as I said earlier, "I'm more for pragmatic discussions nowadays than debating" which view is higher and so on, until you came in and brought these issues up. No I never once said that 'I realized anatta and emptiness' 4 years ago, even though I did have glimpses of experiences (but not a realization or insight). Realization happened within the last two years. You can understand theoretically, which btw is important as part of 'right view', but theoretical right view is not realization of right view. Different, cos I realized now but was dependent on faith previously. I never really had merits in mind but just want to share it with those who can benefit from it, I think I have enough merits for now. haha One of the characteristics of awakening in Buddhism is the removal of doubts - means utter certainty with regards to one's view and realization. One may still be open to a lot of things, one can still learn a lot of things, but when it comes to things like 'self' - that view is utterly removed. It is like no amount of trying to convinced someone who is awakened that 'santa claus is real' is going to change him, he has woken up.

I don't deny appearance, but do not assert any existence or reality. In short, like Kalaka Sutta: "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer. Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime. As the Buddha said you can't pin down Tathagata in or apart from the five aggregates, so how is there a basis for 'the Tathagata exists' and so on? The point is that 'existence' is untenable, and when 'existence' is untenable it means the view that 'the breeze is there', 'it is', and so on are untenable. It is without basis. When you realize that nothing has real existence, that 'real existence' simply do not apply and cannot be asserted, the notions 'it is', or 'it is not' ceases to take hold of you. No, the point is there is no 'it' that you can make assertions like 'it is so and so'. 'It is', 'It is not' don't apply when there is no 'it'. That is how you understand existence - through conventional relations. But the path of insight is that which analyzes the assumptions of 'existence' behind them - and discovers there to be no subjective self and objective core of phenomena. You are talking about conventionally observed characteristic of each phenomena, while I am talking about their ultimate nature. Conventional characteristics are infinite, but when you realize phenomena are fundamentally empty and non-arising, without characteristics, that the notion of existence, entity, and so on are utterly delusional and baseless, then you have 'seen all'. Emptiness is not a characteristic of phenomena, but the nature of all phenomena - i.e. impermanent, suffering, non-self, empty.

In the same way that smoke is related to fire, but are different phenomena.

Most Buddhists are not suffering a lot more or less than the Christian counterparts, or the atheist counterparts (at least in this life). They are happy yes, but not 'free from suffering'. This is because they are not awakened, not liberated. Just because you are a Buddhist doesn't mean you are awakened and liberated from your afflictions. It just means you believe in the triple gems and take refuge in the triple gems. In actual fact the only way to cease suffering totally is to cease ignorance, clinging, craving. Otherwise you are just using mental antidotes like "positive thinking", "have more compassion" and so on - which builds up positive mental factors but does not permanently eliminate afflictions. Therefore no matter how happy that person is, he will not achieve what the Buddha "highest happiness" called nirvana, he will never achieve the complete end of suffering, and he will not achieve liberation from the cycle of samsara. In principle, Buddhism does not have monopoly over truth and happiness, yet practically speaking, only Buddhism has taught the right view and path that leads to the end of suffering.

Toni specifically explained how there is no entity called weather. Since weather cannot be pinned down apart or within any of the everchanging, impermanent flow or conglomerate or aggregation of varying activities. It is not 'weather is just an activity' - if weather can be equated with one particular activity, that doesn't make sense since an activity lasts an instant, and if it it is to be equated with all activities, then it is merely an imputed phenomena without true existence, or if you see weather as something underlying all activities - that is also a delusion - there is truly no weather to be established apart from phenomenon. The point about anatta is that there is no 'One'. The 'One' is broken down into its constituents, in the same way 'Weather' is broken down into the constituents, therefore realizing there is no 'The One', or 'The Weather'. Therefore, nothing unchanging, independent, like Brahman. In seeing just the process of seeing, the experience of the seen, without a seer. Also Brahman is not seen as 'totality of movements' (in the sense of 1 + 2 + 3 + ... to infinity = the one phenomenon Brahman) since Brahman is non-phenomenal and without movement - rather it subsumes all movements to be the one unchanging substance in its final analysis (1, 2, 3, are all false phenomenal projections upon infinite non-phenomenal Brahman), i.e. all is only Brahman, since all are illusory images appearing within and as the one unchanging substratum of Brahman - no combination of phenomenon will add up to become that noumenon - only when all superimpositions of phenomenon are removed is Brahman revealed, or when you stop seeing the necklace as necklace do you see it as the substratum of gold. This is obviously different from Buddhism since we analyze consciousness into constituents and do not subsume all into one single unchanging substratum or entity. Or in the words of Alex Weith, "what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it," Anyway here is something about Adi Shankara: Adi Sankara says that the world is not real (true), it is an illusion, but this is because of some logical reasons. Let us first analyze Adi Sankara's definition of Truth, and hence why the world is not considered real (true). Adi Sankara says that whatever thing remains eternal is true, and whatever is non-eternal is untrue. Since the world is created and destroyed, it is not real (true). Truth is the thing which is unchanging. Since the world is changing, it is not real (false). Whatever is independent of space and time is real (true), and whatever has space and time in itself is not real (false). Just as one sees dreams in sleep, he sees a kind of super-dream when he is waking. The world is compared to this conscious dream. The world is believed to be a superimposition of the Brahman. Superimposition cannot be real (true). On the other hand, Adi Sankara claims that the world is not absolutely unreal (false). It appears unreal (false) only when compared to Brahman. In the pragmatic state, the world is completely real—which occurs as long as we are under the influence of Maya. The world cannot be both true and false at the same time; hence Adi Shankara has classified the world as indescribable. The following points suggest that according to Adi Sankara, the world is not false (Adi Shankara himself gave most of the arguments, Sinha, 1993): If the world were unreal (false), then with the liberation of the first living being, the world would have been annihilated. However, the world continues to exist even if a living being attains liberation.(but it is possible that no living being attained the ultimate knowledge (liberation) till now. Adi Sankara believes in karma, or good actions. This is a feature of this world. So the world cannot be unreal (false). The Supreme Reality Brahman is the basis of this world. The world is like its reflection. Hence the world cannot be totally unreal (false). False is something which is ascribed to nonexistent things, like Sky-lotus. The world is a logical thing which is perceived by our senses and exists but is not the truth. Consider the following logical argument. A pen is placed in front of a mirror. One can see its reflection. To one's eyes, the image of the pen is perceived. Now, what should the image be called? It cannot be true, because it is an image. The truth is the pen. It cannot be false, because it is seen by our eyes. Undeniable does not mean reality (truly existent) - it simply means undeniable because vividly manifest, appearing. You cannot pin down the existence or entity of appearance, so appearances are empty.

It is not "a false idea or belief" in my case, and therefore I distinguished 'illusory' from 'delusional'. Experience remains illusory (empty yet appearing), delusions can be removed. A deceptive appearance seems close - such as a mirage or a magic trick. Perceiving phenomena to be truly existing is delusional, appearances are illusory - appearing yet empty, is a fact. Because you cannot pin down an entity anywhere - self or phenomena. You miss the point. The hollow bamboo is pointing to the corelessness, substancelessness of phenomena. It is just metaphor. Reality as I define it means 'truly existing'... as distinguished from appearances, which are appearing yet no 'true existents'. If you say 'there is reality', you have to pin down what that reality 'is'. You cannot pin down such a reality anywhere - self or phenomena. So 'there is', 'exists', 'it is' all don't apply. Nope. The point is about rejection of the view of entity. Like I said, you don't have to investigate all classes of phenomenon. Just one will do. For me it was a thought. Because this is about discovering the Nature of phenomenon (e.g. dharma seals), not the individual characteristic of each phenomenon (which is endless and infinite since phemonenon are infinite - and as such only an omniscient Buddha would have been capable of realizing emptiness, which is not the case). Those who meditate on a single phenomenon and thus understand That all phenomena are like an illusion and a mirage, Ungraspable, hollow, false, and not solid, Will soon proceed to the heart of enlightenment. ~ The Sutra Requested by Sky Treasure Through one, you will know all. Through one, you will see all. ~ The Sutra of the King of Meditative Concentration Not what I was saying.

Like even if their sons and daughters die, they get cancer, and so on? That they never get haunted by their anxiety, fear, anger, craving, etc? And to add in rebirth and karma: that they will never suffer in the three lower realms in the next life? It is naive to think that just because someone is happy (lots of people are happy in good times) at the moment, they never suffer ever. All of the unenlightened suffer more or less to varying degrees depending on their circumstances, when the roots of afflictions are not cut off.

It still doesn't show brain waves to be thoughts - two completely different classes of phenomenon, in the same way that you cannot say that the CD correlates with the music and therefore music is located in CD. If location is relative it means cannot pin down a real existence or entity of location. It means what is conventionally called location appears so, but not being truly existent. The element of consciousness is simply your conscious experience.

And the point I made is that suffering comes from view of inherent self and existence, which leads to clinging, which leads to suffering, and therefore the only way to overcome that is to overcome ignorance that grasps at true existent self.

I have already explained earlier that the four extremes are due to the positing of an 'entity'. For example as said earlier, 'Tathagata exists' (or becomes non-existent) cannot be stated to be so when no 'Tathagata' entity can be pinned down, and the same goes for everything else. It actually means that there is no 'weather' entity at all - it is a baseless imputation without any actual reality (illusory appearances, no true existents). The same analysis can apply for rain, clouds, etc. No, Brahman is defined as a non-phenomenal noumenon. In other words, a truly existing self. And it subsumes everything to be that. http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html The emptiness of matter. The ancient Greeks believed that matter is composed of indivisible small elements with certain characteristics, such as the characteristics of earth, water, air, and fire. They called these elements atoms and they held that atoms were solid and fundamental, like microscopic billiard balls. Ernest Rutherford invalidated the billiard ball theory by conducting an experiment, which suggested that atoms have an internal structure. He established that atoms have a nucleus containing most of its mass and that electrons orbit the nucleus. Moreover, he established that the nucleus of an atom is only about one ten-thousandth of the diameter of the atom itself, which means that 99.99% of the atom's volume consists of empty space. This is the first manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter. Not long after Rutherford's discovery, physicists found out that the nucleus of an atom likewise has an internal structure and that the protons and neutrons making up the nucleus are composed of even smaller particles, which they named quarks after a poem of James Joyce. Interestingly, quarks are hypothesized as geometrical points in space, which implies that atoms are essentially empty. This is the second manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter. The terms "quarks" and "points in space" still suggest something solid, since they can be imagined as irreducible mass particles. Yet, quantum field theory does away even with this finer concept of solidity by explaining particles in the terms of field properties. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has produced an amazingly successful theory of matter by combining quantum theory, classical field theory, and relativity. No discrepancies between the predictions of QED and experimental observation have ever been found. According to QED, subatomic particles are indistinguishable from fields, whereas fields are basically properties of space. In this view, a particle is a temporary local densification of a field, which is conditioned by the properties of the surrounding space. Ergo, matter is not different from space. This is the third manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter. An important class of phenomena in the subatomic world is defined by the various interactions between particles. In fact, there is no clear distinction between the notions of phenomena, particles, and interactions, although interactions can be described clearly in mathematical terms. For example, there are interactions between free electrons by means of photons that result in an observed repelling force. There are also interactions between the quarks of a nucleon by means of mesons, interactions between the neighbouring neutrons or protons, interactions between nucleus and electrons, and interactions between the atoms of molecules. The phenomena themselves -the nucleon, the nucleus, the atom, the molecule- are sufficiently described by these interactions, meaning by the respective equations, which implies that interactions and phenomena are interchangeable terms. Interestingly, the interrelations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence. Instead they predict the potential for existence. A manifest particle, such as an electron, cannot be described in terms of classical mechanics. It exists as a multitude of superposed "scenarios", of which one or another manifests only when it is observed, i.e. upon measurement. Therefore, matter does not inherently exist. It exists only as interrelations of "empty" phenomena whose properties are determined by observation. This is the fourth manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter. Labels do not give phenomena their reality, because there is no reality (as in true existents).

They are illusory in the sense that while having no substance, core, true existence, true locatable existence, and yet while not truly existing nonetheless appearances are unceasing and undeniable, so its like a magic show. What manifest, having no real existence, core, substance, like a hollow bamboo, have no place of abidance, an origin, or a destination... via dependent origination the appearance (activity) manifest but what dependently origintaes are empty of a core or substance, and hence are illusory, like a mirage or a bubble - appearing yet empty, empty yet appearing. I have already discussed about the analysis of matter and elements and their emptiness earlier. A substantial entity cannot be pinned down in impermanent and dependent conglomerates.

I have never seen any living Christian, a Taoist, a Hindu, etc describe the realization of anatta and emptiness, nor are these things taught in their doctrines. If you find evidence to the contrary, tell me. But I do not want to dwell into this - because anyway, not everyone has awakening and liberation from suffering as their goals. Some may want to seek immortality, etc.

It is just my observation that only Buddhism teaches the right view that leads to liberation of inherent view, which is the cause of all clinging and suffering.

No. I say thoughts are linked to brain/head/skull/whatever. But they are not to be equated with brain/head/skull/whatever, in the way that smoke is linked to fire, but not to be equated with fire. It is an inapt analogy. Whereas you can actually trace the smoke to a fire you can see, you cannot trace brain to a thought you can see. All you can see is brain waves - not the thought of another person. Science is now able to 'decode' what the brainwaves may mean, but that is like 'decoding' the CD into the form of a music using another machine/cd player. You do not actually 'see' the music in the CD, and you cannot say music is in the CD, when music is an auditory phenomenon. No, 'being burnt by fire' is a conventional observation. It is not ultimate reality. And so is thinking. Location is relative and cannot be established as a true existence, and is merely a false conventional imputation. Location is dependent on many variables... dependent on the object, the object in relation to other objects, etc. Our planet is moving around the sun at 66,630 MPH... so even though it appears we are sitting on a chair unmoved, yet it is revolving around the sun at 66,630 MPH, and the solar system and galaxy may be moving as well. Thought is just an activity and not a thing. Just as music playing is not located in the CD. Ultimately, everything are dependently originated activities and hence empty. On the ultimate level, you cannot find the core or substance of thought (or any of the other elements for that matter). On the conventional level, a thought, which is a form of consciousness, being the element of consciousness, is distinct from the other elemetns of matter, and therefore spatial location does not apply in this way. Correlation takes place but does not reduce thought to matter.

Unrelated to the current discussion, I was just going through Alex Weith's postings yesterday and found them to be deeply insightful even after re-reading the second or third time. Just a sharing: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html A Zen Exploration of the Bahiya Sutta Posted by: An Eternal Now Some excerpts of postings about Bahiya Sutta by AlexWeith (who is a lay Soto Zen priest who recently realized anatta) from http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/4765011/A+Zen+exploration+of+the+Bahiya+Sutta?offset=0&maxResults=20 Thusness told me that he thinks all these are very well written, which I fully agree. "In the seen, there is only the seen, in the heard, there is only the heard, in the sensed, there is only the sensed, in the cognized, there is only the cognized. Thus you should see that indeed there is no thing here; this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself. Since, Bahiya, there is for you in the seen, only the seen, in the heard, only the heard, in the sensed, only the sensed, in the cognized, only the cognized, and you see that there is no thing here, you will therefore see that indeed there is no thing there. As you see that there is no thing there, you will see that you are therefore located neither in the world of this, nor in the world of that, nor in any place betwixt the two. This alone is the end of suffering.” (Ud. 1.10) ............. There is no end to the process of awakening, but in Zen Buddhism there are steps and strategies. These introductory posts will explain my position, what I discovered so far, and how it unfolds. Having got hold of the ox, one has realized the One Mind. In Zen literature this One Mind has often been compared to a bright mirror that reflects phenomena and yet remains untouched by appearances. As discussed with one of Sheng-yen's first Western students, this One Mind is still an illusion. One is not anymore identified to the self-center, ego and personality, yet one (the man) is still holding to pure non-dual awareness (the ox). Having tamed the ox, the ox-herder must let go of the ox (ox forgotten) and then forget himself and the ox (ox and man forgotten). The problem is that we still maintain a subtle duality between what we know ourself to be, a pure non-dual awareness that is not a thing, and our daily existence often marked by self-contractions. Hoping to get more and more identified with pure non-dual awareness, we may train concentration, try to hold on to the event of awakening reifying an experience, or rationalize the whole thing to conclude that self-contraction is not a problem and that suffering is not suffering because our true nature is ultimately beyond suffering. This explains why I got stuck in what Zen calls "stagnating waters" for about a year. This is however not seen as a problem in other traditions such as Advaita Vedanta where the One Mind is identified with the Brahman that contains and manifests the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep within itself, yet remains untouched by its dreamlike manifestation. ............. So what has been puzzling me what the sense of presence, the sense of being and its relation with the sense that things around me manifest their presence. Over the months I realized that if this beingness seems to be located as the center of our being, it is actually the flavor of all things. Reading the blog "Awakening to Reality" that has become my main source of inspiration, I realized that this presence felt as the presence of 'what is' is the *luminosity* that the Mahamudra teachings are talking about. Gradually, feeling my own sense of being has become feeling the beingness of all things, leading to a deeper non-dual realization that gradually colapsed the sense of a Primoridal Awareness, True Self, or Bright Mirror into what is present here and now. The conclusion is that all phenomena are in themself empty and luminous, ungraspable and self-aware, ever changing and alive. The conclusion is also that there is nothing beyond that; no permanent pure potential beyond phenomena, no true self that would be the source and substance of phenomena and above all no primordial awareness or Consciousness that would contain the five aggregates. The whole universe is contained and expressed in a the "cypress tree in the court", simply because in the absence of a super Self in the background, the cypress tree brightly present in this very moment is the absolute reality made manifest in its suchness (tathata). Most Zen koans point to this realization, together with Hui-neng poem "Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists, Nor the stand of a mirror bright. Since all is empty from the beginning, Where can the dust alight". Surprizingly this deconstruction leads to a deeper level of non-duality. Huang-po's "One Mind' is starting to become Mazu's "No Mind, no Buddha". ............. Practically speaking this means: 1). becoming aware of one's sense of existence and focusing on it until it starts to feel as if the only reality is this pure presence-awareness containing everything; 2). shifting this sense of being-existence-presence-awareness to apprehend the beingness of all things, until everything starts to feel bright, luminous, present and alive. At this stage, there is no more "self" and "other", nor is there any subtle duality between primordial awareness and phenomena arising and passing away within it. There is only "seeing seeing the seen" without a seer, nor solid material objects behind the seen. This does not mean that there is absolutely no Primordial Awareness, Self or One Mind. This would be an extreme position rejected by the Buddha. This explains why the Buddha remained silent when asked about the existence of a Self. Answering "Yes" would mean that there is an eternal abiding inherent essence beyond phenomena (eternalism), while answering "No" would lead to nihilism, the other extreme view. The Buddha's way is the middle way, between these two extremes. There is a self, but this self is an conventional concept to describe something that appears to be and is experienced as such, but it not an abiding ultimate reality. There is a Mind, but this Mind is empty [of an abiding essence]. This Mind is the *non-abiding mind* of the Diamond Sutra. Therefore, *Mind* is *No Mind*. ............. This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go. The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is. The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas). At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become. ............. This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go. The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is. The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas). At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become. ............. @beoman & @giragirasol: Yes, when we realize that there is no super Awareness beyond consciousnes and become mindful of consciousness as it manifests at the 6 doors of the senses, we also realize that everything that we can ever experience is contained within one of these 6 streams of consciousness, including the 4 other aggregates that are known through the agregate of consciousness and the arupa jhanas that are in reality very subtle non-conceptual mind-states of the cognizing-consciousness. Arriving at this point, we can start to investigate the 5 aggregate as well as the sense of self. If we start with the aggregate of form (the physical body), we realize that our direct experience of the body is nothing more than stream of images (seeing legs, arms, a nose), the other senses and above all sensations. Exploring these sensations we realize that there is an impermanent stream of sensations that more of less matches the images of the body. However, the stream of seeing-consciousness is always distinct from the stream of sensing-consciousness. One never sees a sensation, but an unpleasant sensations can match the sight of a wounder arm. These stream are therfore seem as independent, yet totally interdependent. A sound, can trigger a thought that can trigger a sensations, that can trigger the images of a hand moving. Altogether, these 6 impermanent every changing streams of consciousness create the illusion of a solid substancial body. The same method applies to the other aggregates. ............. When it comes to the investiation of the sense of self, we must first realize that, even after what some have called technical 4th path, and even if we know that what we are is not any of the 5 aggregates, we still have a sense of self, a sense of existence. The sense "I am" has not been overcome yet. This issue is discussed in the Khemaka Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html In this text, Ven. Dasaka meets the Arhant Khemaka and tells him that "there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this." (...) ""Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'" The Arhat answers saying "friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession." Abendoning the five lower fetters means being an Anagami. Here the Arhant says that that even Anagami may still have a residual sense of self that he calls, the 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession." As to how this sense 'I am' is experienced, the Arhant asks: "then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?" And the monk replies, "as the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly." he sense of self is like the scent of the flower. It is the flavor of being. In order to get rid of this residual sense of self and become an Arahat, the sage explains: "As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated. Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean & spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated". This means observing the arising and passing away of the 5 aggregates until "the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated". ............. Practically speaking, the above mentioned method works in the same way. One can either split each of the 5 aggregates into 6 streams of consciousness, to see how the sense of "a body" (aggregate of form) arises when all senses working together create the illusion of substantiality, pretty much like the images track and the sounds tracks of a movie that together create the illusion of reality. Using the same method we can also see how the illusion of a solid body dissolves when we look deeply and see that what we had assumed to be a body is nothing more than an illusion created by 6 impermanent, separate-yet-interdependent streams of consciousness. We can also investigate the sense of self as such. In the seen, only the seen. We first realize that we cannot know the objects seen as such, but only the seen (shapes, colors, textures, etc.). We also realize that there is no separate entity that sees. There is seeing, but no seer. Seeing is seeing. Same with the other streams of sense consciousness. Then, what I do is to look for a sense of self, and see whether it is more assocated to one of these 6 streams of consciousness. It is generally associated with a physical sensation around the solar plexus or gut, and is therefore related to the stream of sensing-consciousness. When this is seen for what it is, the sense of self drops. There is nothing beside the spontanious functioning of the senses. Here the purpose is not to lock and make permanent a special state of consciousness, but only to gain deeper and deeper insights into Anatta and Shunyata until we become absolutely unable to make anything into "me" or "mine". ............. @giragirasol - and yes the results experienced during meditation when we stop investigating and let go of clinging that what has been seen as an illusion does match the traditional description of Rigpa. It first come for a brief moment, until it eventually becomes the only game in town. This is no surpize, since the Dzogchen teachings are basically about seeing the fruit (of mainstream Buddhism) as its ground (view) and the path (practice). But here one should clearly mention that there is absolutely no inherently existing "Awareness" that is felt as existing separately from "phenomena arising witghin awareness", which would be Advaita Vedanta and maybe Kashmir Shaivism, but not Dzogchen. The Dalai Lama was very clear about that and insisted on the fact that Dzogchen can lead people astay if they lack a clear understanding of no-self, emptiness, co-dependent origination, interdependence, etc., recommending the in-depth study of Longchenpa with a solid background rooted in Tsongkapa's Lam Rim or other similar treaties. ............. With respect to the Zen 10 ox-herding pictures this above deals with "ox forgotten, man remains" (no more super-Awareness, One Mind beyond the 18 dhatus, 6 senses) and then "ox and man forgotten" when the lingering "sense I am" that used to apprehend the aggregate of consciousnes as the One Mind is also extinguished. This is not the only interpretation, but it does match Zen master Sheng-yen's commentaries. ............. And of course, mindfulness of the mind/6 sense doors/citta, being totally one with the seen, the heard, etc. is at the heart of Zen practice. Ultimately, meditation practice is always "allowing everything to be as it is". However can only let go of what we see as an illusion. As an exemple disembedding from thoughts, sensations and perceptions allows us see them as mere reflexions. It then becomes easier to let go of thougths, sensations and perceptions. However, the same practice will also crystalize the sense of a witness untouched by phenomena that gradually evolves into a super non-dual Awareness seen as the source and substance of phenomena. Without further investigation, letting go is letting go thoughts, sensations and perceptions, but unknowingly also holding on to the Witness, Awareness or some other illusory inherent self hanging somewhere in the background. It is only when we investigate and look deeply into this awareness that we become able to let go of clinging to what looked like the Absolute leading to a deeper non-dual realization from the Awareness vs reflections-within-awareness duality. ............. @jhsaintonge - hi, it's pretty much on topic actually. On May 12, 2011, I was doing the laundry after struggling for days on the fundamental koan "if you knew that you couldn't do anything to gain elightenment, then what do you do?" Suddenly, everything felt dreamlike, everything namely may life, the universe, several past lives, everything felt like a dream, something that never happened, something illusory arising from a great void, a creative nothingness, unborn, uncreated, beyond birth and death, beyond time, non existing yet source and substance of all things; me, awareness, consciousness was seen as being nothing more than its projection that would then get identified with its projected dreamlike appearences to create the illusion of a real life in a real world. As a result of this event, everything felt perfect, whole and complete for weeks. And something did shift permanently. Now what is that? Advaita Vedanta Jnanis told me you are That". You are a jnani. Zen masters said, "you have seen the ox", the essence of the Mind. Reading Christian mystics, it is clear that this event is seeing God as the Ground of Being, the unmanifest source of all things. Nothing wrong with the experience. It is great, awesome, and enlightening in the sense that it opened the an abiding non-dual state that some call technical 4th path. But then, iis this the Buddha's awakening? Not so sure. Because although this event does validate the teachings of Neoplantonism, Advaita Vedanta, Christian mysticsm, there is no real insight into "Co-dependent origination" and most as the other things that set the Buddha's teachings apart from other great Indian spiritual traditions. ............. There remains a duality between "That" and phenomena. "That" feels like an impersonal uncreated clean mirror in the background that reflect phenomena, yet remains untouched. As a matter of fact that is the Self that Raman Maharishi talked about. That is the Arma (or Atta in Pali). On a later stage, we realize that "That" can self-contract or on the contrary expend. It is like zooming in an out. In reality, it never changes, but gets more or less identified with phenomena. Attending to this pure presence-awareness, it naturally grows and overpowers phenomena to the point where everything is seen as appearences reflected within it. Yet "That" is the Self. The problem is not the Self, but what we make out of it. Grasping at it tends to create a subtle duality, since we can become more or less identified with its dreamlike projections. There is Awareness vs phenomena arising within awareness. Awarenees is IT. Phenomena arising within it are Maya, illusions. We must cease identification with, or disembed from illusory (empty, impermanent, not-the-self) phenomena. This is precisely what great Advaita Jnanis did, like Ramana Maharishi who meditated for years in a cave after his awakening. The problem is that the more we disembed as this stage, the more we grasp at this pure non-dual Awareness, Absolute or Self and fail to realize what the Buddha realized under the Bodhi Tree. My conviction is that in order to realize No-Self (Anatta), the Buddha has realized the Self. He was already an accomplished yogi, a master in his own right. But he still wasn't satisfied, because it wasn't yet the end of suffering. Why, because as long as there remains any tiny sense of "me" or "mine" either in relation with body and mind, or with a Self, primordial awareness, Consciousness, Brahman, the One Mind, God, etc. there will be suffering. ............. My guess is that the Buddha first realized the Self and then started deconstructing it. He took this non-dual awareness and thought, "how can I be sure that this will not perish with the body?", "isn't awareness nothing more than something that arises as the result of sense contact"; "can awareness or consciousness exist beyond the 5 aggregates?", "what is the sense of self, being, existence?", "how does it arise?", "why is it still there after self-realization?", "why is it still there in the highest arupa jhanas?", "how can it be extinguished without dying?" Then one day, Gautama awakened to impermanence, co-dependent origination, no-Atma (antta), emptiness, suchness, etc. and knew that, "this is the end of suffering", "the holy life has been lived, there is no more coming and going, etc.". I am far from that, but I am starting to realize that the Buddha did go beyond what everybody saw (and still seem to see -even Buddhists- as enlightenment, awakening or self-realization. Something that implies the realization of the Self, but goes further. ............. So what is this pure, unborn, empty, timeless and nondual Awareness? As I see it now, it is just the non-arising, unsupported, empty and self-luminous nature of what is that the mind grasps and imagines to be an essential sustancial inherhent ultimate reality beyond phenomena. Seeing a white ox on a while empty field covered with snow (common Zen simile for the experience of the One Mind), the mind assumes that there is a pure "Whiteness" beyond all white objects. Why? Because when the mind is not yet freed from ignorance, it needs to hold on to some kind of stable reference point, reifying its unconditioned and nonabiding nature realized in a moment of total surrender into seeing the eternal Source and substance of all things. As I am starting to see it now, there is no clean mirror behind the images reflected in the mirror.The mirror cannot be separated from its reflected images. The reflected images are the mirror. Reality is like a lucid dream, but there is no dreamer, nor dreamed reality beyond the dream. There is just an timeless flow of dream images dreaming themselves within the dream. In dreaming, only the dream / in seeing, only the seen / in hearing, only the heard. ............. Padmasambhava's take on the same subject (where we see that Dzogchen and Vajrayana do not contract Pali Buddhism): "The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity. It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates Nor as identical with these five aggregates. If the first were true, there would exist some other substance. This is not the case, so were the second true, That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent. Therefore, based on the five aggregates, The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging. As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent. The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny." ............. The suggestions that I have received were to acquire 'right view'. The mind needs to acquire some form of conceptual model that allows it to accept the possibility of its own non-abiding ungraspable empty nature. Right view is therefore required to facilitate the shift of perspective from "I am Awareness, everything is in me" to "nothing whatsoever is me or mine, all dharmas are empty". A good start would be Walpola Rahula's classic "What the Buddha Taught: Revised and Expanded Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada". It can be completed by "The Way to Buddhahood: Instructions from a Modern Chinese Master" by Ven. Yin-shun. A great autoritative summary of the Mahayana path. Then, based on a solid understanding of the core insights of Buddhism, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's "Clarifying the Natural State" (if still in print, or anything from the same great 16th century yogi) will be the best introduction to the Mahamudra and indirectly to the the sem-de series of Dzogchen. The logical progression is therefore: - Advaita Vedanta - Pali Buddhism - Mahayana Buddhism - Mahamudra, Dzogchen If we skip Pali and Mahayana Buddhism and jump directly to Mahamudra or Dzogchen, the risk is to interpret Mahamudra or Dzogchen as a Buddhist version of pop-neo-advaita, equating emptiness and rigpa with awareness. This is very common nowadays and some Western lamas seem to encourage this trend to water-down the Dzogchen teachings, as always in order to appeal to a larger public. Business is business. ............. The great thing about Buddhism is that is never goes beyond our direct experience. In our direct experience, "the seen" does not imply the existence of solid objects out there that are the objects of what is seen. They may or may may not exist, but our direct experience is only "in seeing, only the seen". In our direct experience, "the seen" does not imply the existence of a subject (an entity located in our brain looking through our eyes) or an impersonal unmanifest eternal witness (the Self, Awareness). In our direct experience there is only "the seen", without anybody seeing. The dream is just a metaphor. "The seen" is itself: not existing, not non-existing, nor both existing and non-existing ;-) ............. Mahamudra is often defined as the union of emptiness and clarity. In Zen we call it the inseparability of the empty essence and luminous function of the mind. What does it mean exacty and how is it related to practice. As I see it, the practice of what Kenneth called 1st and 2nd gear (noting vipassana and self-inquiry) allows us to witness the impermanent nature or phenomena that are gradually seen as being dreamlike, impermanent and ungraspable. As a result, we disembed from our identification to phenomena and wake up to our existence as pure awareness, first as the silent witness untouched by thoughts, then as an impersonal presence-awareness somehow detached from phenomena (3rd path) and finally as a non-dual awareness [that is not a thing] that includes phenomena and manifests as phenomena (4th path). Through this process, the witness crystalizes the *clarity* aspect of what is, while phenomena manifest the *emptiness* aspect of what is. When the separation is complete, empty phenomedna are seen as dreamlike apprearences within pure clarity apprehended as non-dual awareness. In the Direct Mode (3rd gear?) some have noticed that phenomena become more alive, luminous, clear, in a way hyper-real, while the sense of an observing witness tends to dissolve. Why? Because at this stage the direct mode shifts the our attention for the witnessing position beyond or behind phenomena towards phenomena and objects on the foreground. As a result phenomena (the seen, the heard, etc.) become more clear, alive, actual and hyper-real revealing its *clarity* aspect, while the sense of self, the witness, the observer or the sense of existing as a pure impersonal univolved awareness dissolves and fades away, revealing the *emptiness* aspect. In both cases, *emptiness* and *clarity* are present but are somehow divided into two opposites sides: a). The subject is the only reality: the all pervading witnessing non-dual awareness (clarity) on one side, and empty impermanent phenomena reflected within awareness on the other (emptiness), or b.) The objects are the only reality in the absence of a knower: the "actual" world bright clear and luminous out there (clarity) and no self, witness or presence on the other side (emptiness). Both states are valid point of views as long as we understand that everything is both *empty* and *luminous*. Then there is no opposion or conflict between cycling mode and direct mode, this or that. Gaining freedom from fixed views we gradually realize the union of emptiness and clarity. Zen master Linji (Jap. Rinzai) illustrates a). and . as the 1st and 2nd of his Four Positions: 1). Remove the objects, not the man (non-dual awareness that is both the source and substance of all things) 2). Remove the man, not the objects (no sense of self or agency, all that remains is the functioning of the six senses) 3). Remove both man and objects (emptiness of both self and phenomena) 4). Remove neither man, nor objects (traceless enlightenment beyond enlightenment) ............. What is nibbana? "If we wish to go by the Buddha's words, there is an easy principle that the Buddha taught to a disciple named Bahiya. "O Bahiya, whenever you see a form, let there be just the seeing; whenever you hear a sound, let there be just the hearing; when you smell an odor, let there be just the smelling (...) When you practice like this, there will be no self, no "I". When there is no self, there will be no running that way and no coming this way and no stopping anywhere. Self does not exist. That is the end of dukkha. That itself is nibbana". Whenever life is like that, it's nibbana. If it's lasting, then it is lasting nibanna; if it is temporary, then it is temporary nibanna. In other words, there is just one principle to live by". - Buddhdassa Bhikkhu, 'Heartwood of the bodhi Tree' ............. Hello Zyklops, I know that it sounds strange and counter-intuitive. To bring it back to the reality of our direct experience of things as they are, let me try answer with the following questions: - Have you noticed that no sunlight ever enters into the mind, nor even into the brain? - Have you noticed that even in dreams, while sleeping in a dark room with our eyes closed, we experience bright vivid dreams? - Have you noticed that when the sense of self fades away, everything becomes more vivid, bright and luminous? - Have you noticed that when I am aware of something, this "I" is itself a thought and/or a feeling? - Have you noticed that althought our sense of existence seems to imply the existence of a knower located somewhere behind the eyes, the sense of existence-presence-being is only the actualization of an ungoing impermanent flow of phenomena [coming into being], including what we had assumed to be the subject of all experiences? When the self/Self is seen as an illusion, awareness is also revealed as a quality of phenomena. In other words, there is no Awareness out there aware of phenomena. Phenomena are themselves self-aware, empty and luminous. This is also what Dogen means by "to study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away" (Genjokoan). ............. The notion of a 'primordial awareness', 'knowingness' or 'buddha-nature', seem to find its origin in the 'tathatagarbha' (Buddha's embryo) described in the Lankavatara sutra that soon became very popular in China, Korea, Japan and Tibet, in relation with Yogachara (Vijnanavada, mind-only) Buddhism that strongly influenced the Zen (that used to be called the Lanka school), Mahamudra (also called the 'Mind Seal') and Dzogchen traditions. Scholars agree to find its root in the Anguttara Nikaya, where the Buddha talks about the 'luminous mind' ('pabhassara citta' in Pali): "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements". As mentioned above -at least as far I am concerned- there is nothing wrong with it, provided that we clearly understand that the Buddha did not talk about a permanent unconditioned entity untouched by phenomena. There is a "luminous is the mind" and "the triple world is mind-only" (Avatamsaka sutra), yet this mind is empty [of an abiding essence]. This mind is a more like a stream of interdependent luminous phenomena, a flow of seeing, hearing, sensing, thinking, etc. ............. Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that. On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it, As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates. "Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta). ............. What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma). It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly. ............. Thanks, sure. I especially like the "In lhatong—in terms of the Four Naljors—one is not naming what arises; one is not separate from what arises. One becomes completely identified with that which arises". This is how the practice these days. There is seeing, hearing, thinking, sensing, tasting and smelling, but obviously no seer, hearer, senser, etc. out there trying to dis-embed from the seen, the heard... If it seem that someone or something is investigating, seeing, practicing, it soon appears that this sense of a doer, an observer or even this abstract and impersonal sense of being is just thinking, feeling, sensing. ............. As a matter of far, I am not familiar with noting vipassana. What I do is to hold on the 'sense of being' or 'sense of presence'. This presence that first felt like "I am presence-awareness" now turns into the direct apprehension of the beingness, presence or actuality of seeing, hearing, sensing, etc. in the absence of a subject, knower, self or non-dual awareness-super-Self. The sense of being (or feeling of existence) is not anymore the sense of my being as a sentient being or even as pure non-dual awareness, but is simply experienced as the beingness of 'what is' manifesting its presence. For more, see the original link Labels: Alex Weith, Anatta, Stages of Enlightenment, Zen 2 comments | |

My point is that a consistent entity is an imputation and false establishment. No, yesterday's 'moon' and today's 'moon' are not the same moon. The moon of the last second and the moon of this second is not even the same. Every moment is constantly arising and subsiding. There is not even an 'it' that 'deteriorates day by day'. Or as Steve Hagen, a deeply insightful Zen teacher (whose books I recommend) writes, the thorough-going flux, the impermanence that "is so complete, so thorough, that nothing is formed in the first place to be impermanent." Or as Thusness puts it, 'change without something changing'. Consistency are conventional observation - which admits things like 'weather', 'cold', 'winter' - e.g. winter weather is almost always cold. Ultimately, there is no 'weather' etc. Conventional truths are not denied on that level in the same way that karma and rebirth are not denied on the conventional level - it is only rejected (as being truly existent) when analyzed and all phenomena are realized to have no real existence. When you cannot pin down a reality anywhere, then all experiences are 100% unreal. This is a yes or no thing... not a percentage thing. No entity 'weather' means no weather. Simple as that. Of course Toni Packer aimed her refutations at coarser imputations, such as 'weather', or 'self'. Toni Packer described anatta, but not the emptiness of phenomena which includes the 'feelings... etc'. In other words, her insight only describes up to the Hinayana level (anatta/emptiness of self), and does not extend all the way like Mahayana does to all phenomena. Actually it does. Anatta breaks down the notion of an 'entity', more so a 'universal' one. Brahman = permanent self. Anatta = no permanent self, be it universal or individual. When you drop your conceptual image of self and discover the non-conceptual Presence-Beingness, I AM, you reify that as your truest identity. When you realize the falsity of the sense of being a separate self or observer, or a subject-object dichotomy, you drop that and realize One Mind, but you reify that unified Mind or Awareness as ultimate/permanent/self. Nonetheless you no longer hold on to that I AM as anyway more special or ultimate than a transient sight or sound, since all is You. Then when you realize anatta, you discover that there is no self/Self - there is no unchanging substance of mind, or a seer, behind the process of seeing/seen, in seeing always the seen without a seer. No unchanging, independent, permanent or ultimate subject/self. At this point your understanding becomes similar to the Hinayana schools - there is no subjective self or being or soul, nonetheless the analysis does not extend towards all phenomena, so at this point it may seem as the sravaka Abhidhamma states - that all dharmas/phenomena are 'ultimate realities' in contrast to conventionally conceived realities like 'self, Tathagata, you, me' or gross concepts like 'weather'. Nonetheless dharmas, or phenomena, are conceived to have 'atomic' elemental existences. Then when we realize the emptiness of phenomena, all are realized to be coreless, substanceless, illusory like a mirage, a magician's trick. Then we realize that the 'ultimate realities' that Abhidhamma posits are in fact, no ultimate 'realities' but more 'conventional realities' which when analyzed are seen to be empty. And this is also where 'non-locality' comes in - which does not mean that things exist but cannot be located, but that there is no location of things that can be pinned down because there is no thing-ness of things. So no, Anatta is not the same as One Mind or I AM. I AM is where the conceptual ideation of self in terms of labels and concepts (I am my name, my gender, etc), to be replaced by the identification with the pure sense of being/presence-awareness. One Mind is where subject-object dichotomy is deconstructed but not inherent self. Anatta is where the inherent subjective self is deconstructed. Emptiness of phenomena is where the true existence of phenomena/objects are deconstructed. As long as the subtlest view of inherency is not deconstructed, there will always be some clinging, effort, referencing, even though not detected or seen as such. There can be no liberation with inherent view, therefore the realization of right view is important and necessary, and why Buddhism puts much emphasis on this. 'Matter' is another coarse imputation, like the word 'weather'. There is no 'matter' apart from the 'individual units of matter' which when further analyzed are realized to be empty. What is matter? The ancients analyze them in terms of the five or four elements: The Earth Element The Water Element The Fire Element The Air Element The Space Element These are not 'elements' that science understands it - obviously there is no atomic element called 'earth', rather, it simply means solidity (earth), liquidity (water), heat (fire) and mobility (wind) are observable fundamental 'building blocks' of nature or matter as we observe it. Then in modern science, the scientists through the use of telescope is able to discover over a hundred various elements with different structures. So 'matter' is really just a vague imputation like the word 'weather', there is no 'matter' apart from the elements, which can be analyzed in different ways. Whether we take Buddhism's conventions or modern science conventions, which are all valid conventional observations, the ultimate truth is that of emptiness.

No, not 'if it doesn't have a label, it doesn't exist', but more like this: When the sugata is afterwards spoken of, all are words and all these are spoken with provision or false names; because they are established in false or provisional names. ... All things are only provisional or false names and established only in names. That which is capable of speech is not obtained apart from speech. In other words, we realize there is no 'entity' of weather apart from thinking about it - not because 'if it doesn't have a label, it doesn't exist', but because there is actually simply no real entity to which the label refers to, so it is just a false name and provisional imputation. There is no real entity 'weather' even though the label 'weather' is imputed. Just like there is no real 'self' even though sentient beings falsely conceive there to be one. The same goes for everything else, self and phenomena.

The point is that there is no awakening without right view, right view being first and foremost in the noble eightfold path that leads to awakening. In other words, awakening to the nature of reality is dependent upon the adoption of right view through learning the correct teachings. This has been my and Thusness's experience too, not that we just take Buddha's words by faith (but before you awaken, you should take Buddha's words by faith as the sutta I quoted previously have stated). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bogoda/bl139.html#essay4 Also as Namdrol said: The eight-fold path starts with right view, and right view, the view of middle way, belongs solely to the Buddhist school. And as Zen writer and speaker Ted Biringer says, "Accurate understanding is not authentic realization. At the same time, authentic realization can hardly be expected to occur without accurate understanding. And while an absence of "right understanding" almost excludes the possibility of authentic realization, the presence of "wrong understanding" excludes even the slimmest hope of success. If we aspire to realize what Zen practice-enlightenment truly is, then, as Dogen says, "We should inquire into it, and we should experience it." To follow his guidance here we will need to understand his view of what "it" is that needs to be inquired into, and who the "we" is that is to do the inquiring."

You can locate fire by tracing the smoke, but you cannot locate thought by tracing brain waves. You only see more brain waves, not the thought. Like I said - I never thought otherwise that brain waves are highly linked to thoughts. Obviously it is, and I am not surprised that they are able to translates brainwaves to thoughts, and will not be surprised if one day that technology can be used to 'read' coma patients. This however does not indicate that thoughts are located in your skull, there is no link there. That is like saying fire is located in the smoke - which is not the case, since smoke is different from fire but interdependent. Similarly, you can build a machine that 'translates' the CD to audible music, or the tape to viewable videos, yet this does not mean the CD = music, or that the music is located in the CD - since music is actually an auditory phenomenon, video is a visual phenomenon (and auditory) - and these requires not only the CD or the tape, but also other eletronic devices like the cd player, the TV, electricity, and so on. In Buddhism, Consciousness is a substance different from matter. There are six elements: The Earth Element The Water Element The Fire Element The Air Element The Space Element The Consciousness Element Namdrol: No one ever said that consciousness had no cause. Consciousness is a substance, conceived of by the Buddha and Buddhists to be of a different kind than matter. Conciousness has a cause, but not a material cause, even though, according to them, it can be conditioned by material substances. Dharmakirit runs through these reasonings in much detail in the Pramanasiddhi chapter of the Pramandavartika.

Those consistency and consequential quality as a basis for 'existence' is all based on conventional view. They require you to establish them as truths, as existences, in order to establish the consistency. In reality, two instances of occurences are neither the same nor different - the previous day's instance of 'moon' is not the same as today's instance of 'moon'. Or today's weather is 'cloudy' and tomorrow is 'cloudy' too doesn't mean there is an entity called 'weather'. Just because they have apparently similar shapes or colours does not imply existence. In the same sutta: "What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." Toni Packer: A somber day, isn't it? Dark, cloudy, cool, moist and windy. Amazing, this whole affair of "the weather!" We call it "weather," but what is it really? Wind. Rain. Clouds slowly parting. Not the words spoken about it, but just this darkening, blowing, pounding, wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amidst darkness, and sunshine sparkling on wet grasses and leaves. In a little while there'll be frost, snow and ice-covers. And then warming again, melting, oozing water everywhere. On an early spring day the dirt road sparkles with streams of wet silver. So — what is "weather" other than this incessant change of earthly conditions and all the human thoughts, feelings, and undertakings influenced by it? Like and dislike. Depression and elation. Creation and destruction. An ongoing, ever changing stream of happenings abiding nowhere. No entity "weather" to be found except in thinking and talking about it. Now — is there such an entity as "me," "I," "myself?" Or is it just like the "weather" — an ongoing, ever changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creations and destructions, which thought keeps calling "I," "me," "Toni," and thereby solidifying what is evanescent? What am I really, truly, and what do I think and believe I am? Are we interested in exploring this amazing affair of "myself" from moment to moment? Is this, maybe, the essence of retreat work? Exploring ourselves minutely beyond the peace and quiet that we are seeking and maybe finding. Coming upon clarity about this deep sense of separation which we call "me," and "other people," without any need to condemn or overcome. Most human beings take it totally for granted that I am "me," and that "me" is this body, this mind, this knowledge and sense about myself which so obviously feels separate from other people. The language in which we talk to ourselves and to each other inevitably implies separate "me's," and "you's" all the time. All of us talk "I" and "you" talk, we think it, write it, read it, and dream it with rarely any pause. There is incessant reinforcement of the sense of "I," "me," separate from others. Isolated. Insulated. Not understood. How is one to come upon the truth if separation is taken so much for granted, feels so common sense? Since existence cannot be pinned down, yet undeniable flow of appearances remain unceasing, reality is indeed illusory like a dream, like a magic show. If Salt and Atom is just a label, this means 'salt' and 'atom' does not have any real existence to it - in the way that there is no 'tathagata' in the five aggregates, or a real entity 'weather'. Anatta (no tathagata inside or outside five aggregates) contradicts Advaita, while emptiness of phenomena (no 'salt', 'atom' etc) contradicts the view of matter as having inherent existence. But that is on the ultimate level. I am happy to accept generally scientific explanations for most of the things on the conventional level (except when it comes to things like the origin of consciousness).