xabir2005

Mere elaborations of my basic statement that my path and motivation lies mostly in faith and experience. Antarabhava is not a guide. Antarabhava means intermediate body, or the being in bardo state, i.e. my 'soul' or in more Buddhist sounding terms, 'rebirth-consciousness' or 'linking-consciousness'. I don't mean to say I am a divine avatar, a special being taking birth to 'save other beings'... That is the least of my intention to convey and to me, the least empowering idea - that my enlightenment is already 'predestined' and that I am just a Messianic god coming to save 'lost souls'. I am just an ordinary person who with interest, guidance, and practice, was able to realize this. I am not any more special than anyone else. I think this is a far more empowering notion - that every ordinary person like myself is able to achieve this, not some special avatars. And anyway I don't think I am some emanations of a great Bodhisattva, if I were, I would not have fallen under the chains of afflictions (before my awakening anyway). I am really just an ordinary person in almost every ways - except that I was able to find a way that leads to liberation. But I can't deny that I have some karmic connections to dharma from previous lifetimes. This karmic connection and probably intention or aspiration to attain awakening probably has influenced my birth in a conducive environment for dharma practice. But as a matter of fact, it is not a matter of faith anymore after I had direct insight. But yes my journey did have its beginning with faith. As a matter of fact this is not true. Why? Because my experience is not constructed - it is a realization that deconstructs, not constructs. It sees through illusions, not add constructs to perception. It wakes you up from your dream of unicorns (i.e. illusion of self and objects as being independent or existent), frees you from ALL metaphysical constructs and beliefs and positions. I have to repeat this again because it basically sums it up: "The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected." ... As Thusness have said in A casual comment about Dependent Origination Dependent Origination is too a raft; it is like the stick that stirs the fire and is eventually consumed by fire without leaving any trace. Loppon Namdrol have said elsewhere: "In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views." I no longer have beliefs of a metaphysical sort (pertaining to existence of self, reality, etc) - beliefs are unexamined positions, but what if you have a direct insight and realization that all such positions are entirely illusory. You no longer have beliefs. This is what Buddha calls Stream Entry, which also means the end of Self-View - sakkadayaditthi. It also ends doubt and attachment to rites and rituals. The ending of these fetters is a permanent attainment - and the realization is permanent, once seen cannot be unseen. As I said before: If someone else is able to point me to a deeper experience apart from what I have already experienced and is able to give valuable pointers to my practice, of course why not? I'll be glad to learn whatever I can. I am not as close minded as you think. I visit bookstores to find books from true practitioners often. I don't say "I am the most enlightened person in the world" or "no one is more enlightened than me". But what's seen is seen - you cannot convince me of something there is no doubt or illusion about due to my experiential realization. For example, you cannot tell me 'self exists' - this is bullshit, as illusory as the notion of a santa claus or a rabbit with horns. I've already woken up from that dream and there is nothing you can say that can make me go asleep again - what's seen cannot be unseen. Try as you may, you are like convincing someone who woke up from a nightmare that the monster he saw actually is real - it simply will not work. p.s. Something I wrote to someone a few weeks ago: "Anyway, on a sidenote, this is all part of the process - when I was in I AM phase, what really drew my attention (despite my being Buddhist and having taken formal refuge in Buddhism since I was 2 - I definitely do not limit my learnings to Buddhism) was really those Advaita teachings, Ramana Maharshi, modern teachers like John Wheeler, some Zen teachings like Ch'an Master Hsu Yun on self-inquiry and so on. Then when I got to non-dual, much of the neo-Advaita teachings, some Zen teachings and so on start to attract me a lot. When I initially got to Anatta (or even slightly before), the AF teachings really interest me a lot - I started reading a lot of their articles. Why? Because we are all drawn to different teachings based on our experience. When something we read resonates our understanding, experience, and so on, when we feel a heart-to-heart recognition of the message in it, we will naturally be drawn to it. After undergoing more deeply the twofold emptiness, what draws me is the suttas, the sutras, the traditional teachings of the Buddha, etc. Who knows what may draw my attention or attract me in the future - I don't know. But right now, it seems that a lot of the traditional teachings are really clear, speaks to my heart, etc. I'm not saying you should start reading sutras (maybe you already had) - in fact if you want to realize I AM, I will not tell you to read Buddhism, for example I passed a friend all my Advaita books because he wanted to realize I AM. So that is where you start. So if you want to attain AF, then go for it and practice AF, but don't limit yourself to AF. As I hadn't limit myself to Hinduism, to AF, or even Buddhism, I am able to utilize whatever resonates with me at that moment, and that may change as my practice progresses and moves on." Of course I know this. When I said 'Presence', I didn't have Buddhism in mind (well of course Buddhism talks about it too and profoudly but I didn't have Buddhism in particular in mind). In fact as I said - Advaita was what interested me in those days. In fact before Advaita, Eckhart Tolle's teachings interested me a lot. I find the Power of Now (found it in early 2006) very practical and inspiring and life transforming, a great text that has great power to transport readers to a deep state of Presence. These experiences has in turn inspired me to really go deeper into spiritual practice. Having this in my memory, I have recommended his stuff to many people including my mother and some others. I have attended all the lessons Oprah held with Eckhart in 2008. Unfortunately his teachings are too commercialized nowadays. So anyway, I never said only Buddhism can lead to true life transforming spiritual experiences. I think all religions should have their own ways and practices and are worth learning. However there are aspects of Buddhism that is peculiar or special. And to quote Buddha's own words which matches my observation thus far: The Buddha said, 12. "Though certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging... they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance... therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self."* - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html *"8. This passage clearly indicates that the critical differentiating factor of the Buddha's Dhamma is its "full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self." This means, in effect, that the Buddha alone is able to show how to overcome all views of self by developing penetration into the truth of non-self (anatta)." All views of self lead to suffering (clinging, effort, seeking, desire, craving, and other forms of suffering). If you were to achieve mastery of samadhi and abide as the I AM 24/7, which can have profound life transforming effects, nonetheless you cannot overcome the subtle clinging and achieve liberation. Even if you sit in samadhi bliss all day, this is not the same as liberation - as Buddha left his previous teachers who were masters at samadhi and had their own insights. When you achieve higher insights, your clinging lessens and disappears, your effortlessness increase. You also see how deeper insights are a natural progression of your original experience - the I AM is not denied, but now experienced in all manifestations in all conditions, effortless and spontaneous, without any attempts to re-confirm or any effort needed to sustain any experience. As I told Thusness: I just realized that the four aspects of I am are not just four aspects of I am They are also four aspects of non dual Four aspects of anatta Four aspects of shunyata Etc Those four aspects are refined in every phase as an example: seeing through the need to abide in non dual and dropping it - notice the tendency to reconfirm nondual by giving rise to thoughts like "the sound is as much you as the thought", seeing how ridiculous it is when always already in seeing just sound, in thinking just thought, all thoughts to reconfirm nondual arise due to falsely perceiving there to be a self to be nondual with "that" which turns into one mind and worse still it presumes there to be a subtle split that needs to be resolved when that notion of separation is entirely illusory. The entire movement to become nondual is illusory when anatta is fully seen and all self notions are dropped Intensity of luminosity in non dual - peak is in "no cold no heat", no mind, pure transparency, luminosity as textures and shapes and forms and all details of manifestation Effortlessness - when all latent views are replaced with right views then there's effortlessness of nondual Impersonality - even in nondual and anatta, impersonality must be matured Etc... Thusness replied me, This I have told u. I have told u that later u will understand. (though I didn't remember him telling me - not that he didn't as I'm sure he has, but when I heard it then, I probably didn't understand it at all) He also said, U must also understand that the four aspects are conveyed to u so that in the event u got lost In "I Amness", they can lead u back to the deeper insight of anatta n DO. So as you can see, each arising insight leads to greater freedom and liberation, greater effortlessness, greater bliss. I had seen things from that paradigm. For example when I'm in I AM, to me I took I AM as unchanging, independent, permanent etc... because it really felt that way due to my paradigm and experience. But through contemplation my view progressed. You need to read my e-book.

This guy, Greg Goode, is someone who has a very deep karmic connection with Buddha. This is why even though he had deep insight into I AM and One Mind through Advaita practice (focusing on Sri Atmananda's Direct Path teachings), when he saw the Buddha, he felt intense devotion, resonance and connection with the Buddha and he 'broke down crying'... Now he is studying Madhyamaka, Dependent Origination and Emptiness, taking Buddhist teachings very seriously. Those without karmic connection will not see it so easily. My karmic connection to Thusness is so strong that he was able to teach me in dreams, very profound and important things that aided me in realization - messages that foretold and adviced on what I am going to experience and realize in the following weeks to come, especially during times I do not have much time to meet up with him or talk with him (such as during my basic military training period). This is not possible if I had not had the connection with him - he informed me it was only possible because I had a sort of connection with him similar to Vajrayana's guru-student mind connection. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche talks about this sort of dream-teaching [how he was able to receive teachings from his guru and other awakened beings in dreams] in details in his book 'Dream Yoga'.

Haha see... this is why Thusness said Dwai's conditions is not with him. You see, even if Thusness were to discuss his experience (like what you quoted), it will be taken as bullshit to someone without conditions. This is why it is said (based on scriptures) that Buddhas don't save those without conditions.

I think you are the only one who frequents here and truly gets it experientially. But without the right conditions and karmic affinity, it is difficult to communicate something to others. As I said... I only talk about these stuff to those who are interested to contemplate things in their own experience. Thusness once told me quite a long time ago (probably early last year) that there are some in this forum who have rather deep insights (though by far I think you are the clearest) and Dwai is one of them, however Dwai is very deep into his Self experience (in terms of I AM up to Non-Dual but from the perspective of One Mind), too steeped into the Hindu framework, he has his own Hindu teachers so Buddhism may not resonate with him (as part of his interests stated is 'Buddhism not fixated on Anatta' even though Anatta is one of the central teachings of Buddhism), plus he noted that Dwai's 'yuan' (conditions/karmic affinity) is not with him (Thusness). As you may know, we had hundreds of pages of discussions many years ago of the True Self vs No Self sort that leads nowhere because we all have different understanding. As I wrote in another forum DhO recently to someone (probably deep into the I AM realization and experience), Hello Mahaparinirvana Sutra, I get a sense that if I engage in any discussions further it will devolve into some kind of tiresome No Self vs True Self debate, one in which I have engaged in long ago and from my experience does not lead anywhere (because our view and experience differs), going on for hundreds and thousands of posts, inconclusively in TheTaoBums forum with others from Vedanta (who have realized the Atman-Brahman). I have realized that such discussions serve no purpose because even though I am able to explain how the scriptures support my understanding, that will never change the other person unless that other person is open to it, investigate it for himself experentially, and then come to an experiential understanding of what anatta is (which is not the 'neti neti' dissociation of Vedanta to find a true self). So it is more useful and practical to go into that direction rather than a "Theoreticians and Traditionalists" debate, as in the end, how we see the sutras are in the beholder's eyes, and to me all the sutras start to make a lot of sense and become non-contradictory when experiential realization of anatta and emptiness arose. Suffice to say: 1) I have undergone the realization and experience of I AM 2) This is followed by non-dual, anatta, emptiness/dependent origination, insights which a) does not reject the undeniable luminous presence in I AM but 2) clarifies the view deeper, in the fashion stated by the old masters, "keep the experience but refine the view" 3) all my experiences and insights can be found in my e-journal which is very long ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html ), but first of all you should start with this shorter, more essential and compact article by my friend/teacher Thusness since my path and insights are rather identical with his: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html And no, I repeat again, Emptiness is not a position, it is merely a rejection of positions, not an asserting of some absolute essence. In other words, emptiness means that our deluded view about self, and objects, are false, thus rejecting such views, but does not say about an 'Emptiness' that 'exists on its own'. Imagine seeing a mirage - to say the mirage is graspable out there is false (mirage being empty of substance), or to say mirage has a core or substance out there is false (mirage being empty of substance), but you do not say that there is an existing 'emptiness' in the mirage. 'Emptiness' is not a thing in itself, but the substance-less, corelessness, of selves and things. I do not need to base on concepts, scriptures, theories, since an experiential realization of the way things are is enough to dissolve all doubts. However, whatever I said is of course in line with the scriptures, but I do not wish to go into that direction since this forum values experience and insights and phenomenology more over purely theoretical or scholarly discussions. p.s. Thusness was asked to join the Dark Zen organisation when he was in the I AM phase. That was plenty of years ago tho, around 15 years ago when he was heavily involved in online bbs. One last point: Mahaparinirvana Sutra is one very lengthy scripture which was written over a long period of time, and you can actually see different authors editing and adding contents over periods of time (in the sense that its contents evolve)... like other Mahayana sutras ( http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/378306 ). Therefore to rely on the authority of scriptures purely is unwise (since we can never know who wrote them) but with wisdom, we will naturally be able to see whatever truth is there. Also, I told someone else from DhO (one of the moderators) by email recently, C: ...ah right, that makes sense. they are all certainly useful things to perfect... and there does seem to be the mistaken assumption that as soon as you are AF you reach some kind of moral perfection as well.. it might be true insofar as you can no longer act with malicious intent, but there is certainly still lots to be learned about how to deal with others, how best to instruct them, when + when not to engage in debate, etc. i noticed this trend on the DhO.. Trent, for example, had some older posts (after he got AF) where he engages at length with others to help them, which end with the other side not being benefited. and EndInSight did the same right after he got AF, though he still posts a lot.. i notice tarin+trent post less debate-wise and seem to only engage with practitioners who are already sincere + have AF as their goal. which might make sense from a practical stand-point... first help those who want to get free and are in-line with it, get free, first, as there are a good amount of them already... My reply: That is great and something we should learn from. Thusness too very rarely post nowadays – only doing so on rare occasions after meditating on their conditions and practice (he told me he sit, meditate, and observe that person’s conditions, whatever that means or however he does that), and if he sees some potential or conditions for that person to be awakened by him he might post something to the other person, and in fact at one point he asked me something like, “has anyone I spoken to not attained insights/awakening as a result of conversing with me”? After considering the numerous people he spoke to, it is surprising that yes, every single person he spoke to actually attained to a high degree of insight as a result of conversing with him, and several times spontaneously just by reading his posts (including Thusness 7 stages which was written to someone that Thusness knew had all the conditions to breakthrough – the person he wrote to immediately and intuitively realized non-duality after reading one of the passages). Therefore, Thusness does not speak in vane, only when all the conditions are ripe. This cannot be said for me however, and therefore, I do not have the skillfulness of Thusness in that sense. A Buddha on the other hand will have perfect skillfulness.

I already said it all. The context or motivation or drive has been faith (in the very beginning) followed by glimpses of spiritual experience which showed me a taste of what is possible - sort of like a glimpse of paradise so you desperately want it back. I believed in buddha's words and yes if I had not met Thusness and known about Buddha and buddhism, I would be in a completely different position today. I might even be worshipping flying monsters. Do understand that I am born in a fortunate circumstance because I got acquinted with Buddhism at a young age. (Off topic, but I guess I chose to be born in this family (if you believe in rebirth) to continue my practice - my mother was seeking hard to conceive a son for a long time, and sought advice from a deity, and the deity in divination told my mother to chant Amitabha Sutra for 12 days, very soon after that I was conceived and my mother had a dream. Perhaps my antarabhava saw it fitting to be born in the family of a sincere practitioner? Plus I have vague past life memories of having learnt under a tibetan guru, possibly ... Hmm, I don't want to discuss until I have clearer memories) Had I not been born in a Buddhist family, I probably would have no idea what Buddhism is now because I haven't had any crisis or intense suffering in life that would have turned me to seek solace in spirituality. I did not find spirituality through an intense search in life for meaning or solace like many people. I already found dharma through my mother who led me to Buddhism at a young age, and later Thusness. Plus, I started learning since 2004 (through thusness's guidance to other people who had realized the I AM etc) that lots of people have awakenings so enlightenment isn't just for some rare few. This is quite interesting and empowering to say the least. The discovery of the freedom, peace, aliveness, bliss, wonder of Presence since very early days many years ago was was also part of what got me into all these stuff. Plus with Thusness's guidance, pointers, I was able to progress very fast. As for Eckhart Tolle, I didn't intend to say he has reached the summit of what is developmentally possible in spirituality. The summit is Buddhahood. I am just saying not everyone might resonate with my style of writing or other "hardcore" stuff, which is why this is not meant for all audiences, and I think no book could though indeed some are more appealing to the masses. And yes those who aren't into spirituality unfortunately will miss out some great stuff and that's a fact to me - can't deny a fact. By the way I have to thank vmarco for sharing a good link: http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j22/gurupandit.asp?page=3&ifr=srch KW: Let me just say that in a student who's got a really bad case of boomeritis—which is to say, pretty much any cultural creative out there, all fifty million strong—the internal stance is, "I'm holding on to my position and nobody can tell me what to do. My state, just as it is, has the same worth as any other." And that stance effectively aborts any real transformation. And so, for example, most of the people involved with what I call Boomeritis Buddhism even deny the importance of satori or Enlightenment or Awakening. Because that's saying some states are higher than others—and we shouldn't be judgmental. But guess what? Some states are higher. And so the entire raison d'etre of Buddhism gets tossed out the door because it offends the pluralistic ego. Yikes! AC: So the whole point is that with boomeritis, real radical transformation is against the rules. KW: Yes. Well, it has to be. .... AC: And of course, the great tragedy in all this is that the higher dimensions of human potential are often being left out of the picture. KW: I've watched this up close. I've watched the human potential movement for about thirty years. The great promise of the human potential movement was very straightforward—there are higher human potentials. Now the problem is that the green meme, the mean green meme, the boomeritis version, got hold of that and said, "Wait a minute. You're saying there are higher potentials, so does that mean I'm lower? Because that can't be right." All of a sudden it implied a judgment, and nobody's allowed to be higher because that means somebody else is going to be lower. And you're not allowed to call anybody lower; therefore nobody's allowed to be higher. So the whole human potential movement got derailed and, as we're saying, was replaced by this therapeutic self-expression, self-acceptance movement, which is fine as far as it goes, but which absolutely catastrophically prevents higher transformation. That's exactly what happened. And what I hear you calling for is the reawakening of this capacity and this desire to have a really radical transformation. The reawakening of the notion that there are higher potentials. And that means we have to awaken discriminating awareness, start making judgments about our own contracted state, and enter a relationship with a teacher who has some awareness of these higher possibilities.

That is well said but I'm sure you are aware that the Brahman in Advaita is not the Brahma as a god. There are two brahman: nirguna (attributeless) and saguna (with attributes) brahman. Nirguna brahman experience and realization is similar to your clear light experience and realization. The latter is talking about gods with form like brahma, vishnu, shiva Anyway I am not Advaitin, but its good to understand what their teaching is about.

Sure you can interprete any way you want. But don't tell Advaitins that their Brahman is impermanent, impermanence, not-self and dependent origination, unless you want to get laughed at, or you want to engage in those thousand pages long debate in 2008. Advaita clearly says Brahman as the ultimate reality is permanent, Self, independent, unchanging, etc. But more importantly I think your way of expression overemphasize nonconceptuality to the point of putting aside the importance of insight and implication of views... it can potentially lead into the disease of non-conceptuality that I have warned ThusComeOne some months ago: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/08/disease-of-non-conceptuality.html p.s. 'all is awareness' implies awareness is absolute, isn't it? To me, there is no 'the awareness' at all. Awareness is a label like weather is a label for ungraspable process of activities, the activities themselves are also empty. You see, even though you may not see 'all is awareness' as a view, it actually is a subtle view that causes attachment to this sense of awareness since you see it 'inherently here' or existing. It can become something to cling to - even if you have no concepts. You will subtly cling to or sink back to a source. Just like you can say "I have no concepts with regards to I AM" yet still cling to that non-conceptual sense of beingness as the purest identity and thus preventing non-dual experiences of transient sights, sounds, thoughts, etc. (but even if one realizes nondual, still one can cling to One Mind) Non-conceptual does not mean no-attachments or no-delusions. As I said, 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. 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 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. My memory is clear and if its not clear enough for you please refer to my e-book. Ken Wilber is Stage 4. I'm sure he will recognise his experience as that if he is sincere enough. But if he thinks he is fully enlightened or he clings to his framework tightly, then he will not be open to anything else for consideration. I posted Thusness 7 stages to Seraphis in Dharma Overground not too long ago. He is a sincere person. I told him he is at Stage 2. I get people scorning at me for 'belittling' him cos they think he is higher than that just because Stage 2 seems too low for something that has 7 stages, so he thinks I am belittling his attainment. I explained that I AM is not 'low' at all, and the 7 stages are not actually necessarily linear for everyone, and that I AM is not less precious than non dual or emptiness. After explaining and clearing misunderstandings, they no longer think that way. In any case, Seraphis himself, after reading what I told him, actually did make a public statement that he was actually in Thusness Stage 2. He could recognise his experience as that. It is all clear to me, and clear to him. So he did put my advice to him in practice, now he's moving to another phase and getting clearer about non-dual.

By the way I'm aware of the repetitive nature of the e-book... I'm intending to cut down unnecessary stuff because its too long anyway (450 pages). I'll have to find time to do a thorough editing.

Thusness 7 stages are a good and concise summary but doesn't talk about the details of the view, realization, experience, practice, and fruition. Well actually, the realization and experience is pretty well stated there, but there are other stuff or aspects. Whatever I wrote is dedicated to interested seekers out there. I've received many commendations from people from various places who have benefitted from my e-book, many have feedbacked to me that they found inspiration from them, and even treating it as their practice guidebook. One Zen priest and teacher (who himself realized anatta) said to me privately that "I must say that you and Thusness are now the only practitioners that I am aware of who have not only mastered these stages, but are also able to explain them clearly in a step-by-step manner." If you don't see value in it, well that's too bad. Maybe its not for you. I wrote it knowing fully well that it is not meant for everyone - not everyone might resonate with it. I don't know if my mom would be interested in it. If I write something that appeals more to the masses like Eckhart Tolle, that would be great too, but thats not the purpose of my e-book. I would be happy to direct people to Eckhart Tolle or other more popular spiritual authors if I feel they would benefit more from that sort of books or direction. I gave my mom two Eckhart Tolle books (Chinese translation), which she really liked alot. I didn't show her my e-book because firstly she only reads Chinese and secondly I'm not too sure if she'll be interested in the hardcore, technical, sort of practitioner's journal and ebook (well she might but I don't know). Likewise, I don't think she will appreciate some other 'hardcore, technical' sort of e-books like Daniel Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha or Ven Buddhaghosa's Visudhimagga, for example. I don't recall Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's technical Mahamudra meditation book talk about their personal details... or some of the Dzogchen or Zen or Theravada books talk about their personal details... Ok you might say, since its an e-journal, you should talk about it. Well... I did, well at least some, but maybe its true I need to write more 'personal details' (I'll have to think about that one, thanks for sharing your honest opinion/feedback/comment). Or perhaps 'meditation diary' is a more suitable or less misleading term. My original intention was to to focus my e-book entirely on the different insights and experiences I've gone through and how I got them. My e-journal is not a journal about my personal life - well not primarily, but my spiritual insights and experience. I may not be the best writer in the world - I may not write as interestingly or appealingly as Eckhart Tolle or some other popular writers, but whatever I wrote is genuine and based on what I've seen and experienced. It might be bullshit to you, but it might not be bullshit to someone else. Take for example, this guy, whose sole intention in seeking for a solution for suffering was to save the entire world from suffering (though he 'quits'): http://ruthlesstruthdotcom.blogspot.com/2011/11/i-quit.html Funny... You may be motivated by suffering. I know many people have... its true. I've read many spiritual teachers who are awakened due to intense suffering (Eckhart Tolle, Byron Katie, etc etc) But really, this is not my own experience. Did Ramana Maharshi self-realized due to intense suffering? No he didn't, it just spontaneously happened when he was 16 years old through a spontaneous spiritual experience and he just went into deep samadhi bliss for the next few years. So how a person enters into spirituality differs according to each person, you cannot just assume your own experience applies to everyone. I can tell you: I had no intense suffering in this life that I can remember. My life is quite ok. That is why in my ebook, in the 'Who am I' section, that people usually get into spirituality in their 30s, 40s, 50s after they gone through suffering, disillusionment, depression, whatever. But here I am, just 21, and with an *unexplainable* interest in spirituality. Logically speaking, I should be more interested in computer games, in girls, or in getting money, whatever... than spirituality. logically speaking, there is no reason for me to be interested in spirituality bcos I don't have any crisis or intense suffering, but somehow I just am interested. Well if you really want a better answer to that: I can say, firstly, its partly due to my glimpses of experience along the path (if you had a glimpse of paradise, wouldn't you want it back?), its also partly due to the what I've learnt from books that really gives me the impression that it has some life transforming (and afterlife transforming, or liberation) effect that its worth getting into, its partly due to the genuineness of Thusness's compassion and guidance to me which I am eternally grateful, so many factors all coming together... that spurs my interest in this spiritual path. But really, I didn't get into Buddhism due to 'intense suffering'. I honestly hadn't, and I don't want to (and can't) make up stories to make things sound more interesting. Thats why I might not make an interesting book about my personal life - I mean maybe if my life had been a wreck, a catastrophe, and how through spirituality and awakening I was able to extricate myself from my life situation and suffering and depression etc... that might make an interesting life story cum spirituality book. But my life (story) ain't that interesting or roller coaster like. I'm sure if you asked Ramana Maharshi to write that kind of book, he couldn't. But if you ask him about self-inquiry, how to attain self-realization and so on, his guidance and teaching is the best you can get. Yes. I had a faith 'crisis' once. But I don't think I want to talk about it in my e-book due to my respect for those teachers.

If you wish to think that Advaita calls Brahman the process, the dependent origination, instead of something much more substantial, independent and permanent Self, then whatever you think man. Try telling that to Advaita followers - that their Brahman is doctrinally the same as impermanence, as dependent origination... you'll get laughs I think. Tao is less substantialist - since Tao is 'the way' sort of like the 'river'. Nonetheless how a person interpretes Tao Te Ching depends on each individual. Just not today. Or any day recently. I'm more for pragmatic discussions nowadays than debating on Advaita vs Buddhism since I've learnt from past experience that they're pointless and futile. Now I'm all for practical discussions that can help your practice. If you're interested to investigate and experience what I experience, I'll give you some practical advice and share notes. If you're interested in Self-Realization, I will even tell you to go study Vedanta, Ramana Maharshi and stuff, cos these are definitely going to help you in your quest. Whatever works - pragmatic dharma. Like I said - I can totally get 100/100 for nondual exams or thusness exams or buddhism anatta emptiness dependent origination exams, way before I truly realized them. I spoke out of faith at that time - actually not just out of faith but I have come to an intellectual, inferred understanding - it makes sense. But intellectual understanding is not going to help you truly see things. Actually not exactly - it DOES help, if you have right view. Just insufficient. You really need direct experience and insight. BTW it is not totally intellectual even then - I've had NDNCDIMOP (as a temporary peak experience, many times since 2006) which does sort of confirm the validity of anatta and non-duality, even though it requires a little extrapolation. If the sense of self can totally fade into just the scenery, sounds, etc, then by inference surely, that sense of self illusory, right? I've also had glimpses of experiences of I AM since 2007. But the realization came in 2010. I discussed the difference between experience vs realization in the new topic I created on experience, realization, view, etc I have posted Advaita stuff, Ken Wilber stuff, Ramana stuff in my own forum, in fact I focus mainly on those stuff in my practice and is what truly appealed to me. But I point out anatta and emptiness to those who already knew those stuff. It's like if you already knew A, B, C, I'll talk about D. If you know D, I'll talk about A, B, C. If you only had intellectual understanding of emptiness, I'll actually tell you to start reading Advaita stuff and do self-inquiry. Why? I AM realization is valuable. It brings out the luminosity aspect. Of course I had faith in him. Faith is a good thing. In Buddhism, faith is one of the five powers. We should have faith in Buddha. But it doesn't mean faith is all thats enough, or that because of faith we should not continue investigating and finding things out for ourselves... like I did. This is why I studied Advaita, Actual Freedom, and anything that is interesting that I can find. It is closely in line with my experience too, at that time. There is no need for that - once you wake up, you wake up. You don't need to find out how you wake up - and in fact I do know how I woke up but to you it seems insufficient for whatever reason, but they are all besides the point because you already wake up and thats the whole point. Somehow you think that to truly wake up, you cannot have faith in anybody. This is not compatible with Buddhism which actually asks you to have faith in Buddha but at the same time investigate things for yourselves. Like I did. For example. When I practice self-inquiry, I don't doubt Ramana Maharshi: I don't doubt 'Thusness and Buddha say anatta, so how can Who am I result in a real answer?' I had faith in Ramana Maharshi and Thusness - there must be an answer to it. But I am not satisfied with that mere knowledge... in fact knowing that there is an answer to 'Who am I?' I worked very hard on resolving that question, until one day through the question the mind subsides to its Source and I realized. Faith has its place, practical application and investigation has its place.

Haha... so you think whatever I wrote is from the intellect? Fine... whatever you think. If you want the truth: There is no moment at all that NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) is not my experience. Before anatta realization (Oct 10), I shifted to NDNCDIMOP when dancing in the nightclub in Aug '10 which lasted a few days, I thought it was permanent because it seemed stable unlike previously where NDNCDIMOP only seemed to last less than a minute. Nonetheless the sense of self came back a few days later and I am experiencing Awareness as a witnessing background again. This doesn't mean concepts came up again - I am still experiencing non-conceptual awareness, but as a witnessing background, the background space, because the tendency to cling to a purest identity (the I AM) came back due to lack of investigation. But as insight of non-dual arose due to my ongoing contemplation and challenging of dualistic views and I became doubtless about the one taste of luminosity in everything (no more seeing any particular state as the purest, and seeing everything as flat - no background vs foreground), NDNCDIMOP became rather effortless and continuous, into Sept and Oct. Even though the subject-object split and the tendency to treat a moment of thoughtless pure beingness (I AM) as the most ultimate and purest identity is completely seen through due to seeing the borderlessness, divisionlessness, no subject-object nature of reality and the one taste of luminosity in all manifestations, at that point the inherent view is still present - I see Awareness as this seamless undivided field manifesting as everything. After anatta realization in October '10, NDNCDIMOP (non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception) becomes truly effortless - I am no longer in ignorance pertaining to a self, it is completely and permanently seen through. After anatta insight deepens, NDNCDIMOP becomes perpetual. Now, there is no moment where I have actually lost sight of this. Every moment is an authentication of 'in seeing always just the seen' - just the direct, alive, gapless, intimate, direct and wonderful experience of everything. There is never any sense of an inside, and outside, a subjective perceiver apart from perceived, or even a sense of a body (not no bodily sensations, but no illusory sense of a body as a tangible thing in the background) - mind/body drop off. But I'm seriously not concerned whether you want to believe me or not. I only write to those interested and open to investigating and seeing things for themselves. p.s. as I wrote in that article, ...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 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.

I don't affirm hearing or seen. There is just, as Buddha said, the 'suchness of the seen, heard' without cognizing an object seen, nor a cognizer. Of course even 'suchness of the seen, heard' is not inherently there - it's just a label for direct experience, but there is no inherent existence whatsoever. So yes, any label is fine - Suchness is fine, Buddha-nature is fine, God is fine, Satan is fine, but then the problem is that usually God is taken to be something inherently existing... so it is kind of meaningless. Of course, seeing, hearing can also be taken as inherently existing, but that is not what is meant or intended here... I'm just pointing to the unreified experience of suchness. Ultimately, there is no seeing, no hearing, no eye, ear, nose.... etc as what Heart Sutra says. But that does not deny luminosity or suchness of experiencing, since emptiness and luminosity are inseparable. Oh yes of course. Six sense consciousness arises dependent on six sense objects and faculties... the eighteen dhatus are completely empty. No. There is no awareness, no source - those are ideas of a Self (especially when seeing is just the experience of sight). There is not even a seeing, a seen, a hearing, an eye, nose, etc... those are ideas of Object. Everything is illusory like a dream, though vividly appearing. For me I concur with the Buddha: in the suchness of cognizing, I no longer conceive of a cognizer, or something cognized. Substantial non-dualism. No. Dependent Origination has nothing to do with a universal awareness or God. Your arguments show no understanding of dependent origination. You conflate dependent origination with substantialist understanding of something inherent and independent - some universal substance of awareness in which everything arises from or as. No comments but I am quite familiar with Advaita. It is not my intention to debate on superiority or inferiority of Buddhism or Advaita - I only talk about my experience. Self-Inquiry is Advaita. I practiced that for almost two years before Self-Realization. I also studied something called Actual Freedom, which appealed to me at some point, but as insights developed I saw how incompatible it is with emptiness, so I dropped it. Now the suttas and sutras resonate with me due to my current experience and insight. I only speak what I see, and just because I adopt Thusness's terminologies does not mean I do not speak from experience. I am not convinced because I had faith in him, or because it sounds intellectually sound. I am convinced of what he said because I've seen it. I can speak in Thusness's terminologies many years ago. I totally understand anatta and non-dual many years ago. Yet what attracted me was the Advaita teachings and other teachings... especially in the I AM and substantialist non-dual phase. I go through those stuff myself. (Between 2008 to about mid 2010, I mainly read Advaita stuff and am really attracted to it.) I have to see things for myself. Whatever I learnt from Thusness, while intellectually I may get it, still, unless I see and experience for myself, they don't mean much really. If someone else is able to point me to a deeper experience apart from what I have already experienced and is able to give valuable pointers to my practice, of course why not? I'll be glad to learn whatever I can. I am not as close minded as you think. I visit bookstores to find books from true practitioners often. I don't say "I am the most enlightened person in the world" or "no one is more enlightened than me". But what's seen is seen - you cannot convince me of something there is no doubt or illusion about due to my experiential realization. For example, you cannot tell me 'self exists' - this is bullshit, as illusory as the notion of a santa claus or a rabbit with horns. I've already woken up from that dream and there is nothing you can say that can make me go asleep again - what's seen cannot be unseen. Try as you may, you are like convincing someone who woke up from a nightmare that the monster he saw actually is real - it simply will not work. p.s. Something I wrote to someone a few weeks ago: "Anyway, on a sidenote, this is all part of the process - when I was in I AM phase, what really drew my attention (despite my being Buddhist and having taken formal refuge in Buddhism since I was 2 - I definitely do not limit my learnings to Buddhism) was really those Advaita teachings, Ramana Maharshi, modern teachers like John Wheeler, some Zen teachings like Ch'an Master Hsu Yun on self-inquiry and so on. Then when I got to non-dual, much of the neo-Advaita teachings, some Zen teachings and so on start to attract me a lot. When I initially got to Anatta (or even slightly before), the AF teachings really interest me a lot - I started reading a lot of their articles. Why? Because we are all drawn to different teachings based on our experience. When something we read resonates our understanding, experience, and so on, when we feel a heart-to-heart recognition of the message in it, we will naturally be drawn to it. After undergoing more deeply the twofold emptiness, what draws me is the suttas, the sutras, the traditional teachings of the Buddha, etc. Who knows what may draw my attention or attract me in the future - I don't know. But right now, it seems that a lot of the traditional teachings are really clear, speaks to my heart, etc. I'm not saying you should start reading sutras (maybe you already had) - in fact if you want to realize I AM, I will not tell you to read Buddhism, for example I passed a friend all my Advaita books because he wanted to realize I AM. So that is where you start. So if you want to attain AF, then go for it and practice AF, but don't limit yourself to AF. As I hadn't limit myself to Hinduism, to AF, or even Buddhism, I am able to utilize whatever resonates with me at that moment, and that may change as my practice progresses and moves on."

Very nicely described. Though I don't think that poem is talking about emptiness, more about the formlessness of I AM. This is not Hui Neng's great awakening yet.

Perhaps when you drop the sense of personality and experience everything, every being, every creature, every trees and mountains and the universe as being lived by an impersonal living force, an impersonal living force that is alive, intelligent, that grows your finger nails and spins the planet poetically speaking... you will understand the basis why people talk about God. Not that I believe in God, anyway... As I know notions of 'God' or 'Universal Mind' is just a false extrapolation of an actual experience. The experience is precious... but without right view, it is misinterpreted. But... By overly emphasizing on the I AM like you're doing, you will miss out some precious experiences that other practitioners like Seth Ananda is talking about. Impersonality is equally important.

Now this is interesting because I don't have this experience a lot. But I did have a similar experience once, and that is the first and last time I did metta/loving-kindness practice (I probably should do more because it is wonderful). Here's what I wrote to Thusness and his reply to me: On 16-Aug-2011, at 9:33 PM, AEN wrote: > I was reading the book 'beyond mindfulness' by bhante gunaratana, its a book about jhana practice. He recommends either metta or breathing mindfulness to reach jhana. > > He said metta can lead to jhana cos the feeling of metta is very close to jhanic bliss. I didn't understand this until I practice metta today... Just thinking over, may others be well, happy, and free from afflictions... Then there's this feeling of metta like emanating from the heart region and its blissful, I can definitely see how this can lead into jhana. There is also a freedom from all unwholesome mental states, aversions, etc... Even tho I wasn't practicing that in a meditation setting, just standing. > Sent via BlackBerry from SingTel! Thusness: Yes and indeed an important practice. Do not think of the experience of jhana but rather relax and with utmost sincerity practice and metta. May others be well, happy and free from affiictions.

Thats funny because I smile a lot, laugh a lot, joke a lot (in real life), am very lively when talking with people (in real life) but yes indeed I do sound like a robot online and that's just my style of speaking here, and something when you get used to, you don't change easily (and I don't have a big will to change my behaviour). I get blissed out a lot (I often tell others you cannot even imagine the state of intense bliss I am in). People sometimes wonder why I smile or have the blissed out look (an awkward moment, but that doesn't bother you at all). In Vajrayana, they talk about the union of bliss and emptiness. Luminosity is bliss. Emptiness and luminosity is inseparable. Thats because you are studying Madhyamaka, which is intellectual, this is why you get the idea that Buddhism is only about rationality. I don't study Madhyamaka and whatever I talk about, whether it is anatta, emptiness, etc, I don't approach it from an analytical point of view. Does Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Zen approach things intellectually? No it doesn't, so you know its just perculiar to Madhyamaka (as well as other philosophical schools like Yogachara). I don't tell people to understand emptiness through inference and logic. I tell people to investigate it in their experience and see it for themselves... anatta and emptiness is alive, and wonderful... and sorry but I can't express it. I just suck at expressing and sound like a robot... but it really is wonderful, intensely alive and blissful (oh words can't even begin to capture it), but with my inability to express things and my monotonous robotic tone you just have to see for yourself, lol What you are talking about is precisely what I said, the impersonality experience. Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition 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. However you should understand that to extrapolate this experience of impersonality into a 'Universal Mind' or an ultimate agent or 'God' is simply an extrapolation. There is something I want to share, a conversation with Thusness when I was beginning to experience the impersonality phase in May 2010: (1:19 PM) Thusness: what is ur reply about 'impersonality'? (1:20 PM) AEN: i said its the separation of 'individuality' from awareness (1:21 PM) Thusness: there is the problem of saying more than what that is necessary. It comes from a clinging mind. (1:22 PM) Thusness: why is stripping of 'individuality' becoming an 'Universal Mind'? in this case, is it seeing thoughts as thoughts perception as perception? (1:22 PM) AEN: hmm i think not? (1:23 PM) Thusness: in seeing, just the seen...is there any extrapolation? any attempt to deduce any thing? (1:23 PM) AEN: no (1:23 PM) Thusness: it is just simply 'what is'. (1:24 PM) Thusness: when u experience 'impersonality', it is just 'impersonality' isn't it? (1:24 PM) AEN: ya (1:24 PM) Thusness: so how does it come to become an 'Universal Mind'? (1:25 PM) Thusness: Because of u clinging, that is precisely the very cause that prevents the seeing. (1:25 PM) Thusness: if u go further to reinforce this idea, it becomes a made belief and appears true and real. (1:25 PM) AEN: oic.. (1:26 PM) Thusness: therefore when u say 'impersonality', u are not being blinded u r merely describing what u have experienced. (1:26 PM) AEN: icic.. (1:27 PM) Thusness: isn't this Mind still an individual mindstream? (1:28 PM) Thusness: although impersonality leads u to have that sort of 'sensation', u must correctly understand it. (1:28 PM) AEN: i guess its the intuition that there is no individual selves or centers to which awareness belongs oic (1:28 PM) Thusness: Buddhism never deny this mind stream (1:29 PM) AEN: ic.. (1:29 PM) Thusness: it just deny the self-view (1:29 PM) AEN: oic.. (1:29 PM) Thusness: it denies separation it denies an observer, a thinker (1:30 PM) Thusness: it denies, a perfect controller an independent agent (1:30 PM) Thusness: that is what 'Self' is otherwise, why is it a 'Self'? (1:31 PM) AEN: oic.. (1:31 PM) Thusness: which part of it is 'Self'? what makes 'Self' a 'Self'? (1:31 PM) Thusness: an individual mindstream remains as an individual mindstream but nothing self. (1:32 PM) AEN: icic.. (1:32 PM) Thusness: so u understand liberation from right understanding u understand liberation correctly u do not seek otherwise and get urself confused (1:33 PM) Thusness: there is the experience of non-dual, anatta, TATA, stainlessness that has nothing to do with Self. (1:34 PM) AEN: oic.. (1:34 PM) Thusness: if u want to understand Presence, then u must clearly and correct understand Presence (1:35 PM) AEN: oic.. (1:36 PM) Thusness: now is to refine ur understanding of Presence what is it? what are the 4 aspects i told u? (1:37 PM) AEN: impersonality, degree of luminosity, dissolving the need to re-confirm and understanding why its unnecessary, and effortlessness (1:37 PM) Thusness: so is any of the 4 aspects over stating anything? (1:38 PM) Thusness: is there any extrapolation? (1:38 PM) AEN: no (1:38 PM) Thusness: they are what exactly u r experiencing now and requires improvement that u can progress from "I AM" (1:39 PM) AEN: oic.. (1:39 PM) Thusness: there is the experience of impersonality (1:40 PM) Thusness: and what is this 'impersonality' and what insights can arise from this experience? (1:41 PM) AEN: impersonality is like awareness is not tied to individuality or personality... the notion and sense of awareness as being an individual self is dissolved. then theres also an intuition of its universal nature (1:42 PM) Thusness: now what experience does dissolving of 'personality' result? (1:43 PM) Thusness: u do not dissolve the 'individual self' (1:43 PM) Thusness: u merely stripped off the 'personality aspect (1:43 PM) AEN: oic.. (1:43 PM) Thusness: and it causes u to link to a higher force (1:44 PM) Thusness: as if a cosmic life is functioning within u (1:44 PM) AEN: ic.. ya (1:44 PM) Thusness: rem casinoking? (1:44 PM) AEN: yea (1:44 PM) AEN: he's talking about that? he also experienced impersonality isit (1:45 PM) Thusness: he has experienced of this impersonal life force... (1:45 PM) AEN: oic.. (1:45 PM) Thusness: now dwell further into this experience of impersonality (1:46 PM) Thusness: why is this different from "I M" know the causes and conditions for the arising of these insights and experiences (1:46 PM) AEN: icic.. (1:47 PM) Thusness: stripping off personality always what? (1:48 PM) AEN: results in impersonality? (1:48 PM) Thusness: ai yoh... relate ur experience lah tell me tonight about "I AM" and "impersonality" (1:49 PM) AEN: oic.. ok (1:51 PM) AEN: stripping off personality leads to a sense that i'm not a personal self.. that this body and mind and everything else is actually part of a much vaster and impersonal awareness (1:51 PM) AEN: theres no sense of an individual doer and experiencer only pure impersonal functioning and perceiving (1:52 PM) Thusness: as if it is all the functioning of a higher power, that is life itself is taking the functioning (1:54 PM) AEN: ic.. yah.. in fact yesterday i remembered a quote that i think is very apt, its a christian quote (1:54 PM) Thusness: so dissolving 'personality' somehow allows u to get 'connected' (1:55 PM) AEN: " I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. " - Galatians 2:20 oic.. (1:55 PM) Thusness: yes (1:55 PM) Thusness: u surrender to this greater power it is not u, but the life in you that is doing the work (1:56 PM) AEN: ic.. (1:56 PM) Thusness: is this the experience of "I AM"? (1:57 PM) AEN: its more impersonal than the initial experience i think (1:58 PM) Thusness: and this is not the non-dual sort of experience (1:58 PM) AEN: ic.. ya (1:58 PM) Thusness: it is not about non-separation and it is also not anatta (1:59 PM) Thusness: nor is it the certainty of being (1:59 PM) Thusness: "I AM" allows u to directly the experience of 'your' very own existence the beingness, the inner most essence of 'You' (2:00 PM) AEN: ic.. ya (2:01 PM) Thusness: a true and genuine practitioner must arise all these insights, the causes, the conditions that give rise to all these experiences and not mixed up (2:01 PM) Thusness: many mixed up no-self of this as no-self of that. (2:02 PM) AEN: oic.. (2:02 PM) Thusness: no-self of non-dual, no-self of anatta, non-inherent existence and impersonality (2:03 PM) Thusness: but all are not refering to the same experience that resulted from dissolving certain aspect of the tendencies (2:03 PM) AEN: icic.. (2:04 PM) Thusness: so a practitioner must be sincere in his practice to clearly sees and not pretend that one knows. (2:04 PM) Thusness: otherwise practice is simply just a mixed-up, confused and nonsense. (2:04 PM) Thusness: it is not that it cannot be known, just the mind isn't clear enough to see the causes and conditions of arising (2:05 PM) AEN: oic.. (8:15 PM) Thusness: why post so fast before u have quality experience? (8:16 PM) Thusness: told u not to talk too much about me. (8:16 PM) AEN: oic.. (8:16 PM) Thusness: however what u posted in the certainty of being is a good description of the next phase that u will be undergoing. (8:17 PM) AEN: icic.. u mean the innerfrontier (8:17 PM) Thusness: yes. The http://www.innerfrontier.org/Practices/JacobsLadder.htm (8:18 PM) Thusness: It described very well the phases of "I AM" (8:19 PM) Thusness: don't be too keen to talk too much about it first...just experience and refine ur understanding (8:19 PM) AEN: oic.. ok (8:20 PM) Thusness: can u see the differences in experience and realization? (8:20 PM) Thusness: otherwise are these are just words. and there is no understanding whatsoever. (8:21 PM) Thusness: when u posted the article in http://www.innerfrontier.org/Practices/JacobsLadder.htm, can u clearly understand what it means? (8:22 PM) AEN: ya i guess so.. it describes the I AM and the impersonality... this part seems like describing the degree of luminosity: Gradually, consciousness itself grows porous. Then, with the whole of our being, we simultaneously reach out toward and open to a greater world beyond ourselves, beyond consciousness, and begin to perceive the world of sacred light. Inwardly calling out to the Divine, we repeatedly open to that ultimate, creative light until only it remains. All separateness, all the ten thousand things merge into that Primordial Sacred Sun. That light is part of our nature, the source of wisdom. We become the light, basking in unimaginable joy. (8:23 PM) Thusness: not so much about the degree of luminosity yet (8:23 PM) Thusness: i mean when u send the article to me the other time, did u know what the author is talking about? (8:23 PM) AEN: nope not as much i guess (8:24 PM) Thusness: u do not know what it meant after the experience "I AM" what is blinding u from the understanding? (8:24 PM) AEN: not so sure maybe im not so clear about the phases yet? (8:25 PM) Thusness: what have u dissolved besides the 'personality aspect' (8:25 PM) Thusness: it is the subtle attachment to 'that' that is blinding u (8:26 PM) Thusness: when i tell u about impersonality, what am i telling u to experience? (8:27 PM) AEN: dissolving the personality aspect? (8:27 PM) Thusness: yes but what else? (8:27 PM) Thusness: what have u experienced? (8:28 PM) AEN: like we are all being lived/functions of a higher power (8:29 PM) Thusness: yes but before u refine ur understanding, do not post too much.. (8:29 PM) AEN: oic.. ok (8:30 PM) Thusness: it is the key of getting 'connected' to a higher power...to a divine life...to a sacred power. (8:30 PM) Thusness: u want to lose urself for this divinity to work through you. (8:30 PM) AEN: ic.. (8:30 PM) Thusness: this what i meant by stage 3. the 'I' is the block. (8:31 PM) AEN: oic.. (8:31 PM) Thusness: i go makan first (8:31 PM) AEN: ok (8:54 PM) Thusness: when u read that article, what are the important points u picked up? (8:55 PM) AEN: that there is something deeper than the 'innermost center' that we become the 'outside' to the 'sacred will of the world' who is the 'source', and the will comes through us as us, and continuous creates and sustains the universe (8:58 PM) Thusness: when u completely surrender, the divine will will become ur 'will' (8:58 PM) AEN: icic.. (9:18 PM) Thusness: but do not write this in a buddhist forum...u r confusing ppl. (9:18 PM) AEN: oic.. (9:19 PM) Thusness: for one hand u are talking about anatta and on the other hand, u spoke of "I AM" and Divine force. (9:19 PM) Thusness: just understand this as a phase u undergone. (9:20 PM) AEN: icic.. (9:36 PM) AEN: ...I am at a point now where this energy/presence is guiding me to turn inwards in a more significant way. I almost get the impression that this inner energy/consciousness is taking over and my life is not "mine" anymore. It belongs to "It" the (9:37 PM) AEN: pure consciousness that is arising... When the energy/consciousness is flowing nothing else matters at all, it is like a nectar of the gods. I have tried on many occasions to surrender completely to this energy but somehow I have not been successful... - JonLS is talking about the same thing right http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/210722 (9:38 PM) Thusness: yes (9:38 PM) AEN: ic.. (9:40 PM) Thusness: so u only understand it 4 yrs later. (9:40 PM) AEN: lol (9:41 PM) Thusness: what that is pointed out then is his lack of experience of non-dual. (9:41 PM) AEN: oic.. (9:43 PM) Thusness: there must then be full integration of all these experiences and insights (9:44 PM) Thusness: that is what i meant by one mind. (9:44 PM) AEN: icic.. (9:44 PM) Thusness: what is the purpose of intensity? (9:45 PM) AEN: the degree of luminosity? (9:45 PM) Thusness: yes for what purpose? (9:46 PM) AEN: i think it will help dissolve the mind and the self more... like when u experience the intensity, one automatically 'surrenders' (9:46 PM) Thusness: no it is actually for the purpose of non-dual (9:46 PM) AEN: oic.. (9:47 PM) Thusness: the degree of luminosity must be divert to the 'outside' world (9:48 PM) Thusness: until someone pointed out to u about 'non-duality'...that is what i meant by degree of luminosity (9:48 PM) Thusness: similarly, the practice of impersonality is to allow u to get to this experience of 'life working through u' (9:48 PM) AEN: icic.. (9:49 PM) AEN: but the degree of luminosity doesnt necessarily mean non dual right (9:49 PM) Thusness: there is a post that jonls wrote in now-for-u that i said is very good (9:49 PM) AEN: oic.. ya i remember (9:50 PM) Thusness: it is bring awareness into direct connection with everything in terms of luminosity, vividness (9:51 PM) Thusness: iti s bringing this quality of Presence into 'forms' (9:51 PM) Thusness: and this is a different experience from 'impersonality' otherwise jonls would not write about it. (9:52 PM) AEN: icic.. (9:52 PM) Thusness: because it is not an experience of surrendering to a divine power. (9:52 PM) AEN: oic.. (10:31 PM) Thusness: there is another aspect that is 'oneness' but that i will tell u later. (10:32 PM) Thusness: because i want u to arise certain insight about 'oneness', to understand 'determinism and free-will'. But that is another matter. (11:14 PM) AEN: back (11:14 PM) AEN: oic.. oneness is non duality rite (11:38 PM) Thusness: It is closely linked Brahman is simply luminosity. But it is luminosity reified into something inherent thus causing grasping and wrong view. Don't forget that in the same text, Padmasambhava criticized the Tirthikas who teaches Atman: The Tirthikas who are outsiders see all this in terms of the dualism of Eternalism as against nihilism The only difference between Kashmir Shaivite and Buddhism is that KS teaches realism or substantialist non-duality. Advaita says the world is illusory, brahman alone is real, brahman is the world. Kashmir Shaivism says no no... Advaita is wrong, the world is not illusory, the world is real, because the world is Shiva. Basically the same thing really, but Kashmir Shaivism focus on the last step - seeing the world as Shiva, as Consciousness. They say that to separate the world from ultimate reality is wrong, ultimate reality is the world, the world is real as ultimate reality. Whereas, Advaita aims for the I AM first (world is illusory, Brahman alone is real) and only then see that Brahman is the World (substantial non-dual). Different emphasis but finally the same. Basically, this is substantial non-dualism. All subject-object duality ceases, one no longer sees Consciousness and contents of consciousness as two... rather, it is Consciousness expressing itself as the manifold. However, Consciousness is still taken as substantial, real, Self. Saraha was a Shaivite (I don't think he is a Shaivite after getting into Buddhism), but whether he was Shaivite or Buddhist doesn't matter - I'm sure he no longer teaches a substantialist view.

Surrendering to a higher power is an effective way to experience impersonality. However there are other aspects of no-self that should not be overlooked. I have described your experience in my new article "on view, ...."

I'm going to publish my e-book some time late next year.

No... I have directly experienced and realized the I AM that you did. The I AM does indeed seem like the source of everything. But it actually is due to dualistic and inherent framework, but we didn't recognise it. Until further insights unfold. The I AM is not denied but the framework of viewing things through duality and inherency is removed via realization. As the Masters say, "keep the experience, refine the view".

Something I wrote to the article http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/21871-experience-realization-view-practice-and-fruition/ : 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. 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 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.

The problem of calling it God is when the person really sees luminosity as an ultimate source behind things. I have directly seen that the Source is a false notion that causes a subtle clinging that prevents the full opening to the transience of life. There is always in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard. Just that is luminosity. If you still want to call it God, I have no problems with it, just that it is meaningless - since God implies Source, and the idea of Source is false. I do not conceive a self, I do not conceive things coming out from a source. There is just the suchness of seeing and hearing without conceiving of a subject, and object, or a source. Yes, I have no notions, not even of God, and not even of anatta, not even of emptiness. (anatta and emptiness is just a raft to let you relinquish all proliferations, not itself something to cling to) This is my every moment experience: "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. - Kalaka Sutta "A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of aversion, he is devoid of aversion, I tell you. "He directly knows water as water... the All as the All... "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of aversion, he is devoid of aversion, I tell you. - Mulapariyaya Sutta

Awakening does not require reciting endless prayers/aspirations/confessions with deity visualisation. These are practices specific to a particular group of practitioners, not all will do the same practices. There are 84000 dharma doors to awakening. I don't do any of those practices you mentioned (mantra, visualization, etc). I hadly meditate more than 30 minutes to 45 minutes in one day (unless I am really free). I don't know about Vipassana (which is a form of gradual path) but what I can say is that this is not necessary in the path I took* - I and Thusness did not do any retreats before. Of course it will be nice if I can go on a retreat someday, but I do not think it is compulsory in order to progress in one's path as a Buddhist. *Just posted something about my journey in the new topic Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition How is this theistic? Luminosity does not necessarily mean theism. It just means luminosity. Buddhists talk about it a lot as you know. The three kayas in Dzogchen stands for emptiness, luminosity, and spontaneous arising primordial energy. They are inseparable. Mahamudra talks about luminosity, Zen talks about luminosity, even Theravada talks about luminosity ('Luminous, monks, is the mind...' - Buddha) There are devotional practices in Buddhism too as you know, especially Mahayana and Vajrayana.

--------------------------- QUOTE(Darkknight @ Jan 8 2007, 06:17 AM) Q. So there is no self (Atman). so what exactly is it that is reborn, and how does what is reborn pass from one body to another? Thanks in advance for any answers received. bow.gif ----------------------------- The question is wrongly put and the Buddha's reponse when asked such a question was to reject it as an improper question. Having rejected the question he would then inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as condition is there birth?" The reason that it is an improper question is that rebirth is taught as the continuation of a process, and not as the passing on of any sort of entity. For a more complete exposition of the subject see Mahasi Sayadaw's Discourse on Paticcasamuppada. Best wishes, Dhammanando Bhikkhu ......... In the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena: "What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?" "A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King." "But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical combination as this present one?" "No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be born."

Hi spelk, have you realized or recognised rigpa? How do you relate your view of emptiness to the three kayas and how does the view of emptiness relate with your practice?

Split off from http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/20464-i-see-people-are-still-misleading-each-other-on-buddhism/ as I think this deserves a separate thread.