xabir2005

Your statements have a lot of misunderstanding. It is totally possible and I am speaking from experience... to permanently end the illusion of self. Yes, you are right in that through the power of concentration and absorption, you may temporarily send the sense of self into abeyance, in a state of samadhi. But samadhi is NOT enlightenment. Enlightenment is a permanent realization about the nature of reality - in the seeing there is just the seen, no seer, in the hearing there is just the heard, no hearer, in the thinking there is just thoughts, no thinker. Having direct realization of this ends the illusion of self forever. This is not an experience that has entry and exit - you do not enter this, and you can never exit/escape this 'condition' - because always already, there is no self, so there is no self to remain, no self to cease, no self to [insert token]. This needs to be realized. So yes, there is no 'permanently annihilating self', since annihilating self implies there is a self, but if you realize no self, then it is seen that there is no such self to remain or cease... the illusion is seen through and what is seen cannot be unseen. This is vastly different from a temporary samadhi state. A samadhi state does not bring realization. "Life is suffering" is one of the most misquoted thing attributed to Buddha. The Buddha did not say this. He taught that there is suffering, he didn't say life is suffering or there can only be suffering. Please read this article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html ...You've probably heard the rumor that "Life is suffering" is Buddhism's first principle, the Buddha's first noble truth. It's a rumor with good credentials, spread by well-respected academics and Dharma teachers alike, but a rumor nonetheless. The truth about the noble truths is far more interesting. The Buddha taught four truths — not one — about life: There is suffering, there is a cause for suffering, there is an end of suffering, and there is a path of practice that puts an end to suffering. These truths, taken as a whole, are far from pessimistic. They're a practical, problem-solving approach — the way a doctor approaches an illness, or a mechanic a faulty engine. You identify a problem and look for its cause. You then put an end to the problem by eliminating the cause... ...Other discourses show that the problem isn't with body and feelings in and of themselves. They themselves aren't suffering. The suffering lies in clinging to them. In his definition of the first noble truth, the Buddha summarizes all types of suffering under the phrase, "the five aggregates of clinging": clinging to physical form (including the body), feelings, perceptions, thought constructs, and consciousness. However, when the five aggregates are free from clinging, he tells us, they lead to long-term benefit and happiness. So the first noble truth, simply put, is that clinging is suffering. It's because of clinging that physical pain becomes mental pain. It's because of clinging that aging, illness, and death cause mental distress. The paradox here is that, in clinging to things, we don't trap them or get them under our control. Instead, we trap ourselves. When we realize our captivity, we naturally search for a way out. And this is where it's so important that the first noble truth not say that "Life is suffering." If life were suffering, where would we look for an end to suffering? We'd be left with nothing but death and annihilation. But when the actual truth is that clinging is suffering, we simply have to look for the clinging and eliminate its causes... This isn't true, suffering does not require pleasure. Also, suffering is not displeasure. Unpleasurable sensations can arise yet without mental aversion or suffering. The world is not an illusion, and there is no reality apart from the world. But this not to say that the world is real (inherently, independently, permanently existing) - there is no independent existence of the world of its own as all appearances dependently originate without anything that can be pinned down as having inherent reality. The world is like an illusion, but not an illusion, looks there but isn't really there. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.

I was talking about jk cos subjectivity quoted from him, and I was pointing out that jk is not about the I AM insight but more about nondual. As for jk and osho, both sounded like they are describing nondual as a state. The clear insight into anatta isn't really clear. Also I thought osho was at least in substantialist nondual phase but recent readings gave me the impression that he is still at the I AM stage with glimpses of nondual experience but lack realization. In fact I can hardly find teachers who describes the realization and experience of anatta well... There are, but rare. So I am no longer very interested to read spiritual books. Reading books are good until you come to a point where you realize you are entering rare territories and you have to navigate yourself (unless you are as fortunate as I am to know of someone who has been through all these, who can still give you good advices)... And at that point direct experience becomes more important. But not to stop reading too early which is the common tendency... I.e stopped reading after I AM realization before realizing non dual, or stopped reading books after non dual before realizing anatta, etc.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/05/are-insight-stages-strictly-linear.html Are the insight stages strictly linear? Posted by: An Eternal Now I wrote this based on what Thusness/PasserBy have said regarding his Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html ) - not to think of the 7 stages as strictly linear or having a hierarchy. Some is able to understand the profound wisdom of emptiness from the start but have no direct experience of luminosity, then luminosity becomes a later phase. So does that mean the most pristine experience of "I AM" is now the last stage? On the other hand, some have experienced luminosity but does not understand how he got himself 'lost', as there is no insight to the karmic tendencies/propensities at all, therefore they cannot understand Dependent Origination adequately. But does that mean that one that experience emptiness is higher than one that experience luminosity? Some people experience non-dual but did not go through the I AM, and then after non-dual the I AM becomes even more precious because it will bring out the luminosity aspect more. Also, when in non-dual, one can still be full of thoughts, therefore the focus then is to experience the thoroughness of being no-thoughts, fully luminous and present... then it is not about non-dual, not about the no object-subject split, it is about the degree of luminosity for these non-dualist. But for some monks that is trapped in luminosity and rest in samadhi, then the focus should be on refining non-dual insight and experience. So just see the phases as different aspect of insights of our true nature, not necessarily as linear stages or a 'superiority' and 'inferiority' comparison. What one should understand is what is lacking in the form of realization. There is no hierarchy to it, only insights. Then one will be able to see all stages as flat, no higher. Labels: Stages of Enlightenment |

Although everything arises vividly, nothing is done. Although everything passes, nothing is lost.

Yeah I understand. At present, I embrace a view that can allow me to fully experience whatevar arises fearlessly and unreservedly and that has helped me tremendously. E.g. from intimacy to "thingness" of things, then more to "thingness" of whatever arises. For example, what exactly is Consciousness? In Anatta, I do not deny consciousness. All is experienced as consciousness in a dependently originated way. In the eighteen dhatus. Awareness is understood and experienced in terms of the eighteen dhatus. For example, I do not say eye-consciousness is the same as ear-consciousness, or that eye-consciousness turns into ear-consciousness, or that a previous moment of thought is the same as this moment of thought. As 'Awareness' is not an entity and is a mere label collating experiences, it has to be these diverse manifestation. This understanding enables practitioners to fully and completely experience whatever arises. Now, let's say I tell someone to "experience consciousness as sound". How are you going to experience that? How thorough can it be? First of all there is already this delineation - there is sound, and consciousness. Either consciousness is here or sound is there, or is taking place in here, or out there. But when you say, in hearing only heard - or there is only sound - sound-consciousness, sound, is fully and totally experienced. This moment of 'arising sound' is fully experienced. Whatever arises speaks thusly. A thousand petals Drift into an empty house. Though the sound of the herder's flute passes by, The man and the ox are no where to be seen.

Something I wrote in my forum today. ----------- Experience, Realization, and View Our paradigm, view, insights, experiences, affect our every moment perception of life, self, the universe. Speaking from experience, this is what a seeker might go through: Duality Generally every normal non-spiritual person sees himself as a subject, self, perceiver, doer, which is a psychic entity conceived as locating inside the body - be it inside the head behind the eyes or in the heart or some other locations. This conceived psychic entity causes a sense of alienation as 'I' am inside my body, looking outwards at the world through my eyes, ears, etc. I am self-contracted, separated from the world out there, and so experience is divided into 'inner' and 'outer'. Reality consists of three components: I, the seer, sees the world out there. (Seer, seeing, seen) I, the doer, does the deed (Doer, doing, done). All these actions, and perceptions, are felt to have occured by virtue of this psychic entity residing inside my body, which I call Me. This mentally conceived sense of alienation from a separate objective world resulting from the perceived existence of a separate self and psychic entity residing within this body-mind results in all manners of passionate feelings such as fear, anger, craving, malice, sorrow, and all forms of destructive undertakings endemic in our world: war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence, corruption and so on. Basically it comes down to this: craving (craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for extermination), which arises due to the view of there being an inherently existing self alienated from the world, whereby the self must always get away from unpleasant experiences and chase after pleasant experiences, in search for happiness and the attenuation of suffering, not knowing this process of craving is precisely what causes suffering. Self-Realization, Partial Duality By the practice of contemplating on the Source of experiencing ("Who am I?", "Who is the Source?"), we trace the radiance back to the essence of mind-consciousness. At the moment where the seeker reaches the pinnacle of his self-inquiry, one has a non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate perception of the self-luminosity of mind's Presence. The self-felt certainty arising from the non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception (NDNCDIMOP) of mind's luminosity leads to a self-felt certainty that results in utter conviction of having touched the essence of being and existence. As all doubts pertaining to the nature of one's identity can no longer linger, one's self-inquiry into 'Who am I' comes to a closing conclusion. Being absolutely intimate as a sheer sense of Presence, Beingness, and Existence, shining in plain view prior to conceptual sullying, it is nevertheless immediately reified due to the paradigm and view of duality and inherency, even though in itself it is a non-dual perception. What it is reified into is a grander entity than the psychic entity conceived as locating in the body as previously conceived. Though the psychic entity located inside the body, aka. the ego, is now being released through seeing the falsity of a personal self, the Identity remains intact at large, now expanding to become a Metaphysical entity transcending space and time, the grand, impersonal, and universal Self that is birthless and deathless. Due to the view of duality still largely being intact - Presence and Awareness is also seen as the Eternal Witness, an impartial and unchanging watcher of all phenomena that passes. 'I' am God, the ground of being, the source of all animate and inanimate objects, the universal consciousness underlying all my manifestations which comes and goes like waves in the ocean of Being. All along not knowing that what they have realized is simply an aspect of luminosity pertaining to non-conceptual thought, a manifestation of mind-cognizance, and is as such nothing ultimate or special (as compared to any other manifestations). Non-Duality Via the contemplation into the absence of a separate self or the seamlessness of awareness and its contents, a direct and experiential realization that the subject-object separation and dichotomy is illusory arises. Everything is experienced at zero-distance in the absence of the bond of dualistic psychic construct. Nevertheless at the beginning, as the insight of non-duality arises but not the insight into no-inherency, one ends up falling into: Substantial Non-duality - subject-object dichotomy collapses, and is subsumed, into inherent oneness - due to the view of inherency (that reality must have 'existence' located somewhere and somewhen, even if it is Here and Now), the vivid 'realness' of non-dual luminosity is being treated as something Absolute, as having inherent, independent and unchanging existence, and is being reified into Noumenon (in contrast to illusory phenomenon), and as being the ultimate non-dual Self - the intimacy experienced via the collapse of subject-object dichotomy is being referenced to a grandiose all-pervasive Self ("I am Everywhere and I am Everything") - all phenomena are seen to be illusory projections of a single underlying source, such that all phenomena are self-expressions of the single nature of Awareness, as depicted by the analogy of the mirror and its reflections - reflections as such do not have an objective, independent existence outside the mirror - and in fact only the Mirror is seen to have absolute, independent, inherent existence - only the Mirror is Real, and the appearances are only Real as the Mirror - appearances are inseparable from the Source, and yet the Source is independent of appearances Insubstantial Non-duality - also known as the arising insight into anatta, it is seen that seeing, cognizing, awareness is precisely and only what is seen, heard, tasted, touched, manifesting - the intimacy experienced via the lack of separation has no frame of reference due to the lack of something inherent - in the seeing is just the seen, in the hearing is just the heard, there is no True Self of any sorts - the world only references itself without an agent - there is no grandiose, universal consciousness, only individual bodies and mindstreams interacting with each other due to interdependent origination, without any conceived 'underlying oneness behind multiplicity' - absolutely no identity remains, even the notion that "I am you and you are me" is seen as absurd - there is no such thing as 'seamlessness of awareness and contents' or 'inseparability of awareness and its contents' - for awareness IS the process and activities of cognizance only, there is no such thing as 'awareness + its contents' - seeing, cognizing, awaring never exists as nouns pointing to a noumenon but as verbs collating various activities of cognizance - what is seen, heard, taste, touch, are activities manifesting on its own accord with the presence of requisite conditions and factors via interdependent origination, without an agent, perceiver, controller, doer - further penetration into anatta reveals that all phenomena are disjoint, unsupported, unlinked, bubble-like, insubstantial, dream-like, and self-releasing - there is absolutely nothing, not even an Awareness that underlies two thoughts, two manifestations - in fact there is not even two thoughts as such, just this thought, which spontaneously self-releases upon inception leaving absolutely no traces - there is absolutely no collapsing of subject-object dichotomy into a base or oneness existing somewhere, even as a Here/Now - there is no linking base, oneness or source at all, only the experience of dispersed-out and de-linked multiplicity - all manifestations are intrinstically luminous and vivid yet insubstantial and vanishes without a trace upon inception like drawing pictures on water manifests vivid appearances that does not leave trace - no existence of any sorts can leave traces when reality is a dream-like process with no inherent existence, like an illusion but not an illusion

Twinner, you appear to have realized the I AM (see first two stages at Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment), but there are further stages of insight/realization Also see my e-book http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

yes. That is from a more Buddhist perspective though, many sees I Am as final. Other religions and traditions may see realization of Self as final. Emptiness is peculiar to Buddhism. Once you realize the twofold emptiness (stage 5 and 6) you ascend to the first Bodhisattva bhumi and is on the way to Buddhahood, omniscience, which is reached after going through ten bhumis.

Eckhart Tolle is at stage one and two of Thusness Seven Stages of Enlightenment It is the realization of I Am, not yet the realization of anatta or emptiness

http://www.buddhaboard.com/

Buddhism teaches us about the fact of suffering and the way to end suffering.

So not true. Ananda: "How amazing! Never before has it occurred to me, Lord. This principle of Dependent Origination, although so profound and hard to see, yet appears to me to be so simple!" Buddha: "Say not so, Ananda, say not so. This principle of Dependent Origination is a profound teaching, hard to see. It is through not knowing, not understanding and not thoroughly realizing this teaching that beings are confused like a tangled thread, thrown together like bundles of threads, caught as in a net, and cannot escape hell, the nether worlds and the wheel of samsara." [s.II.92]

Greg Goode has realized non-dual experientially (since the late 90s) before studying Emptiness.

Yes, indeed, Buddha and Nagarjuna's insight is subtle, profound and deep, not easily understood, often misunderstood...

Thusness told me something before - even after the experience of no-mind one will still oscillate between subject/object division in a very subtle way; that is because of the ‘wrong view’. There is the experience of no-‘mind’ but because experience cannot sync with the ‘existing dualistic and inherent paradigm’. If deep within us we still entertain the existing ‘dualistic and inherent framework’, then this subtle lingering trace of division has to continue. Though it may sound obvious, a practitioner can still get stuck for quite some time despite the clear experience of no-mind. To break-through we have to firmly establish the right view that the ‘nature’ of experiential reality is nothing ‘dualistic and inherent’. So first, firmly establish the view of anatta, after some time, the subtle lingering trace will dissolve because now the ‘view’ allows and caters for the experience of no-mind. Once a practitioner breaks through this hurdle, he has no worry for ‘right view’ though ultimately all are rafts. Not to drop away ‘right view’ too quick before we realized the quintessence of ‘the view’. Many will jump into non-conceptuality and is afraid to adopt view... thinking that adopting 'view' is a problem. But non-conceptuality is equally a problem. This is what Thusness calls the 'disease of non-conceptuality'. Also, be fearless to challenge any lingering trace... as he told me before, wait for a period of 90-180 days, the lingering trace might resurface after the grandeur is gone. But with firm establishment of view, the experience will return with stability.

From The Sunya quote, Greg Goode: For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about." Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

Great insight! One Mind sees no duality... yet sees an inherent singular awareness. No Mind dissolves this 'singular awareness' into multiplicity... though it should be noted that the experience of no mind may not necessarily be the insight of anatta (for some in the stage 4 non-dual phase, no-mind remains a temporary stage or peak experience yet insight hasn't arisen), but no-mind is the natural state/experience of one who has realized anatta. But realizing 'no seer apart from seeing, thinker apart from thought' is the insight of anatta. There is no-agent, there is only the aggregates and these aggregates dependently originates. You said well that 'Dependent arising requires multiplicity.'... holding onto One Mind will prevent full insight and appreciation into the workings of D.O.

Nice to see you around again What you said sounds like No Mind. Do you realize that in seeing, there is just the seen, in hearing just the heard, in thinking just thoughts, no agency (i.e. perceiver) is present? Don't worry about free from views now. Establish the right view (anatta and D.O./emptiness), when insight into emptiness arises, you will become free from all views. There is often this tendency to do away with views too early, preventing the subtler insight into emptiness.

An unknowable non-dual awareness that is all there is... that is thusness stage 4. You won't be able to factor in D.O. because you don't see awareness as manifestation. I don't see a single awareness (aka One Mind). I see various consciousness manifesting due to dependent origination, each manifestation radically different - eye consciousness radically different from nose consciousness, etc. http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm ....Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’?" "Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else." "Sati, what is that consciousness?" "Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there." "Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time." Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think, has this this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this dispensation?" "No, venerable sir." When this was said the bhikkhu Sati became silent, unable to reply back, and sat with drooping shoulders and eyes turned down. Then the Blessed One, knowing that the bhikkhu Sati had become silent, unable to reply back, and was sitting with drooping shoulders and with eyes turned down, told him: "Foolish man, you will be known on account of this pernicious view; now I will question the bhikkhus on this." Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, do you too know of this Teaching, the wrong view of the bhikkhu Sati, the son of a fisherman, on account of which he misrepresents us and also destroys himself and accumulates much suffering?" "No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness." "Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time. "Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness. "Bhikkhus, do you see, This has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir". "Do you see it arises supported by That?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support ceases, the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."...

A teacher named Kenneth Folk recently realized Anatta (he used to be in the substantialist non-dual phase, and prior that, the I AM phase). He has not written any articles about it (all his current articles only describe until the non dual phase), but said in forum posts that he was wrong, his teaching was incomplete, and he was glad to present his new understanding (in his new 7 stages of enlightenment model. not thusness 7 stages of enlightenment, but kenneth folk 7 stages of enlightenment.) Here is what he said which I think is pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqYUNHrLFq0 Transcription (by augustleo - http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/4447381/The+7th+Stage+of+Enlightenment ): ... You do this kind of "looping thing where mind tries to be subject and object at the same time or oscillates between them. And it says "No ... no "I" here. So that's the test for the 7th stage. You can no longer find anything that you would recongnize as "I". So what you are left with is objects. There are simply these phenomena and these phenomena can be broken down into seeing, hearing, tasting, touching smelling and thinking - the 6 sense doors according to Buddhism. Sof if you think about that, you are nothing other than a sense organ. I am nothing other than a sense organ. There's no agency here. There's no doer. There are just these 6 sensory inputs including thinking. That is an extraordinary recognition. And the freedom that comes from that recognition is the happiness that is independent of conditions, AKA Enlightenment. And notice it's in the seeing is only the "seen" ... that is exactly the experience - in the seeing is only the "seen" ... it's not the seeing ... it's not seeing as the seer, there is no seer. We don't have a subject receptor. There isn't anything in this mind that can pick up a subject. Now what that means is that, although we can logically infer that there must be a subject, we can not experience that. The subject is always inferred. So even the practices that involve Awareness, practices that involve letting Awareness be aware of Awareness et cetera, those are practices - transitional modalities or transitional phases which eventually have to be let go of. Because we can not perceive Awareness, we can only infer Awareness. So we could talk about this in terms of 1st and 2nd order phenomena. 1st order phenomena are the six sense doors: seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling and thinking. 2nd order phenomena would be things like "I know there's Awareness because there has to be." Fine, I don't disagree with the logic, but "you" don't know that. That is an inference. So subject is always inferred. And as long as we don't feel obligated to take that step or make that leap into inference, we don't create self. [JG: ... there's the object but not the inferred subject] Yes. And as long as we stick with that we're golden. There is the object and the hearing is just the heard. That's it. And although we might like to make it more complicated, it doesn't have to be, and it turns out we're much better off when we don't complicate it. ...

Herein lies the difference between Thusness Stage 4 (mirror bright) and 5 (no mirror)... what I am describing is that, in seeing just the seen ('seeing' is just the experience of sight without seer), in hearing just the heard ('hearing' is just the experience of sound without hearer), awareness is simply this process of experiencing without an agent. In my experience, Bahiya Sutta describes this well and contemplating Bahiya Sutta led me to to this insight. You seem to be sinking back into One Mind... a non-dependent awareness that is nevertheless non-dual with dependent phenomena. A mirror that is one with its reflection. I don't see awareness/container and contents of awareness and their inseparability which many neo-advaita teachers talk about these days... I see an ever-changing process that reveal itself on its own accord and is self-luminous... the process itself rolls and knows without a knower. Without a subject, there is no inseparability, no unicity, just... sound of phone ringing.

p.s. I no longer have a concept or notion of awareness or what it should be. So what is Awareness? At best, a word. At worst, an inferred existence taken to be real. There is no awareness, no subject, no object, just... The actuality... Sound of keyboard typing... music... bird singing... smell of aroma... words appearing on the screen... sensations in my stomach... breathing...

Lucky7Strikes: Luminosity... ...is not something that belongs to phenomena. Me: Yes of course... luminosity does not belong to phenomena as there is no phenomena with an inherent existence or characteristic just there is no 'redness' that belongs to 'red flower' as explained before. Luminosity does not 'belong' to something, it simply is, and what is, interdependently originates and is empty. What interdependently originates has no origin, and is a self-sprung expression like the experience of music is a complete and new phenomena of itself inseparable from all other conditions but without an external origin (like ear, speakers, air, etc). All appearances are spontaneously perfected from the beginning as the spontaneous presence (effortless/natural manifestation) of intrinsic awareness, self-luminous and empty. Lucky7Strikes: The empty nature of things reveals itself naturally. You feel "in" emptiness, as in you feel constant change, spontaneity, and ungraspable expression, not a constant reverting to the view of emptiness. Me: Well said. What the empty nature of things end is your constant effort and grasping for a 'something', including an 'awareness', 'source', 'here/now', etc. What remains is self-luminous, effortless, natural, sponteous expressions of interdependent origination. Lucky7Strikes: It is one's very essence. The basic beingness. Me: And yet, is there any phenomena right now that is not basically a self-luminous expression and appearance? Does the sense of I AM, or the basic beingness, have a monopoly over other phenomena? Or is it just a non-conceptual thought which shares the same taste as every other phenomena? Lucky7Strikes: When luminosity beings to reveal itself, there is no way one could reify it. Me: Pure luminosity reveals itself before reification, concepts, duality, etc, but due to the 'dualistic/inherent construct', almost immediately after a transcendental glimpse, we immediately reify a background, a source, an inherent self, etc. This has been my experience at least, until further insights dissolve those subtle reification (and continues to be dissolving). Lucky7Strikes: It is realizing what you are. Me: This is the I AM insight, the Certainty of Being that I talked about. There is no order of precedence how the phases of insight unfolds for people. Some experience/realize it after non-dual, some before. Like Joan Tollifson puts it... rather than a linear stage progression, sometimes it is more like a spiral going back and forth, though that is also just a relative perspective of things. The spiralling continues until one sees with utter conviction that all phenomena shares the same taste, that everything in its primordial purity is Dharmakaya itself.