xabir2005

Just added a line before you posted: These information are not just conceptual information to be stuffed somewhere into your mind - rather, they are helpful pointers in practice that will enable you to overcome any obstacles to true Realization. Information is only helpful in the realm of spiritual if it helps you (as a pointer) to discover what is true in your own direct experience. Yes. As I wrote in my previous post: do not seek for a conceptual answer - if the mind becomes blank and no answers come up, know that this is still much better than clinging to a conceptual answer - do not try to make up your 'no answer' with a conceptual answer - if you don't know through direct experience, keeping a 'don't know' attitude is much better as that means you are open to continue exploring your direct experience, rather than clinging to a mental conclusion/speculation that blocks direct realization. Yes, there is an answer to your Koan, but the answer cannot be found in the mind. The answer is found through an immediate, intuitive Realization, it cannot be fabricated. To me, they are actually two separate practices with two different, distinguishable, and predictable results - in the same way that Vipassana is actually very different from Shamatha practice, or Zhuowang practice, or Self-Inquiry practice. Vipassana leads to the development of the 16 nanas (vipassana insight stages), which is absent in shamatha, zhuowang, or self-inquiry. Shamatha leads to the experience of the 8 shamatha jhanas (absorption states) but not the nanas or self-realization and so on. Self-inquiry leads to self-realization, which is absent in vipassana, zhuowang, shamatha, and so on and so forth. They produce different experiences, results, insights. We should not mix them up into some jumbled up confused view of how 'all practices are actually the same and results in the same experience' but also we should not negate their unique roles which can all be important during our spiritual journey - in other words see them as unique but complementary and helpful parts of a yogi's toolbox (something I like about dharma teacher Kenneth Folk's approach to the different practices) rather than as opposing or contradictory methods. In short we can and should develope an integral understanding and clear view of the different spiritual practices and traditions, but we should avoid getting a jumbled up confused view of them and think that Shamatha leads to Insight, or that Vipassana leads to Self-Realization, etc etc. Anyway both Zhuowang and Self-Inquiry are important and I am not suggesting that one should only focus on one of them or that one practice is higher than the other. You may practice both (in fact that is precisely Thusness's instruction to me 2 years ago when I first started on self-inquiry - to practice *both* self-inquiry as well as dropping like Taoist zhuowang - preferably two separate sessions in morning and night, as self-inquiry without the practice of dropping can lead to problems) My friend Thusness practiced both in the past, in fact he started with Self-Inquiry and attained Self-Realization first, before moving on to Zuowang (he learnt from a Taiwanese Taoist teacher Gao Shan Tze), before doing Vipassana (even though his Vipassana practice is somewhat different from the Mahasi Sayadaw style of Noting-Vipassana), in that order. He wrote his experiences at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html You can see how self-inquiry, zhuowang, vipassana all played a role in his spiritual journey. No, you are missing the point of self-inquiry: it is to realize the luminous pure presence of Self. It is not the same as Zhuowang, which is simply to sit, forget self and everything and enter into nothingness/oblivion. Zhuowang does not aim for the realization of the pure existence of Being/Self. It is important to note that 开悟，明心见性, self-realization and so on are not even mentioned at all in Taoist literature until the later developments and influence from Zen Buddhism. But even then I think there is little emphasis in Taoism on realizing the 'I AMness' that is emphasized in Zen, Advaita, etc. The closest I can think of is Thomas Cleary's translation of 'The Secret of the Golden Flower' - but that is more like a form of gradual Awareness practice rather than direct path Self-Inquiry practice aiming for self-realization. Taoism places more emphasis on entering the state nothingness/oblivion in which everything is self-so, 自然, natural, spontaneous, functioning of Tao without a 'self'. This is a very important experience and insight as well. In Self-Inquiry, it is also a non-conceptual approach but it's emphasis is to to look into the true nature of Self, but its goal is not to enter a state of nothingness, but to look head on and discover the Certainty of Being (Pure Presence-Awareness). Yes, we can never approach reality through logic, induction, or deduction. Thoughts and concepts can never lead to true certainty and at most serves as a helpful pointer - of course on that level it has its place (a clear conceptual view of things is much more helpful than an unclear, confused conceptual view of things which is usually misleading and harmful, but both unclear and clear conceptual views alone does not result in true experiential realization). To arrive at true certainty, there must be a direct mode of experiencing and observing reality as it is. As Thusness commented in Daniel's forum Dharma Overground in early 2009 (and I highly some parts for emphasis): "Hi Gary, It appears that there are two groups of practitioners in this forum, one adopting the gradual approach and the other, the direct path. I am quite new here so I may be wrong. My take is that you are adopting a gradual approach yet you are experiencing something very significant in the direct path, that is, the ‘Watcher’. As what Kenneth said, “You're onto something very big here, Gary. This practice will set you free.” But what Kenneth said would require you to be awaken to this ‘I’. It requires you to have the ‘eureka!’ sort of realization. Awaken to this ‘I’, the path of spirituality becomes clear; it is simply the unfolding of this ‘I’. On the other hand, what that is described by Yabaxoule is a gradual approach and therefore there is downplaying of the ‘I AM’. You have to gauge your own conditions, if you choose the direct path, you cannot downplay this ‘I’; contrary, you must fully and completely experience the whole of ‘YOU’ as ‘Existence’. Emptiness nature of our pristine nature will step in for the direct path practitioners when they come face to face to the ‘traceless’, ‘centerless’ and ‘effortless’ nature of non-dual awareness. Perhaps a little on where the two approaches meet will be of help to you. Awakening to the ‘Watcher’ will at the same time ‘open’ the ‘eye of immediacy’; that is, it is the capacity to immediately penetrate discursive thoughts and sense, feel, perceive without intermediary the perceived. It is a kind of direct knowing. You must be deeply aware of this “direct without intermediary” sort of perception -- too direct to have subject-object gap, too short to have time, too simple to have thoughts. It is the ‘eye’ that can see the whole of ‘sound’ by being ‘sound’. It is the same ‘eye’ that is required when doing vipassana, that is, being ‘bare’. Be it non-dual or vipassana, both require the opening of this 'eye of immediacy'." The same applies to Taoist non-conceptual meditations/practices. Further as he wrote to me ( http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/391975 ) - ...Therefore in your experience of the “I AMness”, I advise you to understand this experience from the perspective of “direct and non-conceptual aspect of perception” and how by being “direct and non-conceptual” creates that sort of ‘certain, unshakable and undeniable’ confidence. That is, if a practitioner is fully authenticated from moment to moment the arising and passing phenomena, the practitioner will always have this sensation of ‘certain and unshaken’ confidence...

Information can be very helpful if it comes from someone with true authentic insights, realization and experience. There are plenty of books out there that can be very helpful (and each book probably has like hundreds of pages of text so whatever is discussed here pales in comparison in terms of details). These information are not just conceptual information to be stuffed somewhere into your mind - rather, they are helpful pointers in practice that will enable you to overcome any obstacles to true Realization. Anyway your method of practice seems more like Taoism's Zuowang, and is very different from the OP's method of practice which is the Advaita or Zen technique of self-inquiry. Different goal as well... while you are aiming to enter into the state of nothingness, self-inquiry is done to attain the Realization of Self.

From page 152 of my document:

My friend Thusness warned me many years ago that self-inquiry can lead to an utter state of confusion and suffering. (before realization) However, as Zen Buddhism often says - Great Doubt comes Great Awakening; Small Doubt comes Small Awakening, No Doubt comes No Awakening. Keep investigating and questioning 'Who am I?' Don't get stuck in any types of samadhi - what you want is Self-Realization, NOT a temporary samadhi state. Also, if you experience an inert/dead silence or emptiness, that is not it - who/what perceives that state? Keep investigating until you arrive at a non-conceptual Realization and Certainty of Being. At this moment, there is no such thing as 'unsure', no such doubts as 'is this Consciousness?', there is only the actual full authentication of the innermost essence. Completely certain, unmoved, and still. I AM. Both Thusness and I achieved self-realization through self-inquiry and can testify that this is the direct path to self-realization (which happened 'for me', conventionally speaking, earlier this year when I was still 19, and less than 2 years before I started self-inquiry). Thusness attained self-realization when he was 17, and it also did not took him long to realize that (probably much faster than me). Of course all these are not so important other than just encouragements and reminders that you are indeed practicing a direct path to realization. See my document (currently 213 pages long) detailing my insights, experiences, and conversations on the practice of Self-Inquiry at http://www.box.net/shared/3verpiao63 Ken Wilber: There are many things that I can doubt, but I cannot doubt my own consciousness in this moment. My consciousness IS, and even if I tried to doubt it, it would be my consciousness doubting. I can imagine that my senses are being presented with a fake reality – say, a completely virtual reality or digital reality, which looks real but is merely a series of extremely realist images. But even then, I cannot doubt the consciousness that is doing the watching… The very undeniability of my present awareness, the undeniability of my consciousness, immediately delivers to me a certainty of existence in this moment, a certainty of Being in the now-ness of this moment. I cannot doubt consciousness and Being in this moment, for it is the ground of all knowing, all seeing, all existing… Who am I? Ask that question over and over again, deeply. Who am I? What is it in me that is conscious of everything? If you think that you know Spirit, or if you think you don’t, Spirit is actually that which is thinking both of those thoughts. So you can doubt the objects of consciousness, but you can never believably doubt the doubter, never really doubt the Witness of the entire display. Therefore, rest in the Witness, whether it is thinking that it knows God or not, and that witnessing, that undeniable immediacy of now-consciousness, is itself God, Spirit, Buddha-mind. The certainty lies in the pure self-felt Consciousness to which objects appear, not in the objects themselves. You will never, never, never see God, because God is the Seer, not any finite, mortal, bounded object that can be seen… This pure I AM state is not hard to achieve but impossible to escape, because it is ever present and can never really be doubted. You can never run from Spirit, because Spirit is the Runner. To put it very bluntly, Spirit is not hard to find but impossible to avoid: it is that which is looking at this page right now. Can’t you feel That One? Why on earth do you keep looking for God when God is actually the Looker? Simply ask, Who am I? Who am I? Who am I? I am aware of my feelings, so I am not my feelings – Who am I? I am aware of my thoughts, so I am not my thoughts – Who am I? Clouds float by in the sky, thoughts float by in the mind, feelings float by in the body – and I am none of those because I can Witness them all. Moreover, I can doubt that clouds exist, I can doubt that feelings exist, I can doubt that objects of thought exist – but I cannot doubt that the Witness exists in this moment, because the Witness would still be there to witness the doubt. I am not objects in nature, not feelings in the body, not thoughts in the mind, for I can Witness them all. I am that Witness – a vast, spacious, empty, clear, pure, transparent Openness that impartially notices all that arises, as a mirror spontaneously reflects all its objects… You can already feel some of this Great Liberation in that, as you rest in the ease of witnessing this moment, you already feel that you are free from the suffocating constriction of mere objects, mere feelings, mere thoughts – they all come and go, but you are that vast, free, empty, open Witness of them all, untouched by their torments and tortures. This is actually the profound discovery of… the pure divine Self, the formless Witness, causal nothingness, the vast Emptiness in which the entire world arises, stays a bit, and passes. And you are That. You are not the body, not the ego, not nature, not thoughts, not this, not that – you are a vast Emptiness, Freedom, Release, and Liberation. With this discovery… you are halfway home. You have disidentified from any and all finite objects; you rest as infinite Consciousness. You are free, open, empty, clear, radiant, released, liberated, exalted, drenched in a blissful emptiness that exists prior to space, prior to time, prior to tears and terror, prior to pain and mortality and suffering and death. You have found the great Unborn, the vast Abyss, the unqualifiable Ground of all that is, and all that was, and all that ever shall be. But why is that only halfway home? Because as you rest in the infinite ease of consciousness, spontaneously aware of all that is arising, there will soon enough come the great catastrophe of Freedom and Fullness: the Witness itself will disappear entirely, and instead of witnessing the sky, you are the sky; instead of touching the earth, you are the earth; instead of hearing the thunder, you are the thunder. You and the entire Kosmos because One Taste – you can drink the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp, hold Mt. Everest in the palm of your hand; supernovas swirl in your heart and the solar system replaces your head… You are One Taste, the empty mirror that is one with any and all objects that arise in its embrace, a mindlessly vast translucent expanse: infinite, eternal, radiant beyond release. And you… are… That… So the primary Cartesian dualism – which is simply the dualism between… in here and out there, subject and object, the empty Witness and all things witnessed – is finally undone and overcome in nondual One Taste. Once you actually and fully contact the Witness, then – and only then – can it be transcended into radical Nonduality, and halfway home becomes fully home, here in the ever-present wonder of what is… And so how do you know that you have finally and really overcome the Cartesian dualism? Very simple: if you really overcome the Cartesian dualism, then you no longer feel that you are on this side of your face looking at the world out there. There is only the world, and you are all of that; you actually feel that you are one with everything that is arising moment to moment. You are not merely on this side of your face looking out there. “In here” and “out there” have become One Taste with a shuddering obviousness and certainty so profound it feels like a five-ton rock just dropped on your head. It is, shall we say, a feeling hard to miss. At that point, which is actually your ever-present condition, there is no exclusive identity with this particular organism, no constriction of consciousness to the head, a constriction that makes it seem that “you” are in the head looking at the rest of the world out there; there is no binding of attention to the personal bodymind: instead, consciousness is one with all that is arising – a vast, open, transparent, radiant, infinitely Free and infinitely Full expanse that embraces the entire Kosmos, so that every single subject and every single object are erotically united in the Great Embrace of One Taste. You disappear from merely being behind your eyes, and you become the All, you directly and actually feel that your basic identity is everything that is arising moment to moment (just as previously you felt that your identity was with this finite, partial, separate, mortal coil of flesh you call a body). Inside and outside have become One Taste. I tell you, it can happen just like that! (Source: Boomeritis, Sidebar E: “The Genius Descartes Gets a Postmodern Drubbing: Integral Historiography in a Postmodern Age”. More to be found in The Simple Feeling of Being, a collection of Ken Wilber’s inspirational, mystical and instructional passages drawn from his publications, based on his experiences.)

Something I wrote long ago in this forum before, but just re-wrote recently to someone: The person at Medha Journal argues: It seems highly unfair that the self of B that is not the same as A should suffer from the karmic consequences of A being the murderer. But this is precisely what happens on a daily basis and you wouldn't think it is unfair. For example: the self of yesterday stole someone's car, and then the self of today landed in jail. You would not think that it is unfair that the self of today will have to land up in jail for the misdeed of the self of yesterday. Now in truth, the mindstream is conventionally still the same person - which means that karma is 'fair' because you do not suffer for my karma, and I do not suffer from yours (mindstreams are individual and not collective) - but the same person is not in fact an independent, unchanging entity. It is simply a stream of arisings that is the continuity of a process but not the continuity or passing on of a self-entity. Anyway karma is not an issue of 'fairness/unfairness', it is an issue of 'cause and effect' - Cause A will bring about Effect B. And it just works that way due to the natural and universal law of causality. 'Perfection' is perhaps a better way to describe karma than 'just/unjust' - karma works perfectly precisely because it is the natural law of causality, not the judgement of any 'just/unjust' God high above. Hit the drum with a stick, a sound manifest, that alone is the perfection of the manifestation of causality. As Steven Norquist wrote: ...You see, with enlightenment comes the knowledge that even though there is much activity in the world, there are no doers. The universe is in a sense, lifeless. There is no one, only happenings and the experience of happenings. Enlightenment reveals that the universe emerges spontaneously. It’s emergence and pattern are perfect in mathematics and symmetry and involve no chance. Nothing is random, everything emerges exactly as it has to. There is no random chance, or evolution based on chance. The universe is perfect, nothing is wrong or could be. There seems to be chance or unpredictability from a human perspective but that is only because our time frame reference can not see the universe emerge through its whole life span in a matter of minutes. If we could see that, then we would clearly see how every event was not only perfect and necessary but even predictable...

forwarded

Agree...

First three nanas tend to be less mind-blowing and noticeable than the 4th even if they did occur. It is usually the 4th that make a big impression in people's mind and sets them on a spiritual search (if they do not have prior spiritual training - like a spontaneous A&P which happened to many including Daniel).

In my understanding, what you described is very clear description of A&P. I also had many moments of bliss without bright lights (what exactly manifests will not be the same every time). Anyway this experience isn't that uncommon. Anyway hope this helps, by Kenneth Folk (another dharma teacher who is one of Daniel's best friends) http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/The+Idiot%27s+Guide+to+Dharma+Diagnosis The Idiot’s Guide to Diagnosing the 16 Insight Knowledges One of the questions that yogis ask most often is “Where am I on the Theravada Progess of Insight map?” This is a legitimate question and there can be real benefit in knowing the answer. If you are able to align your own experience with the traditional descriptions of insight it helps you to have faith that this practice works, which in turn can motivate you to practice more. Furthermore, your teacher may suggest different practices depending on how far along you are in the process. Below is a simple guide, designed to be “idiot-proof.” It only includes the most obvious landmarks along the way. Familiarize yourself with these diagnostic criteria and use them to place yourself on the map. Case Study # 1: Report: “My meditation used to be good, but now there’s nothing but solid pain when I sit. I sometimes feel nauseous and I want to leave the retreat." Diagnosis: 3rd ñana, Knowledge of the Three Characteristics. “But I also have all kinds of cool insights about this and that.” Doesn’t matter. If you have persistent solid pain, you’re in the 3rd ñana. Case Study # 2: Report: “I had this incredible energy coursing through my body, tingled all over, saw white lights, and had unitive experiences.” Diagnosis: 4th ñana, Knowledge of the Arising and Passing Away of Phenomena. “But I had it while on drugs (or in a dream). I never even meditated.” Doesn’t matter. 4th ñana. Have a nice day. “But it was so real. I saw God. I know it was enlightenment.” No, it was the 4th ñana. Case Study # 3: Report: “At some time in the past, I had white lights, unitive experiences and delightful tingles. Now my meditation sucks and I hate everything.” Diagnosis: Dukkha ñanas 6-10, aka Dark Night of the Soul. “But I feel super enlightened.” Doesn’t matter. Dukkha ñanas. Thanks for asking. Case Study # 4: Report: I went through the 3rd, 4th, and dukkha ñanas (as described above) and now I feel fine every time I sit. Diagnosis: 11th ñana, Knowledge of Equanimity. “But I’m not having any insights.” Right. Knowledge of Equanimity. Case Study # 5: Report: I went through the 3rd, 4th, dukkha ñanas, and Equanimity ñana, (as described above), and then one day I was just sitting (or standing, or walking), there was a little blip, and I knew that something was different. It was as though a weight had lifted from me. I felt light and wanted to laugh for a couple of days. After that, my practice was noticeably different than anything that had gone before. Diagnosis: 14th and 15th ñana, Path and Fruition (1st Path). “But it was no big deal. More like an anticlimax. But it’s clear that some cycle was completed.” Exactly. Path and Fruition. Kenneth Folk 2009

4th nana (and the rest of the progression of nanas) is a very well documented state even in the ancient texts, a lot of practitioners have experienced the same thing - perceiving the arising and passing of phenomena and the bright lights, bliss, energetic phenomena, OBEs, lucid dreaming and meditating in dreams etc and other related A&P phenomena (the phenomena itself varies and what I listed are just some of my experiences - but usually bright lights will occur). I myself have experienced this several times both in and outside of meditation and even while lucid dreaming and meditating in dreams, so I am very familiar with this experience. There is little doubt that what beoman experienced was in fact the A&P. p.s. A&P is not 'super holy' in the sense that it is not yet even the first stage of enlightenment or sotapanna - but the A&P will lead to the dark nights (5th~10th nana), and if you continue practicing/investigating vipassana further it can be followed by equanimity (11th nana), then fruition/nirvana - which means you then attain the first stage of enlightenment, sotapanna/stream-entry. When I first described my experience to Daniel more than 2 years ago, here's what he replied: "...I agree, those all sound very A&P. Those experiences by their nature do not sustain, they move on to what is next. As to what to do then, most people need retreats to get things strong enough to get to stream entry, but there are a few rare people that do it without retreats. Each time you cross the A&P you have a shot at stream entry, which will then fade until it arises again, either spontaneously or through practice. In the meantime, some version of the Dark Night/Dukkha Ñanas always follow the A&P like thunder follows lightening, like smoke follows fire. Each person is different in terms of how that will manifest, but some aspect of its perspective will be there. What is it that you are trying to get out of this? What do you want to do?..." A more detailed description of the A&P can be found at http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram%27s%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/F46A4E80-C4FF-43C3-B6FF-5708E9E4CA15.html

Don't know... since he is purely Theravadin Vipassana practitioner (and now also an Actualism ( http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/ ) practitioner) rather than Dzogchen, I don't think Rainbow Body is his goal. But I think he would be at least open minded about it. But personally, I think it is definitely possible and not merely a belief since many have done it in the past and today, not once or a few times but on many occasions, with many eye witnesses and proof. Check out Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche's books, if you haven't. And good to receive his teachings... while he's still around (he's aging and I think the teaching role will gradually be transferred to his son).

You don't have to do mushroom to experience this. Sometimes the luminosity is so vivid and intense it brings tears and smiles, though completely sober. My friend wondered what's wrong with me.

I remember if I'm not wrong, reading a post in E-Sangha where a lama or rinpoche requested him to start teaching Dzogchen, but he turned down the request. Many years back.

Well, it actually depends on which Chan or Zen teacher you're talking about. This is actually a problem that isn't limited to Chan or Zen. It is pervasive to all kinds of traditions of Buddhism. It is pervasive in Theravada (particularly the Thai Forest Tradition) tradition, it is pervasive in Ch'an or Zen, it is also pervasive in Vajrayana (particularly those with shentong leanings). Though it could be argued that Chan or Zen has relatively a higher number of 'reification-inclined' teachings. Let me quote from Ch'an Master Sheng Yen who listed three stages of meditation, the first stage is merely relaxation, the second stage is the Big Self, and the third stage is No Self: http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Modern%20Teachers/Sheng%20Yen/What%20is%20Ch%27an/What%20is%20Ch%27an%20-%20Master%20Sheng-yen.htm When you are in the second stage, although you feel that the "I" does not exist, the basic substance of the universe, or the Supreme Truth, still exists. Although you recognize that all the different phenomena are the extension of this basic substance or Supreme Truth, yet there still exists the opposition of basic substance versus external phenomena. . . . One who has entered Chan (Zen) does not see basic substance and phenomena as two things standing in opposition to each other. They cannot even be illustrated as being the back and palm of a hand. This is because phenomena themselves are basic substance, and apart from phenomena there is no basic substance to be found. The reality of basic substance exists right in the unreality of phenomena, which change ceaselessly and have no constant form. This is the Truth.

Do go through these articles... * 1) Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment * 2) On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection * 3) Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives

Buddha kept quiet in some cases, but outright rejected in other cases such as the quotes I quoted from. Anyway regarding the Maha Brahma guy who thought he was God - http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol5no3f.htm: When he came to know about Sakyamuni Buddha in the human world who speaks of the universal truth, he was curious and arrived at the human world with the intention to debate with the Buddha. The Buddha, with his ability to know another's mind, knew his intention and asked, "You claim to be the creator of the human race and all things in the universe, is this a fact?" The king replied, "Yes, it is." Buddha continued to question him, "Since you created life, why did you also create death? Is death created by you too?" The king paused for while, and thinking that everyone loves life and nobody welcomes death, he replied, "I did not create death." Buddha asked him again, "All human beings experience sickness, did you create sickness also?" The king knew that nobody likes to be ill, and he replied, "I did not create illness." Buddha asked many questions in succession, but the king denied that he created them. Eventually, he admitted that he did not create the universe and all things in it, and certainly not the human race. The king of heavens was full of regrets and he felt ashamed. Finally, he accepted Buddha as his teacher and invited Him to spread the Dharma in the heavens.

Ramana Maharshi also talks about 'I am': Samadhi alone can reveal the Truth. Thoughts cast a veil over Reality, and so It is not realized as such in states other than samadhi. In samadhi there is only the feeling "I am" and no thoughts. The experience "I am" is being still.

Removed. I also misread your PM. Re-edited.

Let me put it this way based on my own experience: I AM is defined as the pure sense of existence, presence, awareness, that exists prior to thought. It is the sense that I AM, even without using thoughts - an undeniable sense of Being, an undeniable sense of Existence. It is a vivid self-existing clarity that is simply 'there' by default as your true essence, it is not constructed. Once you recognise/realise this, there is a natural certainty of just Being. You will not doubt Who You Are. You cannot doubt that. There is no room for doubt - or rather, even if so called 'doubts' arise, that sense of thoughtless certainty of being is still present even as the thought arises within that clarity. That clarity just IS. With or without thoughts, YOU ARE (not in labeling - but the undeniable sense of existing). No thought or person, even the Buddha, can shake one off this Certainty of Being when the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of this - not that Buddha would, anyway - the luminosity is not to be denied, just that the views needs to be continuously refined. Furthermore: The I AM does not have a tangible shape or form, but is clearly present/experienced as the Witness of all arisings. It is like an unmoving context, like a screen in which the entire display of life is shown in. The Witness is not experienced as personal, but as impersonal and universal in the way space is not owned by any person or object, but everything arises from that. The I AM is timeless and spaceless. IT is all-pervading. This I AMness has four subaspects and phases that can be matured, but I shall not discuss in the details. (it is not mentioned in my blog, but I have discussed it in my forum) This is not only in Michael Langford's book (which you correctly pointed out is actually pointing to the same experience as Thusness Stage 1). It is also taught by all Advaitins as the goal, whether they want to call it I AM, Self, Pure Consciousness, whatever. Different terms pointing to the same thing. Their goal is Self-Knowledge. However, some Advaitins do point out further insights into non-duality, which are similar to Thusness Stage 4. In Michael Langford's book however, it only talks about Stage 1. Thusness's Stages of Experience is written (2006) way before he heard of Michael Langford (which I told him in 2008), but he has *not* read his book even until now. I don't think he will be that interested to. You must see beyond the vocabularies and grasp what is it talking about. Because if you do, you will be able to see how the stages actually applies universally regardless of what vocabularies one uses (I am not saying everyone has to go through each stage, but rather how the realisations of people around the world can be mapped one way another to those stages). The vocabulary isn't really important, i.e. whether you want to call Emptiness as Emptiness, or Shunyata, or whatever. Or whether you want to call I AM as I AM, or Self, or Consciousness, etc. For example: there are some teachers who refer the I AM as 'No-Dog' (it is talking about the transpersonal Self that has 'no dog in the fight' and isn't affected by whether the body-mind lives or dies). People who do not know the term will not recognise it, but when I saw the description I can instantly recognise that yes, No-Dog is equivalent to I AM - whatever you want to call it, the meaning is the same. If you grasp the essence, you will recognise it in others even if the terminologies are different. However as I mentioned, Stage 1 to 4 are not 'Buddhist insights'. It does not mean that all Buddhists do not go through them, but rather, they are not the 'criteria' for Buddhist enlightenment. Stage 5 onwards are 'Buddhist insights'. Stage 5 is the Emptiness of Self, Stage 6 is the Emptiness of Dharmas, and together they form the twofold emptiness. Yes, I got it. Will look up on it when I visit a Buddhist bookstore next time. But what 'error of the view' are you exactly pointing to? Hmm can you elaborate? Is this the part that is supposed to be secret?

OK.

Let me ask you this: Do you consider Advaita and Buddhism enlightenment and experience to be the same? If you do, then you're in agreement with me. Then we can start discussing why it is diffferent. If you don't, then I have nothing much more to discuss with you. In fact I have already explained why they are different earlier in this thread.

What part of the "teaching"* is made up? Anatta? Emptiness? Told you this is universal in Buddhism. *I put teaching in quotes because as I said, Thusness does not consider himself a teacher. You did not reply me what you mean by 'nondualist'. I already told you that Thusness's view is completely different from Advaitins who teach nonduality as realising the union of Atman and Brahman. I said that non-conceptual experience of Atman/I AM is not the end of the path. Simple. Then I asked you whether you think that that experience is the end of the path/Buddhahood. If you don't, then you agree with me. I think you are duped by your own misunderstandings and narrowmindedness.