Hi DhOers,

Here I have another compilation to share: AtR Guide - abridged version  

It’s about Soh Wei Yu’s Awakening to Reality blog and Thusness 7 stages of Enlightenment model. In fact, he already managed to condense his texts in a free doc AtR - Guide to Nature of Mind. But I thought an abridged version of it would be handy, as it’s still quite lengthy (about 1000+ pages). It's intended both for practitioners that know the model and for those new to it. Soh is ok with me sharing this compilation here.

While in DhO most practitioners work under the 4 Paths Model, have the investigation of the 3Cs from the get-go as the main guideline principle and cessations as a benchmark, the AtR crew (usually with Zen/Mahayana/Advaita backgrounds) follow this cycle-less (yet non-linear and non-hierarchical) model, where stillness, impersonality and luminosity are the initial guidelines at the start (the 3Cs are introduced later) and realization (deep insights) is the benchmark. Beside these initial differences, there is a lot of common ground, just a different stress on topics and milestones along the way.  

So far, I have completed three sections (Introduction, the 7 stages model and stage 1 – I AM ***). It’s still work in progress, but more than enough stuff to digest on a first attempt. I’ll be adding in the following weeks/months the other sections and links to AtR blog. 

Hope you enjoy the compilation!

Pepe

(***) Added: I included stages 2 and 3. The following ones are lengthy and complex, so it will take some time

Hey Pepe!
So... You are everywhere. Doing a great job as always I'm sure, and Soh definitely deserves closer scrutiny from people on this board.  I will give your comp. a close look asap.
with metta
smiling stone

Wow thanks. I've been working based on this map myself . This will be helpful.

You're welcome. Besides the detailed model, I like in particular the Four Aspects of I AM, as those pointers are in fact developed along all stages, not just initially. 

It's interesting their distinction between gradual vs direct path and subject vs object based focus. That not all awareness based approaches are direct path. What I've gathered is that subject based focus is spread around all religions (and out of them too), but object based focus like Mahasi noting is in fact sort of the black sheep of the flock. Vipassana on "outer" phenomena/agregates is not done in Thusness model until stage 6. 

For those searching for detailed instructions, check the entry Helper Pointers to I AM Awakening 

I have been reading about I AM, and it instantly helped my practice. I'm not sure how entirely. But one thing is it simplifies things tremendously. I'm working on getting away from the maps and just being here now, so it directly helps with that. Also it's an "attainment" I didnt know i attained and have taken for granted.

​​​​​​​Thanks for posting 

Just added the entries for Stage 4 - Presence as Mirror Bright Clarity 

"The taste of nondual Presence, previously felt to be a formless background, is now tasted in the foreground as sound, colors, scents, textures and fabric of whatever manifests, through a (partial) realization of No-Self and the penetration of the illusionary paradigm of subject-object/perceiver-perceived division or duality. It’s the beginning of nondual realization, but not yet the full maturity".

AtR includes in this section a Daniel Ingram's text I haven't spotted when doing his posts compilation. It's about 
Rigpa and the aggregates .

Hope you find it of value,
Pepe

I was always pretty skeptical when reading posts from these Thusness folks, often seeming too self-referential and verbose. But I am willing to change my mind, as this looks like a serious approach. I would also be interested in hearing a possible criticism.

I like this kind of attempt to put a map to maharshian nonduality, as we already have vipassana maps (Visuddhimagga/Mahasi -> MCTB ) or samatha stages (Asanga/Kamalasila -> TMI).

BTW, I loved the quotation with Angel Dilullo's step-by-step instructions, never before had I read the description of self-inquiry that "clicked" for me in a practical sense and not just in theory.

A short, but good introductory article on this topic: https://hackmd.io/@AtR/S1aUTsw3w

Also, I think that AtR model can solve the enigma about how Pemako crew claims they can get anyone to SE in a few weeks - they are probably gaining "I AM realization" and calling it Stream entry.

Yeah, I like Angelo's instructions, I follow them. I think they are good both as a stand-alone self-inquiry path and as a booster if you're in unable to step consistently in High-EQ or too comfortable in that late sub-stage before SE. 

I like Thusness model, but it's not easy to understand (theoretically speaking in my case) at a first glance. So making this abridged version of the AtR Guide helped a lot.

One way to see the model is that initially you go for a PCE (as in AF, but without all the emotional/affective luggage) restricted to the thought sense (Stage 1, I AM), while at the high-end you go for a PCE in all six senses (Stage 6) and Anatta is seen throughly not only in the Subject and Objects but also in the causes and conditions of Dependent Origination (Stage 7), where Anatta is effortless 24/7 and so some analytical investigation may be done without distorting the view.

A second way I see the model is that you first focus on discovering and developing the qualities of a formless background: I AM, I AM everything, The Source (very similar to Shinzen Young's description). Later you flip to the foreground by seeing-through (to some extent) the subject-object illusion, yet reifying some kind of material essence (One Mind) or counsciousness essence (No Mind). Finally, Anatta is first seen in the self (Stage  5), then in the aggregates (Stage 6) and ultimately in DO (Stage 7).
 
A third way I find to describe this model is that you work on the flip side of the 3Cs: Vividness for Impermanence, Effortlessness/Dropping for Dukkha, and a scale of grays for Anatta for an easy ride, that is, "spiritual cookies" along the way where you have something to hold-on to, but that are progressively retired. The big cookie here is that you start with a positive certainty ("Certainty of Being", a byproduct of a 'Subject' Model, at least in the first stages) while in our standard Theravadish 4 Path model (an 'Objects' Model, at least in the first stages) you start with 3 negative certainties as the underlying working principle. 

It's revealing Daniel Ingrams' impressive (!) personal account on PCE and the 3Cs (PCE mode and Cycling mode and as complementary The Three Characteristics and PCE), as that would probably be the best description of how insights show in Thusness model for DhOers, though you have to put aside all the worries about AF emotional stuff. In later posts, Daniel describes how his infatuation (my word, not his) with PCE erodes (the 'Dark Night of Actualism'), as it's intensity doesn't allow to see Anatta in all its grandour/simplicity (again, my choice of words), that regained or fully matured with the fall of 'The Veil'. In fact, one of the pilars of Thusness model is the "Four Aspects of I AM" where "the intensity of Luminosity" must be conveniently amp up or down in order for insights to emerge. 

As for "a possible criticism", the problem with all 'subject models' is that they offer "golden chains" all along the way, so you could think any stage you are in as the ultimate realization or be too cozy to take the risk of seeing what comes next. In fact, Thusness was stucked in I AM stage for over 20 years, and that's why he developed this model, so as to avoid that traps. In comparison, Theravadish 4 Paths Model seems more balanced regarding insights attainments and the emergence of new stuff to be faced, yet more bouncy in regards to peak and bottom mood/experiences. In comparison, Thusness model is described as joyful, yet they admit some darknightish lapses or energy imbalances along the way, and the tools offered to deal with them seem perhaps sketchy. It should be said that this Thusness model hasn't been properly written down and described throughly like say Daniel's MCTB, more like a open model that pragmatically 'converses and confronts' (my choice of words) with other Advaita, Zen, Mahayana and Tibetan models. 

Yes! Pemako/Kim Katami initial awakening is I AM, not SE, with its particular proportions of Impersonality  (+) and Luminosity (-).  Funny that they haven't figured out that yet. When models aren't clearly 'object based' or 'subject based' as I explain in the next post, that seems to happen. Probably that happens too with TMI model when applied to insight.

Wow... I am joyfully overwhelmed by this level of complex intersystemic analysis

This smells like a right path forward to a (possibly utopian) futuristic meta-dharma.

And since you mentioned Actualism... I never understood how is it possible that a method consisting of seemingly basic mindfulness and nondual exercices leads to attainments which are (if I understood Daniel correctly) completely orthogonal and incomparable to Buddhist awakening.

Is AF also orthonogal in comparison to AtR model?

So can one attain to both 'I AM' and stream-entry? How does one tell the difference? By the practice they did to reach that awakening? Is MCTB 4th path really equivalent to Anatta? I don't see anyone in the Awakening to Reality group recommending mastering the jhanas like Ingram recommends.

Relevant posts:
https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/ibzjcq/insight_is_the_16_insight_stages_experienced_when/

https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/iwze82/insight_can_self_inquiry_lead_to_stream_entry/

> "Is AF also orthonogal in comparison to AtR model?"

I don't think so, as they have the PCE in common and the emotional aspect as a difference. AF is really not my thing, so I cannot comment much more than that. That's why the links to Daniel's posts above are what you are looking for. 

> "So can one attain to both 'I AM' and stream-entry? How does one tell the difference? By the practice they did to reach that awakening?".

I AM and SE are different animals. I AM is a PCE restricted to the thought sense, as I posted above. A total stilling of the bodymind where a certainty of being emerges. SE involves a cessation where 2 or 3 of the 3Cs work as the door. Yet, Angelo Dilullo's I AM awakening have remarkable similarities (check his book Awake; it's your turn).

I AM:  

- A complete standstill. A pure sense of existence
- The mind exhausts itself and come to a complete standstill, and from that stillness comes an earthshaking revelation 
- This stillness absorbs, excludes and includes everything into just I. Neither external nor internal, neither observer nor observed

AFAIK, those who have travelled through the I AM road up to Anatta, haven't experienced cessations . There are some reports of cessation after NS, but not sure if that's really NS. And that topic is way out of my league. On the contrary, many of those who follow the 4 Paths model have experienced I AM as early as in A&P (Kenneth Folk), or in High-EQ or just post SE, or even only once attaining 4th Path (Daniel Ingram). But as I AM has as factors the depth of non-doership and of vividness, the old descriptions I have read of the Witness (I AM) in DhO and KFD look like a soft version. IIRC, Shargrol described two different versions of the Witness, one of them inside the head and the other more like boundless space.

> "Is MCTB 4th path really equivalent to Anatta? I don't see anyone in the Awakening to Reality group recommending mastering the jhanas like Ingram recommends".

John Tan and Soh Wei Yu match MCTB 4th Path with Thusness Stage 6, that is fully matured Anatta both in the self and the agregates/six senses. For what Stage 7 is, search above.

> "I don't see anyone in the Awakening to Reality group recommending mastering the jhanas like Ingram recommends".

At the Table of Contents of the compilation posted in the OP, you can easily spot the  I AM - Samadhi subsection. So yes, jhanas are seen as complementary practice. Plus, if you read One Mind and No Mind descriptions of Stage 4, you would easily see the connections with Jhanas 5 and 6. 

As for experimenting jhanas and ñanas in the PCE mode, Daniel Ingram pointed in the post I linked above:

"The PCE vanishes instantly like a mirage if you turn to emotions, nervousness, unhappiness, desire, fear, cycles, fantasies, jhanas, ñanas, any of that and the like"

Wow, thank you Pepe! Your straigtforwardness, detail, and care in answering questions on a platform like this is really uncommon. Thank you for your presence in this community!

Yes we consider I AM a PCE in thought sense door as it is pure and without self/Self/emotions/etc (but reified into an ultimate Self post-realization of I AM and prior to anatta), but the AF folks will not agree with this usage of the term 'PCE'. To them, I AM is purely ASC (an altered state of consciousness). To us, we integrate that realization of 'I AM' after anatta by seeing it in its proper perspective -- not as a soul or an entity but as just another natural happening/manifestation/appearance like all other sense doors without self/Self. It is just the pure consciousness of Mind, just as you can have pure consciousness of other sense doors like sound of bird chirping, the greenery of the garden, etc. You cannot deny your Mind is still conscious in a sensory deprivation chamber or in meditation even if other five senses are shut. So why is it not possible to have a PCE of the Mind door if one can have PCE of other sense gates?

However, PCE usually refers to a peak experience. The I AM can be a peak experience, but what is important is the Realization, so it becomes a an unshakeable certainty. Then one experiences a permanent shift in identity. https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/12/i-am-experienceglimpserecognition-vs-i.html

So experience of I AM may not equal realization of I AM, there are different degrees. There are also different degrees even after I AM realization, etc.
No, PCE may not have anything to do with the stages. You can have PCE at stage 0. I had PCEs way before I had any realization, where any sense of a self/Self/observer completely dissolves or 'died' and what's left is the total brilliance and vividness and luminosity and aliveness and hyper-reality of the trees, the floor, the universe. All these are just peak experiences. In ATR we call it an experience of no mind. But Stage 1 to 7 are realizations, realizations are permanent. Experience fades, but realization can make certain experience turn into a natural state. PCE before realising anatta (Stage 5) fades, but PCE becomes effortless natural state after Stage 5 realization. Stage 5 realization will make PCE natural state, you don't need Stage 6 for that. AF also did not go into Stage 6, in fact they will treat emptiness of phenomena as delusional because their whole praxis or paradigm or view is based on the ultimate reality and solidity of phenomena (the actual world) as opposed to its emptiness.

It is important to distinguish between experience and realization.

The words of Jigme Lingpa:
Understanding is like a patch, it wears off
Experiences are like the mist, they fade
Realization is like space, unchanging


Twofold emptiness is Stage 6. After anatta, with the right pointers one start to penetrate dependent origination in an experiential level. But twofold emptiness (emptiness of person AND phenomena) is Stage 6.

This can happen at Stage 5.


One Mind is not material essence, it is seeing consciousness as an unchanging and overarching and all-subsuming field of Awareness -- everything is within Awareness but Awareness is not merely the finite objects it expresses as.

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/10/differentiating-i-am-one-mind-no-mind.html


15/4/13 12:23:19 AM: John Tan: (One Mind) Means consciousness is of true existing like a container
15/4/13 12:23:54 AM: John Tan: Consciousness is not in the body but the body is in consciousness
15/4/13 12:24:25 AM: John Tan: Sound arises in consciousness
15/4/13 12:24:56 AM: John Tan: Therefore consciousness doesn't change
15/4/13 12:25:58 AM: John Tan: The other (No Mind) is as if consciousness is the substance of matter
15/4/13 12:27:36 AM: John Tan: When we say sound-consciousness, there is no such thing as sound and sound-consciousness
15/4/13 12:27:59 AM: John Tan: That sound is the sound-consciousness
15/4/13 12:28:24 AM: John Tan: There is no such thing as sound
15/4/13 12:28:36 AM: John Tan: Or sound-conscious
15/4/13 12:29:04 AM: John Tan: When we say I hear sound

15/4/13 12:34:19 AM: John Tan: How do u differentiate one mind from no mind to anatta?
15/4/13 12:34:43 AM: Soh Wei Yu: In no mind there is no subsuming involved there is only manifestation
15/4/13 12:34:47 AM: Soh Wei Yu: But as an experience
15/4/13 12:35:07 AM: Soh Wei Yu: In anatta there is insight into no agent in seeing just seen pure manifestation
15/4/13 12:35:20 AM: Soh Wei Yu: One mind is subsuming but yet nondual is experienced
15/4/13 12:37:11 AM: John Tan: One mind is u r always looking at an ultimate mind behind, u r not looking at manifestation
15/4/13 12:37:26 AM: Soh Wei Yu: But it's not I Am right
15/4/13 12:37:36 AM: John Tan: Yes it is not
15/4/13 12:38:18 AM: Soh Wei Yu: It's like integrating foreground as being an aspect of background
15/4/13 12:38:28 AM: John Tan: Everything is consumed into the source (for One Mind)
15/4/13 12:39:24 AM: John Tan: I m is just the pure background behind but external objects r not subsumed into it...like separate
15/4/13 12:39:48 AM: John Tan: I m I ....dualistic

15/4/13 12:41:53 AM: John Tan: In this case (One Mind) all is being consumed/subsumed into the source
15/4/13 12:42:45 AM: John Tan: Sound is consciousness is not one mind but no mind

15/4/13 12:44:02 AM: John Tan: When the hearer is gone and there is only sound, that sound is precisely consciousness
15/4/13 12:45:15 AM: John Tan: That is the experience of no-mind

15/4/13 12:50:31 AM: John Tan: No mind is like the mirror becomes transparent and there is just that
15/4/13 12:51:22 AM: John Tan: But the view is the reflection and the mirror is not the same
15/4/13 12:52:09 AM: John Tan: Like sky is not the flowing cloud


John TanFriday, November 22, 2013 at 8:25am UTC+08

But this is also good so that the point that a practitioner may hv clear experience of no mind but a view of one mind..
John TanFriday, November 22, 2013 at 8:26am UTC+08

Thus view, experience and realization


15/4/13 12:53:28 AM: John Tan: Anatta is a realization that there isn't a consciousness besides sound, scenery...etc
15/4/13 12:56:15 AM: John Tan: U c through reification of that agent and get in touch with the base manifestation  where the label rely upon
15/4/13 12:57:02 AM: John Tan: So sound is the actual consciousness is referring to
15/4/13 12:57:36 AM: John Tan: There is no consciousness other than that

15/4/13 1:01:13 AM: John Tan: When they see through reification, then phenomena has a different meaning
15/4/13 1:02:04 AM: John Tan: Seeing everything as awareness is not one mind
15/4/13 1:02:52 AM: John Tan: Seeing everything as the same unchanging mind is the problem
15/4/13 1:04:09 AM: John Tan: When u c through reification, u realized "awareness" is just a label point to these manifestations
15/4/13 1:04:32 AM: John Tan: So there is nothing wrong saying that
15/4/13 1:05:24 AM: John Tan: Only when we treat awareness to b of true existence then we r deluded because there isn't any
15/4/13 1:11:14 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I see..
15/4/13 1:11:36 AM: John Tan: In hearing, there is only sound
15/4/13 1:11:57 AM: John Tan: Hearing implies the presence of sound

14/5/13 9:39:15 PM: John Tan: One mind is different
14/5/13 9:40:04 PM: John Tan: One mind as I told u is the witness is gone but subsume into an overarching Awareness
14/5/13 9:40:31 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Is there a distinct phase of one mind in your seven stages?
14/5/13 9:40:48 PM: John Tan: Phase 4
14/5/13 9:41:23 PM: Soh Wei Yu: But u said phase 4 u already realised anatta and experience no mind?
14/5/13 9:41:51 PM: Soh Wei Yu: So does that mean the insight already arise by tendency to sink back to one mind is still there
14/5/13 9:42:03 PM: Soh Wei Yu: But
14/5/13 9:42:17 PM: John Tan: All such gray area is put onto phase 4 insight when view isn't completely clear
14/5/13 9:42:44 PM: John Tan: There is no way to describe the grey scale
14/5/13 9:43:24 PM: John Tan: Even in anatta there r so many different degree of refinements
14/5/13 9:43:34 PM: Soh Wei Yu: I see
14/5/13 9:43:59 PM: John Tan: But it is not practical to talk abt all
14/5/13 9:44:44 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. U mean not describable
14/5/13 9:45:32 PM: John Tan: No...not that it is not describable but not practical to describe
14/5/13 9:46:48 PM: John Tan: Like AF is part of the deviation looking into purely physical flesh and blood of pure experience ... Some went into details some does not
14/5/13 9:47:51 PM: Soh Wei Yu: What do u mean by went into details
14/5/13 9:48:54 PM: John Tan: It is like I M, there r all those experiences u undergone but I do not say they r diff phases


14/4/13 7:35:01 PM: John Tan: When u say "weather", does weather exist?
14/4/13 7:35:20 PM: Soh Wei Yu: No
14/4/13 7:35:42 PM: Soh Wei Yu: It's a convention imputed on a seamless activity
14/4/13 7:35:54 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Existence and non existence don't apply
14/4/13 7:36:02 PM: John Tan: What is the basis where this label rely on
14/4/13 7:36:16 PM: Soh Wei Yu: Rain clouds wind etc
14/4/13 7:36:25 PM: John Tan: Don't talk prasanga
14/4/13 7:36:36 PM: John Tan: Directly see
14/4/13 7:38:11 PM: John Tan: Rain too is a label
14/4/13 7:39:10 PM: John Tan: But in direct experience, there is no issue but when probed, u realized how one is confused abt the reification from language
14/4/13 7:39:52 PM: John Tan: And from there life/death/creation/cessation arise
14/4/13 7:40:06 PM: John Tan: And whole lots of attachment
14/4/13 7:40:25 PM: John Tan: But it does not mean there is no basis...get it?
14/4/13 7:40:45 PM: Soh Wei Yu: The basis is just the experience right
14/4/13 7:41:15 PM: John Tan: Yes which is plain and simple
14/4/13 7:41:50 PM: John Tan: When we say the weather is windy
14/4/13 7:42:04 PM: John Tan: Feel the wind, the blowing...
14/4/13 7:43:04 PM: John Tan: But when we look at language and mistaken verb for nouns there r big issues
14/4/13 7:43:22 PM: John Tan: So before we talk abt this and that
14/4/13 7:43:40 PM: John Tan: Understand what consciousness is and awareness is
14/4/13 7:43:45 PM: John Tan: Get it?
14/4/13 7:44:40 PM: John Tan: When we say weather, feel the sunshine, the wind, the rain
14/4/13 7:44:58 PM: John Tan: U do not search for weather
14/4/13 7:45:04 PM: John Tan: Get it?
14/4/13 7:45:57 PM: John Tan: Similarly, when we say awareness, look into scenery, sound, tactile sensations, scents and thoughts

OK.

“The nonexistence of the personal self was taught for the sake of the Shravakas and Pratyeka-buddhas. By contrast, the nonexistence of both the phenomenal and the personal self was set forth to enable Bodhisattvas to attain the wisdom of omniscience. It is true that the Shravakas and the Pratyekabuddhas understand dependent arising, the mere conditionedness of phenomena, but they do not meditate on the complete nonexistence of the phenomenal self. They concentrate instead on the complete nonexistence of the personal self as a means to eliminate the emotional afflictions experienced in the three worlds of samsara.” - Chandrakirti, quoted from the book Introduction to the Middle Way: Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara with Commentary by Jamgon Mipham

7 is not exactly a separate stage from 6 or 5 but is related.

Thusness (John Tan) wrote to Kim123 in 2009 who he thought would more appropriately benefit from Vipassana instructions (in contrast to starting with self-enquiry as outlined in this guide):
“As a start it is almost not possible not to feel dualistic. An observer observing the observed is our ordinary experience and it will appear that this is an experiential fact. Therefore we should not rush into anything but just simply recognize the ‘cause’. The cause that made us see in such a way is termed ‘ignorance’. Try to understand ‘ignorance’ not as not knowing but a form of knowing instead. See it as a very deep form of ‘dualistic knowing’ that we have taken it to be truth. We then proceed to overcome this wrong view in 2 steps; one by strongly and firmly establishing the right view to replace our existing ‘dualistic and inherent view’ and second, practice seeing in bare attention to lessen the grip of views. Practice being bare in bodily sensation till there is a very strong clear mirror feeling in bodily sensation. Then with the right view, non-dual will dawn. Without the right view, it will most likely turn into a mirror reflecting phenomena experience.
Practices can take decades and often quite frustrating and challenging during the journey. But have faith, be patient and have confidence, all effort will prove worthwhile eventually.
A simple summary I use to help my practice:-

When there is simply a pure sense of existence;
When awareness appears mirror like;
When sensations become pristine clear and bright;
This is Luminosity.

When all arising appear disconnected;
When appearance springs without a center;
When phenomena appears to be on their own without controller;
This is No Doer-ship.

When subject/object division is seen as illusion;
When there is clarity that no one is behind thoughts;
When there is only scenery, sounds, thoughts and so forth;
This is Anatta.

When phenomena appears pristinely crystal;
When there is merely one seamless experience;
When all is seen as presence;
This is Non-dual Presence.

When we feel fully the unfindability and unlocatability of phenomena;
When all experiences are seen as ungraspable;
When all mind boundaries of in/out, there/here, now/then dissolve;
This is Emptiness.

When interconnectedness of everything is wholly felt;
When arising appears great, effortless and wonderful;
When presence feels universe;
This is Maha.

When arising is not caged in who, where and when;
When all phenomena appear spontaneous and effortless;
When everything appears right every where, every when;
This is Spontaneous Perfection.

Seeing these as the ground of all experiences;
Always and already so;
This is Wisdom.

Experiencing the ground in whatever arises;
This is Practice.

Happy journey."



He was born in 1967, realised I AM at the age of 17 (1984?), realised anatta in 1997, so he was stuck at I AM for 13 years.

I've known many who are stuck there for their whole life though. Personally though, my practice inclined towards Awareness practice since I was maybe 15, then I started practicing self enquiry at 17 and after two years I realised the I AM, but my I AM phase was only 6 months (February to August), then I was in nondual phase for 2 months, then anatta. That's only possible due to the pointers, so I didn't get stuck there.

He didn't 'develop the model' simply to avoid traps but as useful pointers to guide people along the path, but his pointers certainly did prevent a lot of obstacles and shortened the time it takes to progress through the phases of insights. The 7 stages, initially 6 stages was shared to someone from Canada which triggered a nondual breakthrough for that person, as John Tan observed that he has the conditions for breakthrough and true enough he did have a breakthrough. He simply shared his whole journey, and advised according to his own experience.

The four aspects of I AM, the two stanzas, etc, are simply 'what worked out' for him and helped him. So he shared them and that helped many.

Frank Yang went through them cessations, I AM, non dual and anatta.

Frank Yang went through I AM during his so called second path (?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t8KvdMtT4A&feature=emb_title

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGN9nCJ33Tk

Hey Soh, thanks for the clarifications! Much needed your help  in understanding Thusness 7 stages model. Thanks again!

Ajahn Brahmavamso went the Jhanas to I AM to anatta route.

Yes, what I said is that those who choose the I AM route only, don't experienced cessations (AFAIK) but not the other way round. That is, people who did have cessations might (or might no) experience the Witness, if inclined to.

You are welcomed! Just double check what I write, as there are always nuances to be taken into consideration, as Soh's posts clearly show ​​​​​​​

Yes that is quite right.

By the way thanks for your effort and sharing I'm sure it will be of help to many... Will take a look more deeply as soon as possible but been a little busy lately..

What's the difference between 'I am' and rigpa?

It is rigpa. It is the initial unripened rigpa. I AM is unfabricated pristine consciousness or presence-awareness. 

Kyle Dixon told me that I AM is unripened initial rigpa personally and also this is consistent with what I learnt from Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith.

See www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/09/the-degrees-of-rigpa.html

Excerpts:


"We don’t have any misunderstanding. Again this is rhetoric versus reality, up until the third vision, “emptiness” is obscured and therefore at the time of direct introduction it is merely rhetorical. The nature of mind, as non-dual clarity and emptiness is not truly known until the third vision, again per Longchenpa, per Khenpo Ngachung, etc., not something I have made up. What do we generally recognize in direct introduction? We recognize clarity [gsal ba], and the aspect of vidyā that is concomitant with that clarity. Vidyā is then what carries our practice, but vidyā is not the citta dharmatā, the nature of mind.
This is why the first two visions are likened to śamatha, and the last two are likened to vipaśyanā."

• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · [url=https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/permalink/4461417257233003/?comment_id=4461810010527061&__cft__[0]=AZW3r12H8e4cerJ68e_IazJw287aARPly7MgXlg-lxZdizJFda1EDQFJYJW13Ugm9tCFD2jQX5hT2eMdMogkG7JC8RkfyCm3hzrBcf-W0BLQoU4IBUZuuFvQ84gN8PIXfBkfbUwM7PgW7BB7qvSCosTxCkd-kGvW1jT41mzkxvdtPzRruUwHGqbvO0STloX4D96SewqLBUpxC_Gevjx1w4y1-e4awDlqz6Qu1iuxHQB7bFUszZZCGKZ5KKOKh7PXwuRFxk7aBHxKlbx4WRDuBZcA&__tn__=R]-R]13m
• 
  

[url=https://www.facebook.com/groups/571719226202845/user/668785225/?__cft__[0]=AZW3r12H8e4cerJ68e_IazJw287aARPly7MgXlg-lxZdizJFda1EDQFJYJW13Ugm9tCFD2jQX5hT2eMdMogkG7JC8RkfyCm3hzrBcf-W0BLQoU4IBUZuuFvQ84gN8PIXfBkfbUwM7PgW7BB7qvSCosTxCkd-kGvW1jT41mzkxvdtPzRruUwHGqbvO0STloX4D96SewqLBUpxC_Gevjx1w4y1-e4awDlqz6Qu1iuxHQB7bFUszZZCGKZ5KKOKh7PXwuRFxk7aBHxKlbx4WRDuBZcA&__tn__=R]-R]Soh Wei Yu

"I’ve never met anyone who gained any insight into emptiness at direct introduction. Plenty who recognized rigpa kechigma though.
I don’t presume to know better than luminaries like Longchenpa and Khenpo Ngachung who state emptiness isn’t actually known until third vision and so on. You may presume otherwise and in that case we can agree to disagree."
- Kyle Dixon -R&c[0]=AT371c2RdlHi_1dNXGplZ13Z7LdH9rN8pDkoCeq2MzrrWGxP_lBfJsaw2t4h_BXAJ1vyk3qOw32P6DCx1ujhcqyChELiQVd-kukJiTHNaxF_0S1XDaWtI32KnmK5LA1AFdBagRUWwmoW-zglRlPVpJbcNcqtU0fSbxrdT4EfyFAeB2dLMLrJ8gybVD_mUgpIahp5ioSlCN_-FIY6LNvRnkEb1yGpx2BrGJlidStFNrb2Z8yWJBVV5lXOLLNUQ-tCs4Hj8w]https://www.reddit.com/.../how_exactly_does_one_realize.../
 
 
 
..................
 
 
Soh wrote to Mr. J: as John Tan also said before, and also reiterated by many (including Malcolm, Dalai Lama, etc) who went through similar phases... there is distinct phase - realizing Awareness [although Malcolm does not use this term in the same way] or the unfabricated clarity aspect of rigpa, and realizing emptiness are distinct realizations. Even longchenpa and other dzogchen masters would point out that realizing emptiness only happens in thodgal practice at the third vision.

John Tan's reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:
“This is like what I tell you and essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing [its] Nature. First apprehend Mind, later realise [its] Nature).

First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like zen sudden enlightenment of one's original mind or mahamudra or dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa or even self enquiry of advaita -- the direct, immediate, perception of "consciousness" without intermediaries. They are the same.

However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) yet. If you go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, you will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots are.

Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between buddhist's anatta and selflessness of other religions -- whether it is anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness.

The former focused on selflessness and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self whereas the latter is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.

As for emptiness there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness of Tsongkhapa and there is the emptiness free from extremes by Gorampa. Both are equally profound so do not talk nonsense and engaged in profane speech as in terms of result, ultimately they are the same (imo).”

Dalai Lama - "Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels...." - Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book

Conventional and ultimate reality sounds dualistic.

Huang Po: On no account make a distinction between the Absolute and the sentient world.

Not the same thing. There is no “Absolute” anyway, I do not like that term. That is usually taken to be brahman, a substantial ground of being.

The ultimate is simply the emptiness of the conventional.


The Dalai Lama has this explanation here:

https://www.lamayeshe.com/article/happiness-karma-and-mind

Through the gates of the five sense organs a being sees, hears, smells, tastes and comes into contact with a host of external forms, objects and impressions. Let the form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental events which are the relations of the six senses be shut off. When this is done the recollection of past events on which the mind tends to dwell will be completely discontinued and the flow of memory cut off. Similarly, plans for the future and contemplation of future action must not be allowed to arise. It is necessary to create a space in place of all such processes of thought if one is to empty the mind of all such processes of thought. Freed from all these processes there will remain a pure, clean, distinct and quiescent mind. Now let us examine what sort of characteristics constitute the mind when it has attained this stage. We surely do possess some thing called mind, but how are we to recognize its existence? The real and essential mind is what is to be found when the entire load of gross obstructions and aberrations (i.e. sense impressions, memories, etc.) has been cleared away. Discerning this aspect of real mind, we shall discover that, unlike external objects, its true nature is devoid of form or color; nor can we find any basis of truth for such false and deceptive notions as that mind originated from this or that, or that it will move from here to there, or that it is located in such-and-such a place. When it comes into contact with no object mind is like a vast, boundless void, or like a serene, illimitable ocean. When it encounters an object it at once has cognizance of it, like a mirror instantly reflecting a person who stands in front of it. The true nature of mind consists not only in taking clear cognizance of the object but also in communicating a concrete experience of that object to the one experiencing it.* Normally, our forms of sense cognition, such as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., perform their functions on external phenomena in a manner involving gross distortion. Knowledge resulting from sense cognition, being based on gross external phenomena, is also of a gross nature. When this type of gross stimulation is shut out, and when concrete experiences and clear cognizance arise from within, mind assumes the characteristics of infinite void similar to the infinitude of space. But this void is not to be taken as the true nature of mind. We have become so habituated to consciousness of the form and color of gross objects that, when we make concentrated introspection into the nature of mind, it is, as I have said, found to be a vast, limitless void free from any gross obscurity or other hindrances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have discerned the subtle, true nature of the mind. What has been explained above concerns the state of mind in relation to the concrete experience and clear cognizance by the mind which are its function, but it describes only the relative nature of mind.

There are in addition several other aspects and states of mind. In other words, taking mind as the supreme basis, there are many attributes related to it. Just as an onion consists of layer upon layer that can be peeled away, so does every sort of object have a number of layers; and this is no less true of the nature of mind as explained here; it, too, has layer within layer, slate within state.

All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self.


….

also, the dalai lama has a more recent book that talks about the anatta insight: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/02/dalai-lama-on-anatta-and-emptiness-of.html
​​​​​​​
Also

Kyle Dixon wrote before:

It is important to understand the concept of 'conventional truth' in Buddhism, because you may ask why these texts are stating that there is a 'self-nature' and a 'basis' and so on, why would they be doing this if these things are in fact unestablished and ultimately unreal? It is because the ultimate truth of things is their non-arising or emptiness, and what are those 'things' that are ultimately empty? They are conventions which are mistaken to be real things. So these alleged conventional objects are precisely what are realized to be unreal, and this means that we can relate to conventions freely because they are never pointing to anything actually 'real' or established. All conventions are simply useful nominal designations, tools for communication. The problem arises when we mistake these conventions to be something more than just a convention.

Conventions are reliable as long as they are not subjected to keen investigation. That is how 'convention' is defined per buddhism, a correct convention [tathyasaṃvṛti] is, according to Śāntarakṣita; "something can be tacitly accepted as long as it is not critically investigated, that is characterized by arising and decay, and that has causal effectivity." So the validity of a convention is measured by its efficacy, if it appears to function correctly, then it can be accepted as a correct convention prior to its investigation. In the wake of investigating any convention it will fail, since conventions cannot withstand proper scrutiny.

So there is no problem stating that there is a 'self-nature', because when that convention is subjected to scrutiny that self-nature would be ultimately unfindable. Yet the term "self-nature" is a conventional designation that is pointing to the capacity of 'wisdom' mentioned above, which is completely free from the extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither.

For instance, Longchenpa discusses that nature here:

"Mind itself [i.e., the nature of mind: tib. sems nyid] - naturally occurring timeless awareness [i.e., self-originated primordial wisdom: tib. rang byung ye shes] - has no substance or characteristics. Since it is empty yet lucid and free of elaboration, it cannot be conceived of as 'this' or 'that'. Although it can be illustrated by a metaphor - 'It is like space' - if one reflects on space as the metaphor, it proves to have no color, no shape, or anything about it that is identifiable. Therefore, if the metaphor being used does not refer to some 'thing', then the underlying meaning that it illustrates - mind itself, pure by nature - is not something that has ever existed in the slightest."

8 liked this (Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 10:14am)

Thanks for the clarification.

In my experience with the Two-Part Formula of Pemako it's definitely not just I AM realization. When you see throught the subject-self using the Two-Part Formula, you don't simply shift identification from the personal self to awareness but you see through identification in general. How long this insight/cessation lasts is different for different people but what lasts for everyone who wakes up is the certainty about not being a personal self. So it might be the case that someone conceptually frames his awakening as "I AM" but this isn't what awakening is about. Awakening is the first true and certain taste of emptiness/shunyata, going beyond all identification.

That's why I'm saying that there are different flavours of I AM. As what you say, there's more focus on the Impersonality aspect (no-self, etc), yet not a fully matured Anatta. The 2PF is Katami's customized version of a Self-Inquiry method for the last mile before initial awakening, and so I group it under the 'subject based' method for comparative reasons, not to say if it stands above or below other methods.  

By the way, that's just my appreciation, I'm not speaking on behalf of Soh Wei Yu, John Tan or any other of that group.

Hey DhOers!

The compilation is now complete! AtR Guide - abridged version 

This time, I had the blessing that a highly skilled meditator took charge of compiling the text for half of Stage 5 and all of Stages 6 and 7, as the topics are subtle and hard to grasp intellectually. It's all about deepening the insights once Bahiya Sutta sinks in and finally integrating Anatta, Total Exertion and Non-Arisen Nature of Phenomena.

Soh Wei Yu will happily answer further questions.

​​​​​​​Enjoy!