Seraph .'.:
An Eternal NowAh ok I found out that Seraph has already posted excerpts from his upcoming book "after anatta" into the internet. I'm not sure if he wants to reveal his real name, so I'll not post those links publicly here.
Real name, Soh?
Good one.
Whats real, anyway?

Have to add some new stuff I encoutered on the subject of anatta and the book is ready.

Look forward to reading your book

After anatta, for me, I looked into dependent origination as total exertion (+A) and resolving all appearances as non-arising (-A)
As Thusness told me before, "The path after anatta insight is not exactly the same from realizing non-arising nature. Both r equally valuable in my opinion."
Also he wrote:
"John Tan Haha Jackson, u never give up.
This heart is the "space" of where, the "time" of when and the "I" of who.
In hearing, it's that "sound".
In seeing, it's that "scenery".
In thinking, it is that "eureka"!
In snapping a finger, it is seizing the whole entire moment of that instantaneous "snapping".
Just marvelous such as it is on the fly.
So no "it" but thoroughly empty.
To u this "heart" is most real, to dzogchen it is illusory. Though illusory, it is fully vivid and brilliance. Since it is illusory, it nvr really truly arise. There is genuine "treasure" in the illusory.
I think Kyle has a lot points to share. Do unblock him.
Nice chat And happy journey jax!
Gone!
.........
John Tan Hi Kyle,
Actually I am saying instead of attempting to deconstruct endlessly, why not resolved that that pure experience itself is empty and non-arising.
In hearing, there is only sound. This clear clean and pure sound, treat and see it as the X (treat and see it like an imputation/conventional designation as u explained), empty and non-arising.
In seeing, just scenery, just this clear clean and lurid scenery. Where is this scenery? Inside, outside, other’s mind or our mind? Unfindable but nonetheless appears vibrantly.
This arising thought, this dancing sensation, this passing scent, all share the same taste. All experiences are like that -- like mirages and rainbows, illusory and non-arising, they are free from the 4 extremes.
Resolved that all experiences are non-arising then pure sensory experiences and conventional constructs will be of equal taste. Realize this to be the nature of experience and illusory appearances will taste magic and vajra (indestructible)! Groundless and naturally releasing!
Just my 2 cents of blah blah blah in new year."
Thusness: "try to understanding emptiness from DO (Dependent Origination). Not just empty."
And I wrote early this year:
"In deep contemplation, it can become apparent in direct experience and insight that all appearances are merely appearances, nothing arising or staying or ceasing... there is no actual birth of anything. Just like no matter what images appear on the movie or in a dream it will never amount to anything more than an appearance, without anything that truly come into existence. This is different from resolving non-arising through being-time. Lastly it is not that things are mental projections but that they are dependent arising.. what dependently originates is empty and nonarising appearance... momentary suchness, but still as vivid.
It is with some reluctance that I'm sharing this... I'm afraid that writing this might be a disservice to readers. I shall refrain from posting and discussing further about this. I do not wish this to become merely something to talk about, it has to be seen in direct taste and insight... so that one knows what the experience is like and what the realization is. Spouting big words or philosophizing about this do not mean anything."
Thusness in 2009:
"
Indeed Buddha Bra,
At first 'effort' to focus on experiencing
on the vividness of 'sensation' in the most immediate and direct way
will remain. It will be 'concentrative' for some time before it turns
effortless.
There are a few points I would like to share:
1.
Insight that 'anatta' is a seal and not a stage must arise to further
progress into the 'effortless' mode. That is, anatta is the ground of
all experiences and has always been so, no I. In seeing,
always only seen, in hearing
always only sound and in thinking,
always only thoughts. No effort required and never was there an 'I'.
2.
It is better not to treat sensation as 'real' as the word 'real' in
Buddhism carries a different meaning. It is rather a moment of vivid,
luminous presence but nothing 'real'. It may be difficult to realise
why is this important but it will become clearer in later phase of our
progress.
3. Do go further into the aspect of dependent
origination and emptiness to further 'purify' the experience of anatta.
Not only is there no who, there is no where and when in all
manifestation.Whatever said are nothing authentic. Just a sharing and happy Journey!" - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html
Also from a recent talk two weeks ago by Loppon Namdrol (Malcolm Smith):
"If you look at the Mulamadhyamakakarikas, if you look at all of the
treatises of the great Madhyamika masters, you'll discover that the key
thing they're all talking about, the view, is not emptiness! This is the
big mistake that people have. They think, Buddhist view is emptiness.
That's not true. The Buddhist view is non-arising, and that is the
consequence of Dependent Origination.
For example, in the sutta
nipata, there is an arahat who achieved final Nirvana. He passed away.
And, someone goes to the Buddha and says, you know, where's that guy
now? And the Buddha said, it is not appropriate to talk about the
non-existence of something which has achieved cessation. There's nothing
by which we can describe its non-existence. This is a really
interesting thing, because you see, Nagarjuna said in the 15th chapter
of the Mulamadhyamakakarika, he says, those that talk about existence,
non-existence, inherent existence and dependent existence have not
understood the truth of the Buddha's teachings.
If you can't
find the existence or the non-existence of phenomenon, you have no other
conclusions but to conclude that they don't arise. When you can be in
that state of non-arising, you actually discover for yourself
concretely, not left as an intellectual posture, then you have some
freedom. Then you should start to become a little bit free from your
emotional afflictions at that time. But if you think everything is just
empty, then you're going to be a little frustrated. Because thinking
that things are empty, and then (knocks the table) hitting something
solid, these things are totally contradictory.
But if you
understand, first through analysis, then through meditative stability,
and you have some confidence that everything is non-arising, doesn't
mean that things don't appear... I'll give you an example of something
which never arose yet appears. Now, a lot of people they hear about
illusionists in ancient India. Actually what these illusionists were...
because then they say a mantra over some sticks and some clumps of mud
and cloth, and then from that you see elephants and princes and
warriors, and these kinds of things. For those people who live in
Indonesia and nearby, who have been to Bali and seen like those Bali
puppet shows, where you know the person sits behind the screen and they
have those sticks, and they do the Ramayana and stuff like that... those
illusionists are really properly speaking should be translated as
puppeteers.
The point is, there is an appearance of a tiger for
example, or the appearance of an elephant in a puppet show. And when
you're there in a puppet show of course you'll believe it, why do you
believe it? Well it's just like watching a movie, you're spontaneously
suspending a disbelief. But for you, that tiger appears to arise, that
elephant appears to arise. It appears to be there. But in reality, it
never arose. There was never a tiger in that place, there was never an
elephant in that place, or a castle. You have to understand that this
metaphor is how we can understand dependent origination.
Through
the dependent origination of all these causes and conditions, we have
these appearances which seem to arise. But when we examine them, we go
to find them, we are like thirsty animals chasing a mirage of water. No
matter how close we get to that mirage, still, there is nothing to
drink. Ok, but there is an appearance. We couldn't say there wasn't an
appearance, but did water arise there? No. Water never arose there.
Ever. Not at any time.
So therefore we can understand,
everything is just like that illusion. Everything else is just like that
mirage, that is what it means when we say, things never arose. We can't
find them. They appear, true, I'm not saying that things don't appear,
of course they appear. But what's their nature? Their nature is, they
never arose. That's why in the tantras it say, Emaho, the secret of all
perfect Buddhas is, Perfect Buddhas never arose. Everything never arose
from the beginning, even arising never arose. I mean, this is a
beautiful statement, honestly. So, if you understand this, if you have
this understanding, then you have come to the limit of the view. You
have nothing more to investigate. But you have to do the work yourself,
you can't just listen to me waffle on about it, you have to do something
concrete."
"'If emptiness by nature is realized, understand that
there is no birth in samsara.' So here he's saying that if you realize
emptiness, this is freedom, this is liberation. 'Similar to a reflection
in the mirror, understand that the nature of appearances is emptiness.
Similar to a display seen in a dream, understand the nature of emptiness
is appearance.' So maybe we explain this a little bit. ' Similar to a
reflection in the mirror, understand that the nature of appearances is
emptiness.' that means that the appearances in a mirror have no
substances, they're unreal, just reflections. 'Similar to a display seen
in a dream, understand the nature of emptiness is appearance.' A dream
is empty, there's nothing there, but nonetheless things appear in a
dream. So this is how we understand it. They're the same metaphor but
Jetsun Gyaltsen cleverly reverses them."
"Non-arising is the
fundamental principle that Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings are trying
to get us to understand. And so if you understand that everything is
non-arising then you understand that birth, sickness, ageing and death
never happened.
Another good quote from the same talk:
"Manjusri
said, 'Whatever has arisen in dependence, has in truth, not arisen at
all.' So basically speaking, what we should understand is, and this by
the way incidentally is why Buddha's teaching on dependent origination
is the key factor, that differentiates it from other teachings. And
emptiness for example that is not derived from understanding dependent
origination will not be correctly understood emptiness. This is Really
what Nagarjuna is trying to get across to people. If you don't
understand emptiness based on dependent origination, you can have the
word emptiness in your mouth, but it's going to be a conceptual
emptiness. That conceptual emptiness if you meditate on it, that's going
to result in rebirth in one of the formless ayatanas of 'everything is
empty' because that is conceptual.
See
a lot of people think that emptiness is the big teaching of the Buddha,
but it's not. There were people before the Buddha that recognised there
was emptiness, that is why we have the formless ayatana of 'everything
is empty'. What is unique to the Buddha is understanding how to get to
the view of emptiness without creating a throwing karma in meditation
that will impel you into one of these formless ayatanas, one of these
formless states where you stay hanging out for gazillions and millions
of aeons until you exhaust the merits and then immediately fall into
avici hell, where you stay for many more millions of aeons until you
finally, slowly, work your way out."
Also, Piotr wrote:
Piotr:
Thusness gave me impt advice
to not skip and go directly to non-arising
but to see that non-arising comes from dependent origination
so instead of skipping
i took a look at this sensory appearance of immediacy
i had always this
mindblock
also apart from nihilistic grasping at is not
you know
that mind block that preventso ne to see how exactly DO
is not causality
of 4 extremes
arising from self, other, both and causelessly
so i look into AAAA
of guruyoga
and noticed that the fact it's dependent make it absurd to see AAA I produce
as stand-alone
seeing mere THIS without seeing that [DI, moments of continuum of pracitcioners of my lineage, energy of contemplation of dakas and dakinis]
my problem was how exactly dependent origination is not causality
but when i looked into this vast array of endliess dependency it's seen
nothing can be approached as stand-alone
"this" without "that"[secondary condition]
so this very pure sound of AA
cannot arise from itself since it lack stand-alone-ness and identity that would allow to even look at it as "it alone"
cannt arise from other since there is NOT SINGLE THING
that can be seen as stand alone
cant from both since its double mistake
cant causelessly since for it to be causeless is to see it as stand alone
so i had a little breakthrough of mental intellect
to see how endless dependency is actually what makes thing-ness
impossible
just like when i look
into window/glass
when i ride a bus
due to secondary causes
it superficially appears that there is transparent reflection of my body
"inside" glass/window
it's not really "inside" glass; it merely appears so. in reality it's mere reflection of secondary causes. but being mere reflection of secondary causes on contrary how inherent view thinks is not oming FROM real things
there is no coming from
there is only immediace complete mere apparition in glass that is not really there
but immediately vividly "appears" due to secondary cause
like mirror instantly reflects
without there being possiblity to see "arising" of reflection
there is immediate mere appearance
just immediate mere appearance
nothing really "inside" mirror
just like reflection of moon
only superficcialy seems to be "on" surface of water
while it's mere apparition immediate without coming and coing; mere reflection of endless dependency
but in realiy reflection of moon is neither inside water
not outside water surface
nor in-between
tthat is the point of watermoon analogy
not that moon in water
is not moon from sky
lol
i also did not understand it till recently
breakthru came yesterday
when riding buss
i looked into transparet reflection of my sillouette in teh window