Thought this might interest some of you:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/06/awakening-explained-ep-1-wdr-angelo.html

He attained equivalent of MCTB fourth path although through a more nondual-immediate/direct/inquiry sort of approach. He's also a co-admin of my group but he has his own group as well.

Thank you for sharing this. I clicked on it out of skepticism and had no intention of listening to it, but here I find myself over 90 minutes into the first video in the series. I'd personally put this discussion up there with some of the better interviews that Daniel Ingram has done. I think Angelo comes off as pretty down to earth and basically sane. 

Much of what Angelo has said resonsates with what I have read on this forum or have heard other advanced practitioners discuss/report. I'd say this interview/discussion would be interesting to folks who are fans of MCTB and Ken McLeod's "Wake Up to Your Life" because there are elements of 'this can be done' and also 'reactive patterns & habitual ways of seeing are getting in the way and cause suffering'. He also touches on how there are destabilizing aspects to the waking up process and how awakening doesn't confer any special status or abilities on a person. It's also coincidental that he is an MD and mentions how waking up allowed him to pursue medical school - which is similar to what Daniel says in the '10% Happier Podcast' when discussing how he was able to function better as a result of insight.

There are certain points that were made or certain ways things were framed that I didn't quite agree with, but as a whole, I found the first video discussion to be enthralling. I look forward to finishing the series.

I got his book for free by subscribing to his facebook group and browsed through it.   I read the transcripts of two interviews, then downloaded his simply awake app for a listen to several guided meditations.   " Pragmatic, zen-flavored advaita " is how I would describe his teaching or non-teaching.  He comes across as really a really grounded, normal, matter-of-fact kind of guy.  It seems that he is been practicing for at least 25 years after an initial kensho and looks like the website with videos has been up for a few years.   

Thanks for sharing. Only watched 40
mins but seems pretty solid. Always interesting to see how different people take such different paths to recognize what they've always known. 

Curious about the "equivalent of MCTB fourth path" (maybe I just need to watch/read more ...)

Maybe it's just that people have different ways of forgetting it 

His third video on Attention describes certain insights that are correlated with the description of fourth path in MCTB.

​​​​​​​if that is not enough, he has an entire chapter describing stages of awakening in his book. 

Part 4 of the interview is out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0og3nrsNC8

I watched a couple of videos and then decided to grab the book! I've finished reading it, and I would say the section on emotions really resonated with me where I'm currently at in my practice. It feel very helpful. Additionally, I haven't been introduced to 'Inquiry' before, and am curious to play around with it a bit. I like that it's something I seem to be able to do in a comfortable way without needing to stabilize the mind with concentration for 20 minutes first.

Occaisonally it felt a bit vague and repetitive, but he also explains at the beginning of the book that this is intentional and part of the 'pointing' aspect of the book. I did indeed feel like the book pulled me along effectively, so I think this may have at least partially worked.

Basically: I liked it!

Watched #2, hands down the funniest dharma talk I ever heard 

Me too, got book.

Part 5!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbezCWitG_E

I'm stuck on the 'unfiltered reality' bit, because I like science and science says all our senses are conditioned and processed before being delivered, like your goodies from ebay, to their final destination - namely the little homunculus that lives in our head.

Just because you got rid of the homunculus, does that mean the brain isn't filtering and processing reality from photons (granting current model for a moment) to whatever it is we're seeing ?

By 'unfiltered reality', does that mean unnaffected by emotional and mental activity, but still undergoing neural processing and filtering -
ie. I'm meant to read between the lines a bit here.

Of course, when you consider our ideas about photons themselves as products of the filtering process then it gets especially tricky.

Or does it mean digging down through all those those processes and filters as much as possible ?

I could see this leading to some naive realism, in which instead of someone saying that we translate some electromagnetic wavelength out there and end up with red qualia, that a red thing really is red and wavelengths are just a physics fantasy.

On the other hand I'm sure it can be approached by saying that naive realism, materialism, idealism, whatever you've got, can all be seen as empty of essence, non-dual and transitory. Like a non-dual materialism.


OK some 4th path people say they see the world in 2D - so that's not just a filter lost, but a whole chunk of processing bypassed.

So, tricky thought experiment - could a brain surgeon, theoretically, open up the skull and break the bit of brain that creates 3d - yet leave the sense of self intact ?
ie., have the perceptual side effects of 4th path but without the actual awakening ?

And if you knew the brain well enough could you, theoretically, use science to selectively go anywhere on the contemplative map, or deconstruct any perceptual process, in any combination you want ?

ie. push a button and go to 4th path, maybe flip a switch and reduce 3D to 2D, turn a dial and add in some aspect of a jhana as well ?

So, let's postulate, it's the year 2075 and we can buy a rechargable Samsung Brainalizer in which we can dial in any place on any contemplative map, and blend in any cognitive or perceptual effect.

Or maybe the government will dial it in for you, for the sake of 'social harmony' ?

Or are we looking at things too fundamental to be tinkered with electronically ? Or that we are dealing with things no government can control, despite their hubris, because government is the tail and life is the dog ? And we're coming to the end of the holocene and all that goes with it, anyway ?

It's interviews like this that make me think buddhism is all about breaking your brain and it's concommitant sense of self, which has taken millions of years to evolve, simply because life gets a bit tough sometimes, but that really the direction in which evolution points is toughing out the duality and developing the thought world. Maybe even evolving duality into triality or quadrality. Suffering four selves at once ! (Some people already say they experience all the suffering of humanity - stuff like that).

But somebody has to retain knowledge of the most basic ways of seeing, and as things stand, the human population is mixed with regards to how things are seen, and maybe always will be.
?? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

...anyway terrific book, thoroughly recommend.

That's how I understand it currently. My personal intepretation of all of this stuff is that I'm 'trying to see what it's like to be a meat-computer'. Like sure, rationally I understand that photons are hitting receptors and whatnot, but I also acknowledge that the only way I will ever experience a photon is ultimately as a neurons firing. Like I just don't get to know if there's anything actually out there, (Descarte's whole hangup with the demon), and so in one sense experience *is* reality. It's the thing that actually happens to me.

I'll also say I do believe there is actually a world out there -- we've got models with great predictive power. It's just worth noting that that's *all* we've got - everything I personally will experience is just my sense perceptions as filtered through my brain's model of reality.I personally like the stereo-fusion that my brain does to generate a sense of depth and don't have much interest in messing with it, but I actually find this quite inspiring nontheless - it hints at the 'reprogrammability' of this whole experience. I'm personally focused on getting rid of suffering - it just seems stupid to spend so much time fighting with myself as I attempt to go about my life.I think it's worth noting that, from an evolutionary perspective, probably some of the new brain modules that have come online might make parts of the old ones obselete - i.e. maybe the ability to do complex planning makes some of the simpler reactive parts of the brain more of a hindrance than a help, other than in true life/death situations.

Personally, I would guess that 'toughing out the duality and developing the thought world' would be possible with regard some of my own hangups, but I've spent a long time trying to do that with only moderate success, and the promise of reprogramming something more fundamental to deal with the whole class of problems is very appealing.

Hi Logan, I think, reading further in, he is also getting into the sensory processing, to the point of taking time and space out of the world's phenomena and revealing the boundless, alive and eternal qualities (if qualities be the right word) of it. 'Infinity in a grain of sand'.

I'll leave the 2d thing for people better qualified to comment.

Reading his section on thought, examining thought and the disease nature of certain kinds of thought, I'm minded that actually thoughts are sometimes the product of disease - inflammation can cause depression, all sorts of biological troubles can cause unhappy thoughts. Even gut flora issues can alter thought and mood if you have the wrong bacteria reproducing in you.
So I wonder how far this equivalence of thought and cell can be taken, and if unhappy thoughts and the deep layers of self being addressed here are, quite literally, either invasive cells, or our own cells struggling to survive in a symbiosis that's got out of whack or become obsolete ?
In other words we are subject to self-cells obscuring reality with their own version. I certainly wouldn't be the first to postulate a mind virus behind all our ills (I know a virus isn't a cell, but in that sort of area).
Or the human system and it's context might not be reducible to biology. Hmm. Anyway I don't think there is an antibiotic of awakening that you can take - Nirvanacillin :-)

I admit I find what people say about emotions after awakening to be completely confusing - because nobody can seem to agree on whether claims of non-emotional awakening are possible.

Most famous exponent on this being Gary Weber (although there are others) who says emotions have basically gone, post-awakening. The DO buddhists don't like this at all and think he's lying or deluded. They've met him and I haven't, so I have to be circumspect.

On the other hand, the DO buddhists here have plainly found things outside of their own religion to be true, so I remain open that buddhism isn't the final word on everything.

Big problem is that if someone claims non-emotionality is possible when it isn't is that you might end up repressed instead of free.
Big problem if someone claims emotions never end is that there may be an unexplored level of freedom.

DO buddhists have a big network of experienced and clever people to draw on when looking at human potentials, so they might be right. Then again maybe not, I have no idea.

The degree to which people experience emotions are naturally wildly variable (alexithymia,  autism, psychopathy etc).  between people outside of the contemplative scene, let alone including all the stuff people can deliberately do on cushions.

Dan Ingram's recent interview in which he went into the emotional life post 4th path, and things like aphantasia, was really a good delve and a helpful series of interviews (I thought).

I'd never heard of alexithymia (emotional blindness) before starting this comment, but apparently.... in Finland at least...

"The prevalence of alexithymia was 13%. Men were alexithymic almost twice (17%) as often as women (10%)."

Which is a lot. 

What happens to an alexithymic person when they embark on a meditation program, and how do they interpret the results ? Who knows ? But it would seem really important for the outcome.

That's probably more than you asked for, forgive me if I waffle because I just got caught up a bit with something I meant to get into for a while.

What do you reckon ?

"Experience reality without perceptual filters"

It means to sense all

--electromagnetic spectrum (like some insect can "see" UV radiation)
--ultrasound and infrasound (bat)
--magnetic field of the Earth (some birds can "see" magnetic field)
.
.
.
​​​​​​​Clearly this abilities weren't demonstrated and the gentleman is probably another quack.

Listening to #1. I also bought the book.

Read most of the book and heard the interviews. He is really good. For an instructional point of view, if you're not a complete newbie, I would suggest start reading at chapter 15 (Self-Inquiry) and chapter 16 (Awakening), and then exploring chapters 11-14 for more pointers on Thoughts, Beliefs and Emotions.

​​​​​​​

I don't think he was being literal. But how much filtering processing can be seen through - that's the question.

I, on the other hand, see UV light in my pollen collection job, because I am a bee.

Flipping through to the dirty bits, eh ? Me too.

I've been getting into his interpretation of the ox herding pictures, as the story gets emptier and emptier, time and space drop out of the picture, things change...

I don't want to sound too critical. This one I am reading just now and in my opinion it is real dharma by real master. I wish I had such a teacher. I even believe him all the supernatural abilities, interractions and events:

​​​​​​​Meido Moore: Hidden Zen, 2020

Thanks Alesh, I'll check it out. Seems like there's a huge list of zen practices. 

I'm back at the hive now, and using Beenet I see a couple of things, if not strictly in UV.

First is human magnetoception - evidence is accumulating for this, with a whole lab for it at Caltech. https://maglab.caltech.edu/human-magnetic-reception-laboratory/

Another is that humans can detect one single photon https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172

What else.. hm - biophotons in the brain https://physicsworld.com/a/do-quantum-effects-play-a-role-in-consciousness/

Reading Dillulo's book,  p212 "There is no timeline. Nothing is moving from moment to moment. There aren't even moments. This is the only moment and thus there is no need to call it moment. It is not a point in time; it is every point in time, always right here. Timelessness is intuited to be simply the way it is."

Coincidentally that's how photons see things too.
"Photons do not experience time. From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It's emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there's zero time elapsed between when it's emitted and when it's absorbed again. It doesn't experience distance either."

I don't know if this is a meaningful comparison, others have tried such things - I remember reading the Tao of Physics years ago, Fritjof Capra drawing lots of comparisons between contemplative experience and physics.

But OK, let's be all materialistic and say photons have a role in creating consciousness.
Round here consiousness isn't a fundamental aspect of reality but a phenomena of a deeper reality to be dug into and under. If that deeper reality is matter, and photons don't experience time maybe timelessness is us experiencing matter sans consciousness, at a very low level.

Even lower are things like virtual particles popping out of nothing. Matter manifesting out of the void ?

Or is it just a case of someone (Dr DiLullo) writing under the influence of a science education in a scientific period of civilization - so everything reads like scientific concepts ?

Indeed on p217 we get scientific language explicitly,
"You could say this quantum fluctuation between nothingness and somethingness is the fabric or most fundamental identity of reality itself. This is not the same as personal identity or universal identity/consciousness."

Is that me being a lame pseudo-intellectual or is there something in the contemplative/physics comparison - as many people have said ?

If anyone has any cool links about this please do drop it here :-)

I see interresting topics popping up

I checked this guy before in... 'timeless' and he felt like he is using strange references. Definitely he developes some mind states which seem easy to copy but I didn't give him much attention so far (also because I know how mind of such people work and what are their hidden agendas... because I know how my mind works XD). I only watched part of one video and read some reddit posts, enough to find him but not much actual knowledge to go on to see what he actually talks about. If he talk in pseudo-scientific language then it might be worth seeing his interpretations if they match my quantum pseudo-science

:-)

Well, if there was no correlation between physics and contemplative states then all that brain scanning would be useless.
Most people seem happy to accept the correlation between meditation and the brain at a cellular level, so why not the activity of the brain at deeper levels or smaller scales, including that of virtual particles - in principle at least ?
ie. once you've contemplated the activity of your cells as far as you can, down to the smallest neural ping, where else is there to go but further down into matter ?
I think the allusion to quantum fluctuations is a little speculative or at least ahead of clear proof - but then it does seem like a reasonable analogy at least, and awaits confirmation with instruments - if that's possible.
He's an anestheologist so I would assume he knows all about that Hameroff (who is an anestheologist) and Penrose stuff.

How would someone actually look at the neurological interaction with virtual particles, granting that it might not even be neurological but all pervasive ?
I will watch this and see if he (prof Hameroff) tells me.

Now I am nicely over my head in the physics sea, but hey ho.

Edit: and here, as I am on the subject, Prof Hameroff here explains how collapsing of  superposition states produces consciousness, rather than the other way round which is the usual way of talking about it. In other words, I think, in the famous schroedinger's cat scenario, the death or life of the cat causes it to be seen.... type of thing...

So a whole range of possibilities exist at a quantum level, until it collapses into one state and consciousness occurs. One world appears out of many.
Flipping through doc DiLullo's book (p212),
"Consciousness doesn't have to go away; it is simply experienced as another vivid no-distance sense. There is no inside and there is no outside. There is no other possibility, as every other possibility is playing out effortlessly as the universe coming into being and dissolving as each ex discreet quanta of sense phenomena, each movement, each expression of radiance."

Which I thought sounded like many worlds theory when I read it, and I think he's definitely getting at something like that. If I'm not hopelessly wooifying it all :-)

So, ok my next question is - is this a two way thing - in which collapse of a superposition can cause consciousness and consciousness can cause collapse of a superposition state. A bit like electric current can move a magnet and moving a magnet can cause electric current.... ?

And now, as all this is about quantum events in microtubules orchestrating consciousness in possibly harmonious or dissonant ways, how this may fit with Dan's kazoo player (p244 Player's Manual 2nd edition rules). Hmm.

Noting that quanta used here isn't necessarily used to describe a specific quantum physical event, but just a sense of discreetness - I think. Although maybe yeah he is alluding to that. Hm dunno.

I looked at his videos and bought the book and I am seeing something that I've seen with other people where they say (paraphrasing) 1) it's not an experience, it's permanent but 2) after the first glimpse you have to keep practicing to learn to live it moment to moment.

It sounds like a contradiction to me.  

And his book has a chapter on working with emotions ... when you listen to the video it sounds like inquiry is a shortcut to get rid of emotions (end suffering), but then you get the book and find out, no you can't avoid the hard painful work of accepting your emotions (letting go feels like actual loss). So why do the inquiry? For a glimpse to point you in the right direction? Why not just work with emotions - learn how to let go of attachments and aversion (surrender), so you can let go of all the things you want for yourself and accept all the things you don't want for yourself. Isn't that what you have to do to end the illusion of separation? When you've given up all the things you wanted for yourself and accepted all the things you didn't want for yourself you've eliminated the basis for concieving of a separate self (and ended suffering - mental anguish - at the same time)

Is inquiry a painless short cut through this process? 

It seems to me inquiry is a lot like working with the anatta aspect of the three characteristics. In every experience the idea of self is there instigating trouble. Who/what is causing this trouble? In that way inquiry is the same as working with emotions.

I think the book is okay, but I don't know why they have to represent it as the best book ever written and presents everthing better than anyone has ever done in the past. All the books are presented that way and I always fall for it and spend the money. I would recommend anyone interested in buying the book, if money is an issue, have a look at an acutal book in the bookstore rather than just ordering it on-line.

And I would find the fourth path claimants more convincing if they showed evidence of having ended suffering - like they can do easily what most people would find impossible - like reducing his professional fees because he sees that he doesn't need so much money to be happy, or moving to Calcultta to take care of orphans.

Jim it's a good question I have wondered about - if self inquiry and other techniques take you past emotions then why bother with emotional work  ?
I do find this oddly contradictory how people can lose their self but retain emotions - which are supposed to be based on a self. What is a non-self based emotion ? What's it for ? Why is it there ? Why doesn't it get the message ? I feel like there's a paradox here that I kind of get but also don't.
On the other hand most people in the higher paths report a great reduction even if not a complete cleansing of emotions (from what I've seen).

Problem with the feed the orphans thing is that isn't in the buddha story, Gotama saw messed up people and went on a spiritual quest rather than stay and open a soup kitchen or people's pharmacy. But I don't think healing the sick or feeding the poor is the route to enlightenment either. Maybe for a few, but you would expect NGOs to be full of buddhas if so. Dan's a fine example. Went to India, worked with the poor, lifetime of medical service, still needed retreats. It all goes into the mix I guess and who knows what causes what in the end ?

I'm not really convinced about the difference between emotional thinking and practical thinking either. The practical often has an overarching emotional drive - it's generally for some reward for example wages, and hence survival and procreation etc., but I suppose the flow of creativity too. Creative flow of ideas is entwined to emotional drives, even if that's forgotten in the act of thinking. The threat of your wife leaving because you don't want to think about your job any more - that would be pretty emotional, that's emotional motivation to think about how to turn up at work and consider practicalities.

Usually the most miserable thinking is to do with our social lives, chewing over how we can make that go better, engineering our relationships.

It looks like the idea is, more or less, to lose our thought based grievances in the social arena but retain our ability to do our thought based jobs or pastimes, but it's never really stated in those terms. Usually in these cases (spiritual teachers) there is bad emotional thinking that we don't need, and good practical thinking that we do.

You could ask OK if the emotional fear of death drives practical thinking - the wage earning etc., what happens when death stops being an issue ? Do you just grind to a halt, sit down and starve ? I think your heart keeps beating and you keep breathing and survival goes on even if death isn't an emotional fear any more - which it isn't supposed to be for buddhists I believe. hm

Anyway I'm finding something good in this work, it's been really good.

> It seems to me inquiry is a lot like working with the anatta aspect of the three characteristics.

Yes, no doubt about it. I believe it's the standard understanding of how Self-Inquiry is placed among the wide range of meditation tools, seen from a Buddhist perspective. Yet, you're working too with Anicca -by seeing the tendency of sliding back to memories or jumping to future scenarios, instead of being in the Now- and Dukkha -sensing the resistance to be in the Now, in particular holding so closely to (being so intimate with) emotions-. So you're working with the whole enchilada: the 6 senses and the 3 Characteristics.

> When you listen to the video it sounds like inquiry is a shortcut to get rid of emotions (end suffering), but then you get the book and find out, no you can't avoid the hard painful work of accepting your emotions (letting go feels like actual loss). So why do the inquiry? For a glimpse to point you in the right direction? Why not just work with emotions - learn how to let go of attachments and aversion (surrender), so you can let go of all the things you want for yourself and accept all the things you don't want for yourself.

Not that I don't agree with you on that. But I think Self-Inquiry is just a different tactic to get to that full surrender moment. Kind of Zen's "Samadhi shattering". Push you to your limits to embrace at the same time all thoughts, emotions and raw sensations really really close, in your core (that's what I'm experimenting anyway). So, it's kind of crash course to High-EQ ...

Maybe Shargrol would disagree/correct me, but he sees value in Self-Inquiry when your practice gets stagnant (link). The only difference is that instead of "meditating in the mindstream", as thoughts kind of dissapear as you inquiry on the appearance of thoughts, it feels like "meditating in the raw-sensations/emotions stream".

What I find is a qualitative difference between this 2nd Gear practice and our usual DhO theravadish practice. They look for (at least it's my interpretation) a WOW factor that hits in your core beliefs and would cement the perceptual change. I'm not implying that a Theravada's cessation wouldn't have that kind of wow factor, but most/all reports I have read/heard in Self-Inquiry have an assertiveness and a 'lastingness' (is that English?) that I rarely see in stream enterers. 

   

I think some of you might find this conversation (Spiritual Awakening: Breaking the Glass -- Part 1) between Alma and Angelo interesting.

Beware, the pace of it is definitely slow.

I am really curious as to what you think. Personally, she bought me (Him, too, I mean he did as well.)

Also, reading the book and there is stuff in there (practice-oriented stuff) that really seems helpful.

I'm kind of confused by your responses. I think you've spent enough time on this forum to see that getting rid of emotions isn't the point. 4th Path = super good moral actions doesn't really seem to be the case either. I'm also not sure when the author presented their work as the best ever either from watching the interviews. I'm interested in what your practice is. I do agree that inquiry is like anatta investigation in vipassana. Except maybe vipassana is seeing that no sensation is self(not just sensations of emotions, but all sensations). I assume inquiry gets to that point too since really with inquiry and all of these practices we're allowing our attention to reveal the wisdom of the present moment, the non duality that already is just not seen clearly. Awakening to nonduality is a view that become accessible much more so than it being an experience. Along the path we refine our view and see things ever more clearly. 

My current practice is reading books and relaxing, and trying to see directly what's being referred too. Maybe transmission too. And contemplating the fabricated quality of the sensory world - stripped of individual self it's still got a quality of "I" even when the "I" is in everything phenomenal and the world seems like a stage set suspended outside of time - or a being dreaming everything into existence. Asking myself where this I and being come from ? Is it contiguous with a void or empty quality, like they say ? That's pretty much it, don't want techniques at the moment. Also, at the moment, I get the sense that practices are - like many have said - part of the story of the individual and aren't really 'it'. Comes and goes, might change, might not, have to see.

I've been thinking about this a fair bit recently and basically come to the conclusion that, for my purposes, I'm not very worried about my emotions if they can arise without suffering.



I agree - this seems like it could lead to suffering.



This I'm less worried about -- if I'm free of suffering, then I'm all good. That's my whole goal with this process. Others may have different goals.

I tend to bias slightly toward saying that emotions might be worth keeping around in order to function well in a society of emotional people. I'd just like to be able to listen to my own emotions as friendly advice rather than get run over by them.

Thank you so much for pointing to this ressource!

I watched all the interview videos and just bought the book, looking forward to reading it. My intuition (which is that of a pre-SE yogi, so take it with a ton of salt) is that this guy knows what he is talking about, ie. is awake to some degree.

He is a physician like Daniel Ingram, which is more than a fun fact IMO, since it promises (and hopefully keeps) an at the same time rational and compassionate approach. He actually mentions Daniel at one point. It could be very interesting to hear a conversation between the two, also because of their differences: Ingram always refers explicitly to all sorts of (mainly buddhist) traditions, Dilullo has sort of integrated his knowledge into his own thing (although he mentions for instance zen and Eckhart Tolle). And Ingram is extrovert bordering on flamboyant, while Dilullo seems like a more introverted, almos shy guy.

So Steve James of Guru Viking Podcast or Michael Taft of Deconstructing Yourself, if you by chance are reading along here, consider giving us a conversation with Dilullo, either solo or with Ingram. Because the interviewer in this series has very little knowledge about meditation, which is reflected in his questions. It could be interesting to dive deeper!

A last thought: Dilullo mentions the word "intimacy" a lot, a concept and an understanding (of how to approach the nondual state) also frequently used by shargrol.

​​​​​​​All in all, I think many DhO'ers would find this (to me) new guy worth checking out!

"I'm kind of confused by your responses. I think you've spent enough time on this forum to see that getting rid of emotions isn't the point."

Well thing is to me it does seem like a major point of buddhism - hence all the talk of defilements, character and equanimity - you're better off without emotions. Much of humanity agrees with this but differs in how to solve it, and to what degree, and also which emotions are permissible and which not - which is strongly culturally conditioned.
Buddhists also seem to disagree on how far emotions should be lost, which to keep around, which to be rid of, which are likely to fall away due to practice, to what degree is emotionality a sign of progress - though generally tending to less emotion along the path.
They do seem to agree on who should experience the emotions - ie. nobody in particular. Given that being somebody in particular is the basis for much emotion you would expect some major emotional change.
But is being someone in particular the basis for much emotion ? Maybe I'm assuming too much.

Unfiltered reality is just like unfiltered beer. Some people like it, most don't. Awakening is a choice in the present moment. I don't know if it works in a child's brain though. My experience level in that realm is still undefined, and therefore needs no introduction. I assume the world needs people like you to translate the dharma into pieces that will dissolve in a child's blood brain barrier. So I cherish your inquisitive thoughts. Thank you.

The point being is that unfiltered reality is an aquired taste, and that children may not have the capacity for aquired tastes yet. So there you have it.

Hey, I'm game if that would be fun and helpful.

Great minds think alike!

Great idea Niels, Steve, and Daniel!

Yeah, great idea Niels!

One thing I would like them to discuss is about 'Bahiya flavours', perhaps a refinement of 'in the seen, only the seen; in the heard, only the heard; in the sensed, only the sensed; in the cognized, only the cognized'. John Tan says that "the six senses seamlessly inter-permeate each other ... the not only the eyes see; the ears see; the nose sees". Angelo Dilullo (edited) quotes a "primal sense"/"empty sense". DreamWalker says that the boundaries between the sense doors drop, that there's a "merge into one continuous field". Daniel Ingram don't deny a  "one sense door" frame but seems to see it more like a 'tool' than as an aspect of an ultimate reality. Rob Burbea seemed to be speaking of love as a byproduct of it (probably). Shinzen Young, about creation/uncreation in the Source... etc.  Are these 'Bahiya flavours' related to personal preferences, meditation frameworks and/or related to the Three Characteristics?

Hi, thanks for posting this, very interesting.

For those who have read the book, are there practice instructions to take a beginner in this type of practice from start to finish, with some sort of 'progress of insight' map or description of the states/stages one would encounter along the way?

It sounds to me, from what I've read in this thread, that he attained whatever state he's in now through a different practice than the one he's describing in this book and in these interviews.  

​​​​​​​In the past I have read a few books from similar teachers - people teaching a different practice than the one that did if for them - and have been a bit disappointed in the practical real-world instructions they included in their book.

Thanks, Peace,

As far as I understand, he walked his own path in the beginning and then had a zen teacher for higher stages. The book Awake: It's Your Turn includes a chapter describing a 'progress of insight' map. The book is focused in 'kensho' (initial awakening: I Am or Boundless Consciousness). That he had to leave aside the post-initial awakening practices for a second book, to be finished soon apparently, otherwise a single book would be too long for the editorial to publish it. But that those further practices point back to what it's already described in his first book, about mind-identity, thoughts, beliefs and emotions. That's all I can say as for know.

Thanks for the reply, Pepe.

So, would you say, if a beginner read just this one book that there's enough practical instruction to take that person to initial awakening?  and then after that, they're on their own..

I've listened to his talks and videos, all I've heard so far is talk "about" enlightenment, what it's like and what happens when you get there.  I haven't heard anything real, like "this is what you do.." which is what I'm interested in, sort of a "The Mind Illuminated"-style practice guide for kensho.

Thanks, peace,

Chris, I really can't say as I'm a beginner too. I like his book as he explains the Self-Inquiry method with much more detail than anything I have seen before. He is a sort of "pragmatic zen" guy, knows the teachings and terminology of Theravada's and Zen's camp, but his words are in plain English.

Many Self-Inquiry books and guys I've read in online groups are all about perceptual change.  What I like of Angelo's book is that right after describing the awakening stages, he points towards mind-identity, thoughts, beliefs and emotions. Only then, he explains in the last two chapters the Self-Inquiry method. So it's as balanced as you can get from this camp. Probably you know I'm a big fun of Shargrol's approach to walk through the dharma path. So far, Angelo's is the closest one I've found from the Self-Inquiry camp. As for pre and post awakening online support, he has a facebook group "Awakening, Realization and Liberation", so it might be a good idea to check it out.
​​​​​​​  

I’m in way over my head too, but if time doesn’t exist, does it even make sense to talk about one thing causing another thing? Wouldn’t they just already coexist?

I've read most of the book and it has blown me away with a lot of things to think about how I was conducted my practice and how i went to continue it. For now, I  want to ask, he uses the word "Prescence" a lot in the book and the SimplyAwake meditations. IN his context, what does he mean by prescence?

Sam, I  would say that "presence" =  "immediate consciousness", "a sense of being/beingness". But I'm working on it, so I can't say much more, no kensho yet. So far, from my experiential pov, I would describe it as a silent mind coupled with a non-discriminative openess to what the five senses capture. The best option would be that you ask about it in the facebook group, I saw you joined the group. 
​​​​​​​

Here is how John Tan/Thusness describes Presence, some quotes from 'AtR guide':

“It was about 20 years back and it all started with the question of “Before birth, who am I?” I do not know why but this question seemed to capture my entire being. I could spend days and nights just sitting focusing, pondering over this question; till one day, everything seemed to come to a complete standstill, not even a single thread of thought arose. There was merely nothing and completely void, only this pure sense of existence. This mere sense of I, this Presence, what was it? It was not the body, not thought as there was no thought, nothing at all, just Existence itself. There was no need for anyone to authenticate this understanding.” - John, 2006, ‘Thusness Stage 1’ description in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

“Presence, Awareness, Beingness, Isness are all synonyms. There can be all sorts of definitions but all these are not the path to it. The path to it must be non-conceptual and direct. This is the only way.

When contemplating the koan "before birth who am I", the thinking mind attempts to seek into it's memory bank for similar experiences to get an answer. This is how the thinking mind works - compare, categorize and measure in order to understand.

However, when we encounter such a koan, the mind reaches its limit when it tries to penetrate its own depth with no answer. There will come a time when the mind exhausts itself and come to a complete standstill and from that stillness comes an earthshaking BAM!

I. Just I.

Before birth this I, a thousand years ago this I, a thousand later this I. I AM I.

It is without any arbitrary thoughts, any comparisons. It fully authenticates it's own clarity, it's own existence, ITSELF in clean, pure, direct non-conceptuality. No why, no because.

Just ITSELF in stillness nothing else.” - John Tan, 2019


Ken Wilber on I AMness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA8tDzK_kPI

“Zen 悟 (Realization) satori is about that ... Starting from directly authenticating clarity from using the first level koan. Like before birth who am I. The mind is put into a paradox ceasing all conceptualization directly authenticating clarity. This authentication is satori and non-conceptual because the mind itself is clear of what is inference and conceptual. So when it tastes it, it recognizes what they called the original face.” – John Tan, 2020

....

It comes into maturity in anatta realization/Thusness Stage 5/Angelo's 'Liberation' stage, etc, excerpts from AtR guide:




I noticed that many Buddhists trained under the doctrine of anatta and emptiness seem to be put off by the description of “I AM realization” as it seems to contradict anatta. This will prevent their progress as they will fail to appreciate and realize the depth of luminous presence, and their understanding of anatta and emptiness remains intellectual. It should be understood that the I AM realization does not contradict Anatta realization but complements it. It is the “original face before your parents were born” of Zen, and the unfabricated clarity in Dzogchen that serves as initial rigpa, it is also the initial certainty of Mind discovered in the first of the four yogas of Mahamudra (see: Clarifying the Natural State by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal). Calling it “I AM” is just another name for the same thing, and you should also know that AtR’s definition of I AM is different from Buddhism’s term “conceit of I Am” or Nisargadatta’s I Am. The I AM of AtR is a direct taste and realization of the Mind of Clear Light.

The view gets refined and the taste gets brought to effortless maturity and non-contrivance in all manifestation as one’s insights deepen.

As John Tan also said in 2011:

“John: what is "I AM"
is it a pce? (Soh: PCE = pure consciousness experience, see glossary at the bottom of this document)
is there emotion
is there feeling
is there thought
is there division or complete stillness?
in hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound!
so what is "I AM"?

Soh Wei Yu: it is the same
just that pure non conceptual thought

John: is there 'being'?

Soh Wei Yu: no, an ultimate identity is created as an afterthought

John: indeed
it is the mis-interpretation after that experience that is causing the confusion
that experience itself is pure conscious experience
there is nothing that is impure
that is why it is a sense of pure existence
it is only mistaken due to the 'wrong view'
so it is a pure conscious experience in thought.
not sound, taste, touch...etc
PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) is about direct and pure experience of whatever we encounter in sight, sound, taste...
the quality and depth of experience in sound
in contacts
in taste
in scenery
has he truly experience the immense luminous clarity in the senses?
if so, what about 'thought'?
when all senses are shut
the pure sense of existence as it is when the senses are shut.
then with senses open
have a clear understanding
do not compare irrationally without clear understanding”

In 2007:

(9:12 PM) Thusness: you don't think that "I AMness" is low stage of enlightenment leh
(9:12 PM) Thusness: the experience is the same. it is just the clarity. In terms of insight. Not experience.
(9:13 PM) AEN: icic..
(9:13 PM) Thusness: so a person that has experience "I AMness" and non dual is the same. except the insight is different.
(9:13 PM) AEN: oic
(9:13 PM) Thusness: non dual is every moment there is the experience of presence. or the insight into the every moment experience of presence. because what that prevent that experience is the illusion of self and "I AM" is that distorted view. the experience is the same leh.
(9:15 PM) Thusness: didn’t you see i always say there is nothing wrong with that experience to longchen, jonls... i only say it is skewed towards the thought realm. so don't differentiate but know what is the problem. I always say it is misinterpretation of the experience of presence. not the experience itself. but "I AMness" prevents us from seeing.


....

This also reminded me of:

“It is not the contemplations that are important, it is the view brought to contemplation that makes the difference. For example, there is no actual difference between the Hindu Nirvikalpa samadhi and Vajropama samadhi in terms of its content, but the fact that one is accompanied by insight and the other is not makes the difference between whether it is mundane or liberative.” – Dzogchen Teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith, 2014

In 2009:

“(10:49 PM) Thusness: by the way you know about hokai description and "I AM" is the same experience?
(10:50 PM) AEN: the watcher right
(10:52 PM) Thusness: nope. i mean the shingon practice of the body, mind, speech into one.
(10:53 PM) AEN: oh thats i am experience?
(10:53 PM) Thusness: yes, except that the object of practice is not based on consciousness. what is meant by foreground? it is the disappearance of the background and whats left is it. similarly the "I AM" is the experience of no background and experiencing consciousness directly. that is why it is just simply "I-I" or "I AM"
(10:57 PM) AEN: i've heard of the way people describe consciousness as the background consciousness becoming the foreground... so there's only consciousness aware of itself and thats still like I AM experience
(10:57 PM) Thusness: that is why it is described that way, awareness aware of itself and as itself.
(10:57 PM) AEN: but you also said I AM people sink to a background?
(10:57 PM) Thusness: yes
(10:57 PM) AEN: sinking to background = background becoming foreground?
(10:58 PM) Thusness: that is why i said it is misunderstood. and we treat that as ultimate.
(10:58 PM) AEN: icic but what hokai described is also nondual experience rite
(10:58 PM) Thusness: I have told you many times that the experience is right but the understanding is wrong. that is why it is an insight and opening of the wisdom eyes. there is nothing wrong with the experience of I AM". did i say that there is anything wrong with it?
(10:59 PM) AEN: nope
(10:59 PM) Thusness: even in stage 4 what did I say?
(11:00 PM) AEN: its the same experience except in sound, sight, etc
(11:00 PM) Thusness: sound as the exact same experience as "I AM"... as presence.
(11:00 PM) AEN: icic
(11:00 PM) Thusness: yes”

“"I AM" is a luminous thought in samadhi as I-I. Anatta is a realization of that in extending the insight to the 6 entries and exits.” – John Tan, 2018

p.s. Self-Enquiry (asking Who am I?) is a potent method to the initial awakening to one's Pure Presence-Awareness or "I AM realization". Also see: What is your very Mind right now?
Also related: The Transient Universe has a Heart


Also perhaps I should add this to showcase how anatta insight can bring taste of Presence into all six senses effortlessly:


“The Absolute as separated from the transience is what I have indicated as the 'Background' in my 2 posts to theprisonergreco.

84. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4]
Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 27 2009, 9:15 AM EDT
Hi theprisonergreco,

First is what exactly is the ‘background’? Actually it doesn’t exist. It is only an image of a ‘non-dual’ experience that is already gone. The dualistic mind fabricates a ‘background’ due to the poverty of its dualistic and inherent thinking mechanism. It ‘cannot’ understand or function without something to hold on to. That experience of the ‘I’ is a complete, non-dual foreground experience.

When the background subject is understood as an illusion, all transience phenomena reveal themselves as Presence. It is like naturally 'vipassanic' throughout. From the hissing sound of PC, to the vibration of the moving MRT train, to the sensation when the feet touches the ground, all these experiences are crystal clear, no less “I AM” than “I AM”. The Presence is still fully present, nothing is denied. - So the “I AM” is just like any other experiences when the subject-object split is gone. No different from an arising sound. It only becomes a static background as an afterthought when our dualistic and inherent tendencies are in action.

The first 'I-ness' stage of experiencing awareness face to face is like a point on a sphere which you called it the center. You marked it.

Then later you realized that when you marked other points on the surface of a sphere, they have the same characteristics. This is the initial experience of non-dual. Once the insight of No-Self is stabilized, you just freely point to any point on the surface of the sphere -- all points are a center, hence there is no 'the' center. 'The' center does not exist: all points are a center.

After then practice move from 'concentrative' to 'effortlessness'. That said, after this initial non-dual insight, 'background' will still surface occasionally for another few years due to latent tendencies...

86. RE: Is there an absolute reality? [Skarda 4 of 4]
To be more exact, the so called 'background' consciousness is that pristine happening. There is no a 'background' and a 'pristine happening'. During the initial phase of non-dual, there is still habitual attempt to 'fix' this imaginary split that does not exist. It matures when we realized that anatta is a seal, not a stage; in hearing, always only sounds; in seeing always only colors, shapes and forms; in thinking, always only thoughts. Always and already so. -

Many non-dualists after the intuitive insight of the Absolute hold tightly to the Absolute. This is like attaching to a point on the surface of a sphere and calling it 'the one and only center'. Even for those Advaitins that have clear experiential insight of no-self (no object-subject split), an experience similar to that of anatta (First emptying of subject) are not spared from these tendencies. They continue to sink back to a Source.

It is natural to reference back to the Source when we have not sufficiently dissolved the latent disposition but it must be correctly understood for what it is. Is this necessary and how could we rest in the Source when we cannot even locate its whereabout? Where is that resting place? Why sink back? Isn't that another illusion of the mind? The 'Background' is just a thought moment to recall or an attempt to reconfirm the Source. How is this necessary? Can we even be a thought moment apart? The tendency to grasp, to solidify experience into a 'center' is a habitual tendency of the mind at work. It is just a karmic tendency. Realize It! This is what I meant to Adam the difference between One-Mind and No-Mind.” - John Tan, 2009, excerpt from Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/04/emptiness-as-viewless-view.html

Here's how an Advaita teacher John Wheeler describes 'Presence' in the context of what Angelo would call an initial awakening:

https://awakeningclaritynow.com/awakening-to-the-natural-state-guest-teaching-by-john-wheeler/
Right now, as you read this, you exist and you are aware that you exist. You are undoubtedly present and aware. Before the next thought arises, you are absolutely certain of the fact of your own being, your own awareness, your own presence. This awareness is what you are; it is what you always have been. All thoughts, perceptions, sensations and feelings appear within or upon that. This awareness does not move, change or shift at any time. It is always free and completely untouched. However, it is not a thing or an object that you can see or grasp. The mind, being simply thoughts arising in awareness, cannot grasp it or know it or even think about it. Yet, as Bob says, you cannot deny the fact of your own being. It is palpably obvious, and yet, from the time we were born, no one has pointed this out. Once it is pointed out it can be grasped or understood very quickly because it is just a matter of noticing, ‘Oh, that is what I am!’ It is a bright, luminous, empty, presence of awareness; it is absolutely radiant, yet without form; it is seemingly intangible, but the most solid fact in your existence; it is effortlessly here right now, forever untouched. Without taking a step, you have arrived; you are home. No practice can reveal this because practices are in time and in the mind. Practices aim at a result, but you (as presence-awareness) are here already, only you don’t recognize it till it is pointed out. Once seen, you can’t lose it, and you don’t have to practice to exist, to be. This is, in essence, what Bob pointed out to me in the first conversation I had with him

Would anyone like to share a brief step-by-step summary of the main meditation method presented in his book (self-inquiry I presume)?

Bottom line: a standard self-inquiry method, but with lots of pointers on how to engage with thoughts, emotions and beliefs. An engaging text on how to proceed in a non-conceptual path. He has a blog too where you can check other written stuff. 

I listened to a few of his interviews/podcasts and I ordered his book, it's not available in local bookstores so I had to order it from Amazon.  yeeuchh.  I felt compelled to order it though, like I have a fear of missing out, FOMO, when it comes to books like this.  This has happened before.  

I'm happy with my practice and everything is going well and then I jump onto a forum and I see a book that seems unique in some way ...  and I wonder - what if it contains some magic sequence of words that really makes the difference for me?  So I drop my current practice and start some new practice and of course there is no magic combination of words, and so all that happens is that I lose momentum with my original practice and am left slightly worse off, confused with an other teacher's words embedded into my original practice instructions.

I swear this is the last time.

Thanks!

https://youtu.be/0C6WzEEOPH4

chris mc
I'm happy with my practice and everything is going well and then I jump onto a forum and I see a book that seems unique in some way ...  and I wonder - what if it contains some magic sequence of words that really makes the difference for me?  So I drop my current practice and start some new practice and of course there is no magic combination of words, and so all that happens is that I lose momentum with my original practice and am left slightly worse off, confused with another teacher's words embedded into my original practice instructions.I swear this is the last time.
I swear this is the last time.



This should be recited at the beginning of every sitting. I'm keeping a copy in my wallet to ward off evil

That's well put and probably a very common issue. And I love the humorous take on it. 

But it also sort of implies that there are specific separate practices that should be done by the letter and taken dead seriously, doesn't it? Why is confusion a bad thing? I embrace the confusion and let it be my teacher. I'm not looking for The One method (not The One anything). I'm looking for the gaps and the cracks where views no longer apply. 

Sure, you want to reach the "steady state" where all the training is integrated into daily life. I'll dare to say where sitting is not necessary. But establishing a base line with  basic practice: concentration, morality and wisdom, before exploring different views is important. Especially when the view is of the "you're already there type". Because later you'll be obligated to depend on psychology to take care of the stuff you did'nt face during practice.  Dig deep into one method and then do as you please.

I'm not the "you're already there type". I totally agree that concentration, morality and wisdom all need to be thoroughly established and that we need to deal with the psychology. I think we are in agreement, because it seems that in this discussion we have sort of switched positions with each other compared to earlier discussions. That's probably because both of us think that nuances are important and that we can't bypass the untangling that needs to happen and which is a big deal. 

Let me put it like this: I have consistently been applying one method, and that method is to trust that the process knows the way. I'm an intuitive, eclectic and pragmatic practicioner. I don't follow instructions, but consistently do what works in the here and now, that is, what allows for concentration, morality and wisdom to continue to develop. I don't plan it, but I can see that over time a consistent rhythm organically manifests. There is systematicity to it. I'm just not the doer of it. That's how it has been for me from the start, and how it has to be. The process is my teacher. It communicates with me. So if what some teacher says doesn't resonate with how the process needs to unfold, I'm not buying it. So I guess what I'm trying to say is something like this: It's true that shopping around is a distraction, but shopping around implies actually buying it. We don't have to buy it. We can triangulate and find our own way. Every pointing assumes that we are coming from a specific angle. I have never found a single teacher that comes from my angle, except for the process itself. So I use whatever pointers resonate with the process and discard the rest, not in themselves but with regard to my own practice. So if different pointers point to different directions, that's usually because the teachers assume different angles (just like pointing to Stockholm from Mexico differs from pointing to the same destination from Moscow). Thus I need to assess the angles and figure out how that relates to where I'm at. That's my method. 

I just wanted to add that nuance. For the majority, that's probably just confusing, and that's totally fine. Sticking to one method that is already established by a teacher whose angle resonates with you is great. My nuance is for those who for some reason need to find their own way. 

Linda
"I just wanted to add that nuance. For the majority, that's probably just confusing, and that's totally fine. Sticking to one method that is already established by a teacher whose angle resonates with you is great. My nuance is for those who for some reason need to find their own way."

I agree, ultimately we are responsible for our own development. Even with a teacher, trust is one thing and surrendering our autonomy is another. Only the cook knows what's in the pot. We have to be true to ourselves. 

Exactly. Well put.

> Thank you but I'[m still tripped up with awareness. In my Dzogchen studies awareness seems to be the highest thhing, rigpa. How is Presence different frompure awareness?  

I'll call them 'regular awareness' and 'pure awareness'.  Regular awareness - I'm sitting here aware that in this present moment I'm sitting here looking at a computer screen.  No big deal, same old same old.

Pure awareness...  the last time I believe I experienced this, I was walking and it felt like I slipped off the curb, I put my hand out to steady myself against a lamp post and said "woahh.."  Something inside my sense of I, the sense that I'm inside in the centre looking out at everything, sort of slipped or shifted slightly, the "I" was either mostly gone or all gone.  Everything out there looked the same, but it didn't feel like I was looking out of my eyes, it felt like the Universe was looking out of a 1-dimensional portal.  When I looked around at things, swung my head back and forth, it felt very different, like there wasn't a vantage point behind what was being seen.

I only write this to say that pure awareness isn't some drastically different glowing ball of experience.  That's not what you should be expecting.  Pure awareness is the same as regular awareness, just slightly different, you're seeing the same stuff just from a slightly different angle.  But it makes a big difference, I went from regular awareness in one second, feeling bored and mildly depressed, to *bweeup* pure awareness feeling very joyful and like reality was amazing, I remember laughing at how amazing everything seemed.

And then the next day I woke up and was back to regular awareness and it was heartbreaking and I haven't been able to get back there.  Hope that answered your question or helped in some way.  peace,


**. edit, long story short, maybe pure awareness could be defined as just regular awareness with no sense of I in the mix.

  

Well first of all, as the Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith points out, 'awareness' is actually a bad translation for rigpa. Rigpa actually means recognition. It's the recognition of your nature basically.

Secondly, there are different degrees or modalities of rigpa. http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/09/the-degrees-of-rigpa.html

Having learnt from Acarya Malcolm Smith and clarified with Kyle Dixon (Malcolm's student that Malcolm told me over dinner was the first to understand his teaching, and also Kyle realised anatta and emptiness/non-arising almost a decade ago - http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/10/advise-from-kyle_10.html ), Kyle said what I call 'I AM' would indeed be similar to the initial recognition of rigpa, and then when one has the realization of anatman that would be the maturation of rigpa later. The term they use is 'unripened/immature rigpa' and 'full measure/full culmination of rigpa'.  Malcolm also wrote similar postings in his private forum. In the initial phase of Dzogchen practices, reflections are distinguished and 'separated' provisionally from the mirror in order to realise one's unfabricated consciousness or Instant Presence (a term also used by the Dzogchen teacher Chogyal Namkhai Norbu) which is akin basically to self-enquiry, and that is what John Tan and I calls the I AM realization. Self-enquiry was also taught by Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and other Dzogchen teachers for the same purpose although they do not use that term.

What about Presence after anatta realization? Instant Presence then becomes effortless, full blown, non-dual, uncontrived and free from referencepoints experienced boundlessly and freely as all manifestation and situation and conditions. In the I AM, only the Thought or Mind realm is Presence experienced more thoroughly. After anatta, with the illusion of a background subject gone, all senses and manifestations reveal the quality of Presence naturally and effortlessly. As John Tan told me in 2019, "If you want to write a guide, write with sincerity. If you write with a sincere heart, I am sure people will benefit as those are genuine insights leading to effortlessness of instant presence." He also said somewhere in 2018, "The anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of no-self. But it must first have an intuitive insight of Presence. Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights”

Another term in Dzogchen is Zang Thal:

Kyle Dixon, "The reality of mind for him is non-arising which would be anatta

The difference between gsal ba and zang thal is difference between clarity experienced as background subject and clarity totally freed from that through realizing anatta"

He also wrote,

"Cognitive clarity is your cognizance reified as a subject, a self, while zangthal is that same aspect totally freed of all extremes and conditions."


Also, more quotes from here: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/09/the-degrees-of-rigpa.html

[Kyle]:

Your Tulku Urgyen citations are not talking about the first vision. They are discussing the ma bcos pa'i shes pa skad cig ma or “moment of unfabricated consciousness” that is pointed out, which is the initial form of rig pa we use for practice, and specifically the practice of trekchö.

•  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · [url=https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/permalink/4461417257233003/?comment_id=4461806417194087&__cft__[0]=AZW3r12H8e4cerJ68e_IazJw287aARPly7MgXlg-lxZdizJFda1EDQFJYJW13Ugm9tCFD2jQX5hT2eMdMogkG7JC8RkfyCm3hzrBcf-W0BLQoU4IBUZuuFvQ84gN8PIXfBkfbUwM7PgW7BB7qvSCosTxCkd-kGvW1jT41mzkxvdtPzRruUwHGqbvO0STloX4D96SewqLBUpxC_Gevjx1w4y1-e4awDlqz6Qu1iuxHQB7bFUszZZCGKZ5KKOKh7PXwuRFxk7aBHxKlbx4WRDuBZcA&__tn__=R]-R]14m
  •  · 
    Edited
• 
   

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

or as kyle dixon reiterated malcolm with regards to trekchod:

Kyle Dixon:

https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha

Yes, the actual state of trekchö is the nonconceptual equipoise of a yogic direct perception of emptiness. Emptiness cannot be known by unawakened people, but clarity can be known. The nominal trekchö we practice until we realize emptiness works with the clarity aspect [gsal cha]. The nominal “little” trekchö is also called “the yoga of the view.”

Malcolm:

“The question is framed incorrectly. Treckhöd is best described in general terms as a practice in which insight into emptiness and śamatha are combined. But below the path of seeing, this insight is conceptual, based on the example wisdom of the direct introduction. However, the emptiness meditated upon in trekchöd is also inferential until one mounts the path of seeing. There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.”

“Actually, what one is resting is empty clarity. However, below the path of seeing, the emptiness of that clarity is a conceptual inference. However, when meditating, we just rest in the clarity aspect without engaging in concepts like "this is empty." We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.” 
 

EDIT: replying to chris mc.

I understand the heartbreaking feeling of not being able to get "back there". The important thing to recognize is that trying to get back to pure awareness is precisely what prevents you from experiencing it again! It makes more sense to rearrange your equation and say that regular awareness is just pure awareness with a sense of "I" arising in it. It's not like you have to find pure awareness, it's always there, it's just that sometimes it looks a bit distorted due to the I filter. When the I slips and you experience undistorted pure awareness, then the I feels threatened, so it creates a cunning defense strategy which goes something like 'I just had this amazing special experience and I need to get back there'. The more clearly you can see through this defense mechanism, the more likely it will be to fall away for good ... ​​​​​​​

What you write here is what I call 'no mind' experience. (see my terms: https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/10/differentiating-i-am-one-mind-no-mind.html)

For this to become the effortless natural state, insight into anatta as a dharma seal that is always already the case, rather than a stage, must arise.

See 

 http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/07/anatta-is-dharma-seal-or-truth-that-is.html
Anatta is a Dharma Seal or Truth that is Always Already So, Anatta is Not a State

Wrote in 2018：


"If someone talks about an experience he/she had and then lost it, that's not (the true, deep) awakening... As many teachers put it, it's the great samadhi without entry and exit.

John Tan: There is no entry and exit. Especially for no-self. Why is there no entry and exit?
Me (Soh): Anatta (no-self) is always so, not a stage to attain. So it's about realisation and shift of perception.
John Tan: Yes (thumbs up)


As John also used to say to someone else, "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'.""


Also：


Differentiate Wisdom from Art


Replying to someone in Rinzai Zen discussion group, John Tan wrote recently:

“I think we have to differentiate wisdom from an art or a state of mind.
In Master Sheng Yen’s death poem, 
 
Busy with nothing till old. (无事忙中老)
In emptiness, there is weeping and laughing. (空里有哭笑)
Originally there never was any 'I'. (本来没有我)
Thus life and death can be cast aside. (生死皆可抛)
 
This "Originally there never was any 'I'" is wisdom and the dharma seal of anatta. It is neither an art like an artist in zone where self is dissolved into the flow of action nor is it a state to be achieved in the case of the taoist "坐忘" (sit and forget) -- a state of no-mind. 
 
For example in cooking, there is no self that cooks, only the activity of cooking. The hands moves, the utensils act, the water boils, the potatoes peel and the universe sings together in the act of cooking. Whether one appears clumsy or smooth in act of cooking doesn't matter and when the dishes r out, they may still taste horrible; still there never was any "I" in any moment of the activity. There is no entry or exit point in the wisdom of anatta.”

Labels: Anatta, Zen Master Sheng-yen 1 comments | | 



Also see: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/09/robert-dominiks-breakthrough.html

Dear Soh,

I am very grateful to you for making me aware of Angelo Dilullo's work. I have a question regarding something you said in the original post: Is it you that equals Dilullo's attainment with MCTB 4th path or has Dilullo himself made that comparison (and if so: where)?

All the best,
​​​​​​​Niels

I made the comparison, having personally attained MCTB 4th path equivalent in October 2010 and not having any trace of subject/object, perceiver/perceived, doer/deed, agency-action, any trace of duality or agency for the past 10+ years.

Angelo, from his book:

"Let’s investigate exactly how and why the pond analogy breaks down here. This will help to make the transition into describing how this stage of realization plays out for the individual. In the pond analogy, it would seem that the moment we turn away from the pond, we see a vast world of objects arranged in three-dimensional space, and the person who turned away from the pond can now go navigate that world. In the actuality of realization, it’s not like that. It’s more like the moment the person standing on the shore turns to the world of the actual, that person ceases to exist. The whole experience of being a someone looking at this and looking at that, trying to figure it all out and having the experience of being someone experiencing an evolution of insight and understanding (awakening) was fundamentally in error. Now when they turn to the world of the real, they were simply never there to begin with. Now there is only the real with nothing standing apart from it to observe it. There was only ever the real! You could say that now you experience yourself as everything, but importantly there is no “yourself” so there is just everything. That everything is crisp, vivid, undeniable, and has no apart-ness to it. The reflective nature of consciousness (self-referencing) made things appear as if there was a noticer and that which was noticed, a person and a life that person was living, objects out there and a subject here, navigating those objects. This ranges in scale from the macro (life events, beliefs, time, and space) down to the discrete (a single sound, sensation, shape, taste, or smell).
In realization this is what I refer to as liberation. It can happen suddenly, and it can happen gradually, but the relational (reflective) framework of experience we perceive that creates the illusion of separation subsides. Technically, this is the end of the entanglement with consciousness that was creating the sense of a discrete self apart from the world. Now when there is sound, there is only sound—pristine, complete, and all-pervasive. When there is a color or a shape, there is only that color, only that shape—impossibly vivid and not apart from anything. There are only trees, with no observer. There are only stars, with no one watching them. There is only the moon, with no one gazing upon it.
The awareness of the dazzling dance of color has collapsed into the colors themselves. Color does the seeing. Sound does the hearing. Sensation does the feeling; sensation is the feeling. With this collapse of the seeing into the colors, the feeler into the sensations, and the thinker into the thought, there is also a collapse of the individual into everything. This is somewhat like a self-propagating and self-dissolving cloud of radiant and pure (no experiencer) experience. Whether it’s a car, the hum of a fan, or a voice, there is no one hearing it; the hearing is intrinsic to the sound. The experiencer has fully collapsed onto the experience, and it is seen that this is the natural way. There is no longer the possibility to “stand apart and observe” as seemed to be happening before. Instead, the sense of observing is seen to have been a simple misreading of the nature of reflective consciousness. Consciousness doesn’t have to go away; it is simply experienced as another vivid no-distance sense. There is no inside and there is no outside. There is no other possibility, as every possibility is playing out effortlessly as the Universe coming into being and dissolving as each discreet quanta of sense phenomena, each movement, each expression of radiance. That sound is completeness itself and it is not apart from, or essentially different from, all of existence. Those colors and shapes are not other than the observer, and their radiance and clarity are exquisite and without equal. That one bodily sensation fills up the Universe and dissolves instantaneously.
There is no substratum here. There is no background or foreground. Nothing is held; everything is just on time, and also not in time. There is no timeline. Nothing is moving from moment to moment. There aren’t even moments. This is the only moment and thus there is no need to call it a moment. It is not a point in time; it is every point in time, always right here. Timelessness is intuited to be simply the way it is. Eternity is no big deal because it simply and obviously is. There is nothing acting against anything else. This struggle is over. There is wholeness in discrete experiences, yet nothing is carried out of those experiences."

Angelo, from http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/search/label/Angelo%20Gerangelo?updated-max=2020-12-21T01:40:00%2B08:00&max-results=20&start=3&by-date=false

Angelo Gerangelo's Writings on Anatta and Total Exertion
Angelo Gerangelo just shared in the new group Awakening to Reality

Angelo Gerangelo Hi I wrote this a while back. May be helpful may not. I think it’s too long so I will post in two parts.

—-
I have no idea who might find this useful or want to read it at all. You could say that I actually can’t find “anyone”, anymore than I can find a “my self” apart from the flow of phenomenality.

When self is out of the way then the field of phenomenal activity informs Itself. There is only luminous self-manifesting presence. This all-encompassing absorption which manifests as color, movement, sound, bodily sensation, texture, taste and smell has no “outside.” In and of itself it is complete, self evident, spontaneous, and undeniable. It is also void of substance, identity, solidity, continuity, purpose or meaning.

This is what is meant by Dogen’s “when one side is illuminated the other side is dark.”

To the content-addicted mind this may sound unappealing. However, in direct experience this is blissful, profoundly peaceful and “right” in a way that nothing in the concept-identified world of “me, my life, my problems, my past and my future” even comes close to.

It is also stateless, natural, and not “of time,” meaning there is no appearance of it coming or going, arising or subsiding. There is a deep intuition that “this is it,” however there is no longer anyone to hold that intuition.

For example the direct experience of a single color is the culmination of all that Is and it’s underlying unmanifest potentiality, coming forth in and as that color. In this, the intuitive knowing of interconnectedness arises as a gut level instinct. This color “event” is distinct, pristine and has no remainder. The seeing is intrinsic to the color itself and thus the color cannot be said to be an object of seeing.

The above is true of all sense modalities (five gates).

This vivid aliveness is experienced as the maximum exertion of the cosmos coming forth to bring about this exact quantum event. This is the ecstasy of coming into Being, not as a discrete entity experiencing a world of phenomena, but as the phenomenon itself.

This is precisely what is meant in the ninth oxherding picture by “the river flows tranquilly on and the flowers are red,” as well as, “the water is emerald, the mountain is indigo...”

Released of the burden of a subject, a watcher, or an experiencer, phenomena are seen to be absolutely free by nature.

In this freedom the flow of phenomenality is infinite in degree, quality and potential.

The mark of this freedom is transience. This is where description really falters. No conceptual paradigm of transience can communicate transience.

Conception is largely about description, which is the referencing of something in one’s previous experience and saying “it’s like that,” or “it’s like that only with such and such difference.”

Transient nature contradicts this conceptual tendency on a moment to moment basis. Not only is there no “before” to compare present experience to, there is no background against which experience can be compared.

Indeed what is being discussed here is not in the realm of experience, but rather is experience-less. To put it simply, “this isn’t like anything, it is exactly as it is.” This is why terms such as “is-ness,” and “such-ness” are used.

Even to point to constant flux, endless change is not quite right. To notice constant change there must be a background or a standpoint of comparison, which cannot be found.

So the use of conception, pointing, description to “get at” transient nature is very slippery business. The following may or may not be helpful.
4
Like
· Reply
· 15h
Angelo Gerangelo
Angelo Gerangelo The most basic movement of consciousness is simple reflection, as if taking a picture with a camera of what seems to be happening in the sensory world. This is pre-conceptual and operates at a very fundamental layer of processing but if it could be made into a statement, this snapshot would say something like “oh this is how it is, this is the nature of reality.” I would call this the fundamental unit of “frame” or “view.”

Only after the collapse of frame is transient nature experienced as natural and is expressed as infinite-degree freedom.

It is imperative here to clarify that what is meant by view or frame in this context is not referring to mere opinion or belief. An opinion or belief can be examined at the conceptual level. This can indeed be quite profitable at earlier stages of realization “Who am I?” However in deeper stage realization this fundamental tendency toward frame can and often does go completely unnoticed. It underlies our most basic tendencies, motivations, assumptions. It is the foundation upon which the entire identity construct is built. This includes personal identity (before kensho or what some call “I Am” awakening), as well as the much more subtle identification with consciousness, universality, pre-conceptual experience that almost always occurs after awakening.

The challenge is that the contrast between concept identification (pre awakening) and subtle identification with unbound consciousness, universality, the absolute (post awakening), is often so dramatic that it can be mistaken for enlightenment (anatta), and the remaining identification can be completely overlooked. This manifests as the belief “all there is is awareness,” like a constant state of watching with no watcher. We can become convinced either overtly or unconsciously that we have arrived.

To further complicate the issue, we may have further realization beyond initial awakening where the illusion of subject/object division collapses and yet frame remains very much intact. This can become a “pseudo-completion” and lead to all kinds of subtle but profound distortions.

More commonly we subtly suspect that the process of realization has not completed itself, but have no clue how to proceed. We often find that many of the drives that motivated us to awaken initially have subsided. We also often find that the approaches to practice that worked previously do not seem to have the same effectiveness or suddenly don’t feel relevant in the ways that they used to.

So what to do? Well because the sense of being a watcher, a doer, and a volitional agent are built on top of and are thus effects of frame, we must investigate in a specific way so as to avoid remaining in a subtle watcher/doer frame unknowingly.

Firstly an investigation of the nature and function of frame can be helpful. This investigation should be conducted in as direct a way as possible. What I mean is that the functioning of frame will never cease by mere understanding, conceptualizing etc. Having a conceptual framework can be a good jumping off place but the inquiry must be non-conceptual, direct and with the innocent curiosity of a child. As Christ said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Returning to the snapshot analogy, the reflective mind (consciousness) takes snapshots of sensory input on an ongoing basis and uses these snapshots to construct a frame which is used as the foundation for “how things are.” This tendency to construct and maintain an objective reality through frame has tremendous momentum. It begins as a small child as we become self aware in the most fundamental way somewhere between the first and second year of life. In early childhood this frame tendency is intermittent, but over time it starts to feel quite solid. This solidity is experienced as continuity (self and world in time). This continuity is fundamental to who we think we are and how we think the world is. By early adulthood it has typically become so solidified that most people would consider it absurd to even question. To question the assumption that I am a choice maker moving through a world called ‘my life,’ in which I solve problems and I have a distinct past and a future that I’m creating, would be akin to insanity in the context of what we consider normal human experience.

Even with later stages of realization we don’t appreciate the breadth and magnitude of the binding nature of frame until it ceases (anatta).

So to “get under” frame we must become very clear on the basic units of its construction. This must take place in direct experience only. A mere conceptual understanding will be useless at best and a distraction and hindrance at worst.

So start to become familiar with these “snapshots.” To do this it is imperative that we spend time directly investigating the sensory phenomena. There are many ways to do this but the key is to look directly, closely, sincerely and repetitively.

For example: As a color, shape or movement (visual phenomenon) is perceived we should directly investigate its nature without thought. When we do this earnestly we will begin to see the point at which the snapshot is taken. We will see where the direct experience of that color becomes “red” or “red shirt.” We will begin to see where that direct experience of red, when the eyes are closed becomes a mental image of what was previously viewed. These are two examples of thought-reflection (snapshot). One is conceptual (verbal/words/labels), the other is non-conceptual (visual/image).

Begin to clearly perceive the difference between direct sensory experience and reflective consciousness in this way.

Do not reject either experience just see them for what they are.

Similarly when sound is heard, simply experience it directly. Notice the difference between direct experience and the thought that follows that labels that experience. Furthermore recognize that only a thought following direct experience of a sound can state or suggest the presence of someone who heard that sound.

In this way we begin to perceive sound as it is. We start to experience the no-thingness of it (you can never actually find it in real time bc it’s gone as soon as it’s there). At the same time we start to experience the non-dual (no subject object) aspect of it. This is the direct, all encompassing, “just this” aspect.

As you clarify both of these “sides” of the direct sensory phenomena there will be clearer and clearer direct knowing that there is no seer, no listener, no sensor, there is only hearing, seeing, sensing. In addition each sensory “event” will clearly be realized as interconnected, complete, vivid and “with maximum absorption.”

As this is clarified over and over the sense of a doer, seer, hearer, perceiver will begin to fade as it is only found in a thought, never in the phenomena.

As my zen teacher used to say years ago, “at some point, the mountains, rivers and flowers simply replace you.”
5
Like
· Reply
· 15h


John TanActive Now
John Tan Angelo, is this ur daily experience now?
Like
· Reply
· 7h
Angelo Gerangelo
Angelo Gerangelo John Tan it feels odd to call it an experience however I’d say yes. It’s more simply a way of pointing to the natural phenomenal world as experienced through/by/as the senses. There’s a completely indescribable sense to everything as well. The best way I can say is that there is no “way that things are.” Constant flux so the moment I describe anything it’s already gone. Even the sense of wanting to describe everything here is momentary and based on conditions (this conversation) and is dissolving as it is forming. There’s no sense of having arrived indeed the vessel through which one could say to have arrived or left is only a momentary appearance.

The transient nature again just defies explanation but I could liken it to this. It’s as if one were walking down a lighted hallway and only the section of hallway that you are in is illuminated. As if the lights turn on and then off again as you walk past. Only there’s no you walking and no hallway only the lights creating appearances of movement and phenomena in that section. The lights in that analogy are the sensory phenomena. Just vivid direct experience self-experiencing.

Further it seems to quite paradoxically become more and more solid/physical. The physicality of body/world is experienced as interpenetrated with the “realization.” Like a mountain of emptiness, universe walking, talking, sitting, working. The more I write the more I realize this defies description.

There is value to the precision of description/language in describing stages of realization etc. personally I’m only interested in that insofar as it helps others who genuinely want to wake up to the deepest truths. With that said there can also be subtle fixations on precision of descriptions etc. There is of course a whole other side to realization that is totally instinctual, mysterious, unknowable. The innocence, vulnerability, wonder and awe cannot be overlooked, particularly if we are going to carry this into daily life as usual. I would never say anything is complete here, I am in awe moment to moment and learn from everyone and everything. It is literally impossible to have a sense that “I am liberated but others aren’t.” In a very real way all thatcis seen is Buddha nature. So if I speak to someone in process of awakening this is how I see them. They are both awakening process and Buddha nature. Those cannot be divided out. Not sure if that is helpful.

Disclaimer- I don’t stand by anything I say, it’s gone as soon as it arrives
3
Like
· Reply
· 5h
· Edited
John TanActive Now
John Tan Yes Angelo, total exertion!

I like ur description of walking down a lighted hallway.

Like while walking in a shopping mall, there is no self, just the full fluxing sensations forming the the appearance of the “shopping mall”. Then when entering the car park, the entire fluxing sensations turn into a “carpark”. The taste of this wondrous fluxing appearance is beyond description.

As for physicality and senses, they are simply conventional designations. In total exertion, all designated boundaries dissolved and the six senses seamlessly inter-permeate each other into one miraculous functioning. In the exertion of seeing for example, it is not only the eyes see; the ears see; the nose sees, the colors see. The entire body-mind-universe marvelously arise as this moment of vivid scenery. In this moment, there is no seer and no seeing, just the beautiful scenery.

Look, appreciate and dwell deeply into it in non-dual and ask,

Where is this scenery?

Unlike sound, taste, thoughts and smell that vanish like evanescent mist, the scenery is vividly and obviously there, but where is it?

Powerfully present, yet empty like reflection.

Integrate the two taste and happy journey!
2
Like
· Reply
· 21m
· Edited

​​​​​​​Would you equate this with sotapanna? (i.e. extinguishing of "self-identity view")

Sutta version, yes.

See:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/08/insight-buddhism-reconsideration-of.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf%20

Do you see extinguishing of any of the higher fetters (4-10) as attainable, or as worthy but ultimately unattainable ideals?

I personally think they are attainable. But I am not convinced any modern claimants have achieved what the sutta defines as arahant, not even people that place emphasis on the 'fetter model' such as Kevin Shanilec, Ajahn Maha Boowa, or even AF Richard. If you want the long story you'll have to look into the AtR guide.

There's a book, "Entering the Stream to Enlightenment" where they supposedly interviewed many modern 'closeted arahats' who didn't want their identities revealed. I have not read indepth yet, so I don't know if any of them are really the 'sutta arahats'.

Also, there are many claims of modern practitioners attaining Buddhahood (Rainbow body = Buddhahood) in the Vajrayana/Dzogchen/Mahamudra/etc communities.

I have yet to do indepth research so I cannot comment.

Arcaya Malcolm Smith, a Dzogchen teacher who I received teachings from, says his late teacher Kunzang Dechen Lingpa have exhibited signs and even explicitly made claims to having achieved that goal. I do not know too much details but I keep an open mind to that.

Acarya Malcolm Smith is of the view that his teacher attained the classical Buddhahood defined as the removal of all afflictive obscurations (i.e. 'ten fetters') and cognitive obscurations.

Kyle Dixon posted this on reddit three days ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dzogchen/comments/ovfx7q/to_dzogchen_is_there_any_difference_between/

level 1krodha · 3d · edited 3dYes there is a difference. The former, cultivating the space between thoughts is called stillness or nepa in Tibetan, gnas pa in the Wylie transliteration. Cultivating stillness is good practice, it is śamatha meditation, but in Dzogchen we must also integrate movement, and there are methods to accomplish that.The knower of stillness and movement of thought is called the characteristic of mind, it is sometimes nominally referred to as the nature of mind, but it is just an “example gnosis” which is used in practice so that the aspirant can realize true gnosis.True insight into the nature of mind however occurs in awakening to actual gnosis, the non-arisen luminosity of mind, and is the same as realizing there is no self, or no external objects as well, but it has to do with realizing emptiness [śūnyatā]. That insight is an actual cognitive shift where the inner subjective background collapses and/or external objects are realized to be false.6

What to Do When You Experience Unbound Consciousness 

(Transcription)

​​​​​​​In this video we're going to talk about how to arrive at unbound consciousness. And what to do when you are experiencing unbound consciousness. This arose from a question somebody asked, who was going through the self-inquiry process I laid out in my book, and had arrived at that state or that stage of unbound consciousness for several moments, but was unsure what to do at that point. What do you do when you're experiencing a thoughtless state for a short time. So in response to that question, I decided to make this video to clarify two things.

One is, what it means to arrive at unbound consciousness. With a few pointers on how you might achieve that, and then what to do when you start to taste unbound consciousness. 

So first of all: What is unbound consciousness? What do I mean by that? 

To explain what I mean by unbound consciousness, it's helpful to describe what the usual experience of consciousness is, and then contrast that to what I mean by unbound consciousness.

The usual experience of consciousness is a polarized experience where we feel like we are the one doing the thinking or a subjective pull, and there's an objective pull which is the thoughts that we are paying attention to most of the time we're awake.

I should also point out that most of the time we're awake and experiencing thoughts in this way, we're so identified with the thoughts we don't realize this is happening. We do occasionally become aware of thoughts as such. But most of the time we're so involved in the thinking process, we feel like it's the actual world, we feel like it's our actual life that we're engaged in when we're thinking. But we're not. 

It's a polarized internal process in consciousness where we're taking ourselves to be the subject, experiencing an objective world.

This is so built into the way we process, the way we communicate, the way we think about ourselves, the way we experience the world, that it seems completely normal. 

The first step in waking up from the dream of separation, is to break that spell. See through it and recognize that that was actually never happening. That dualistic experience inside of consciousness is a sort of hypnotic spell, caused by thought caused by polarized thinking.

So one of the steps in breaking that spell – or the step that gets you right at the edge of awakening – is to recognize what unbound consciousness is experientially. 

Not to understand it. Not to intellectually grasp what the idea of unbound consciousness is, or even to grasp the model I'm using right now to describe it. 

It has to be experiential. You have to be knowingly conscious without an object of consciousness, without an object of thought, without experiencing an objective world made out of thought. 

So, you could say that this is to be pure subjectivity, pure I, pure sense of I am. This is unbound consciousness. 

In my chapter on awakening I describe in great detail how to approach this. For this video, I'll just riff on the subject a little bit and kind of point to it from a few different angles.

The first angle is to approach thought by feel. So it's to become interested in what the experience is of thinking. So we're going to turn our attention toward thought. We're going to feel into the texture of what a thought is, how it moves, how it arises. And what it moves in. 

A thought isn't something in the objective world. It's not out in front of you. It doesn't walk into the room and sit in a chair in front of you. It's somewhere internal. So, let's turn our attention there, and just look and feel into what it feels like to be the thinker. 

Any thought that arises, regardless of the content, it can be “I don't understand this”, it can be an image of something that happened a few minutes ago or earlier in the day, it can be an image of something that's going to happen later, it might be an image of your body, your face.

But whatever thought is arising in your mind, just give it your attention. Don't wrestle with it. Don't try to change into something else. Just experience it. As if to say “what is that?”, “what is it made out of?”

A thought is kind of like watching a movie in your mind. But if you got curious enough about that movie, or the screen it's playing on, you could walk right up to it. Put your hand in that light. See what it's made out of. Turn towards the projector. What is consciousness as it turns into thought? 

And when you start to get a feel for that, when you start to get a feel for the mysteriousness of a thought, keeping your attention right on the thought, you can start to feel your way back to the subject, to the thinker. And notice the thinker is made out of the same substance as the thought.

The thinker and the thought are not two in this space. The sense of you, the sense of the listener, the sense of the awareness, the aware one, the conscious one. Can you find a place where that exists separate from any thought?

Now, when you recognize this sameness, the thinker and the thought aren't separate, and you just kind of rest there, it might feel like a little bit of a movement or a wave. You might feel like your attention's sloshing around in your mind and consciousness. Or just kind of moving in an easy way. Or even a circuit. It might just feel like movement of thought with no content. It might feel like pure self moving out in all directions, including every thought, including all of the space of the thinker, of the thinking, until it's all just one continuous experience of consciousness, one continuous experience of being or I. 

Now, if you can feel into that, you just sort of remain there. There's an alertness to it but it can be completely content-less. Meaning no thoughts are forming. Just kind of an awareness that's aware in every direction. A knowing that's self-knowing. Knowing only the knowing. Just like a purity of the knower. Requiring no object, because every object is also part of the knower, it's part of the knowing. This is pure consciousness, unbound consciousness. It's not bound to an object of thought.

So, that's one way in. Another way in is to de-identify from thoughts, one by one. So just notice the next thought that's going to arise. Whatever it is. And the moment you recognize the thought, call it out to yourself as a thought. 

So it can be: “my head hurts” … (“oh that's thought”).

It can be: “that sound is annoying” … (“oh that's a thought”).

It can be a self-narrative: “I don't know how to meditate” … (“oh another thought”).

As soon as we recognize the thought as a thought, then we can kind of turn our attention to what else is here. Because we're recognizing that usually thoughts are structuring our experience. But when we disregard the thought as not actually here – because it's always pointing somewhere else, or it's saying something that's not directly experienceable right here and right now, like a sound is, or a sensation is, or a visual experience is – then we can let it go.   We can turn our attention somewhere else. So, what's the next thought? 

Just be ready. And as soon as you recognize it as a thought – as an arising thought, or a formed thought – just set it aside: “oh that's a thought, now what else is here?” And you notice the gap before another thought comes, don't make any more thoughts. Stay in the gap, but be alert for a thought to come spontaneously. And as soon as it does, just set it aside as a thought: “oh that's a thought, back to the gap”. And just notice the gap expand, until the next thought arrives. Might last a few seconds, might last 20 or 30 seconds. It might last longer. 

This gap might also feel like the pure sense of I. Or it might not feel like anything specific because we're not thinking, we're not labeling. So it's pure alert attention. But not interested in thinking. So in that gap – and remember gap is also a thought – in that absence of thoughts – that's what I'm pointing to when I say unbound consciousness – you're not asleep but you're also not thinking. 

Now I want to make one other point about this unbound consciousness. The mind is sneaky.  It'll tell you that without thinking you can't know its unbound consciousness. But that is one thought. The thought actually says “oh without thinking you won't know you're there”. Then you can just disregard that as another thought and return to the gap. Because you absolutely can know unbound consciousness with no thoughts at all. So just stay right there. 

Now the point of the  video was to talk about what to do when you've arrived at unbound consciousness. And (if) is that actually awakening to experience unbound consciousness.

I'll answer the second question first: it's not awakening. Not yet but it's very fertile ground for awakening. Once you come to this place there's nothing more you can do. You can give yourself to this experience of pure conscious experience, pure conscious being, and remain alert. Remain in that thoughtless space. 

But there's nothing more you can do.  The rest is out of your hands. But you can commit to just remaining here, regardless of how you feel, regardless of how the body reacts.

It's very common, once you first find out that you can guide yourself into unbound consciousness and remain there, that the body will have a strong response, a fear response. And again, without thoughts it's literally a physiologic experience.

A thought will say “I'm dying” … “this is the most horrible thing I've ever experienced” …  Whatever the thought says … “I can't handle it” …  You just disregard each thought: “oh that's another thought” … back to the gap …  “oh that's another thought” … Your heart might be racing, you might feel sweaty, you might feel sick to your stomach for a few minutes. 

Just stay there. Stay with that unbound consciousness. And the fear response will subside, it won't last forever. It might be intense for a while, but even intense is a descriptor, a thought. Just let the body experience what it needs to experience. And as you remain in this unbound conscious state, at some point the body will calm down. And it will just be a neutral, aware, thoughtless conscious space.  Is this awakening? Not yet.

Just remain here. Once you're able to cultivate this, and once you've gone through a fear barrier – if you do … most people do, but it doesn't mean you will – don't think about it, don't obsess over whether it was there or not. That's just thoughts. But if it comes it's okay. If it doesn't come, it's okay. But if you've cultivated the ability to remain in this thoughtless space for a time, and/or gone through that fear threshold, then again there's nothing more to do. Just stay here. Just remain with it. Reality will do the work, I promise.

Because, why not? Why not just stay here? 

If there aren't thoughts saying: “oh, every time I get to this place, I don't know what to do, it never works”,  then you're getting caught back in thoughts. Be aware of those thoughts. Be alert for the thoughts that are practice thoughts, self-monitoring thoughts, and just keep letting go when you recognize that's just another thought.

I think of a satellite or a rocket launched into space that's sling-shotting off itself off of celestial bodies and using their gravity to shoot farther into space. That's just a mental model, but it could feel a bit like that.

So just be very alert for these subtle monitoring thoughts, self-monitoring thoughts, practice thoughts: “oh, I can get to this space and then this thing always happens where I lose track of something…” … right, another thought. “oh, that's another thought, now what's here”.

And just go back to that space exquisitely neutral. It's contentless. It's uninteresting to the thought process, because the thought process can say nothing about it. But the thought process is dissolved fully in it and it's made fully out of it. So everything you've ever thought is already here. Everything you ever thought you were is here. Everything you ever thought the world was is here. In its pure form, in its unmanifested form. Pure conscious, without having to turn into anything.

So just remain with it. Don't move. Remain in that neutrality. That's your practice. That's all there is to do. And then be patient. If you can really remain here, and you're not getting entangled in thoughts again, it's just a matter of time. 

And even anticipating what's coming is just another thought. “Oh, I think it's almost happening” … that’s another thought.  “Oh, what if I missed it?”, another thought.

So, now what's here? We've let go of those thoughts. This is how we do it. Just stay the course. Remain in that alert thoughtless neutral space. 

This guy is amazing and the real deal. 1/2 hour after I ask him for his definition of prescence he says great question and makes it his latest video on his video channel here

I'm guessing that Angelo wouldn't want anyone to put him on a pedestal. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but just in case ... remember he says that he doesn't see other people as unawakened! (which is a pretty interesting statement, if you try to think what it might mean (and no, it doesn't mean that people are already awake!))
​​​​​​​
BTW, isn't it awesome that we have an anesthesiologist talking about awakening 

It is cool, indeed, that there are both medical practicioners and scientists talking about awakening now, not just some mindfulness light as therapy and/or to keep workers more compliant. I suspect that some aspects of the territory will continue to be considered woo woo or religious or both, or even as mental illness, so I wouldn't tell my physicians or parents to children whom I work with all about my experiences just yet. I appreciate that there are people who from their position can afford being open about it and thereby pave the way for others. I'm selectively very open about it but can easily imagine some contexts where it would be risky business. 

"Even to point to constant flux, endless change is not quite right. To notice constant change there must be a background or a standpoint of comparison, which cannot be found."

So the usual metaphor about a river never being the same river twice usually implies the memory reference of a past river - and doesn't quite work if that memory is impermanent too. It's a logic that anihilates itself, which is maybe the point. So the truth has to be, kind of, neither permance or impermanence.  I suppose language can't really capture it. Anyway, moving on.

Both permanence and impermanence are concepts within a paradigm where time exists as something that moves in one direction at a consistent pace. Moves in relation to what?

In my Dzogchen community, rainbow body supposedly means that one is no longer in human form, perhaps not in any organic form (not sure about the details), so any living human being is considered not to have attained rainbow body. When somebody attains rainbow body upon death, most of their body* supposedly dissolves into rainbow light (or what is perceived as such) that can then be collected as little rainbow orbs that are used as sacred ingredients in blessing pills among other things. There are direct witnessings of this. I believe that they experienced it, but I have no clue as to what the objective reality of it is, if there is such a thing (I'm more and more leaning towards believing that any reality is collective magick manifesting, and that consensual reality is very powerful magick due to strong shared karma). I have also heard stories about some rinpoche dropping such rainbow orbs in his sleep so that there would be lots of them in his sheets, so maybe that is considered a step very close to attaining rainbow body that yet allows staying in human form (again not sure about the details). 

*) If I remember correctly, anything but nails and... hair? Not sure. And there's supposedly a specific practice that would make even those dissolve into what looks like rainbow light. 

Edited to add: At the same time, there are rituals where the remains of bodies are used as ingredients and relics (I have even heard stories of smuggling Guru Rinpoche's dried penis through the customs) so it would seem like there is some level of reality within that paradigm where the body remains as form. Really not sure abut the details. I find it rather confusing. 

Not correct, that is a common misunderstanding. http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2013/03/rainbow-body-and-thusness-advice-to-me.htmlRainbow Body and Thusness's Advice to Me

Also see: Color, Sound, Lights and Rays Dzogchen vs Advaita, Conventional and Ultimate Truth Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm Clarifications on the Term "Rigpa" Exhaustion of All Phenomena

In my Facebook group "Dharma Connection" there happens to be many Dzogchen practitioners around so I posted this as it may interest them as I think it may also interest you as a reader. I've also posted some comments by Thusness below. (note: Thusness is not a Dzogchen practitioner so whatever he said need not be indicative of Dzogchen, just the practice and experience between us)

Also, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu writes in his book "Dzogchen Teachings"   Thusness said to me: Update: Someone wrote: "I believe Malcolm Smith, Many texts state the "physical body reverts to the essence of the elements as rainbow light and disapears." Also there is a great deal of writing by many such as Longchenpa that describe the difference between the "vanishment of the physical body" between trekchod, rainbow body as "jalus" and "phowa chenpo" the Great Transfer. This is the goofiest of Malcolm's posts that I have ever read... Am I missing something?" Malcolm replied: "Rainbow body where the body shrinks and disappears is a sign of incompletely finishing the fourth vision in this life."

Labels: Ācārya Malcolm Smith, All is Mind, Anatta, Dzogchen, Emptiness, Luminosity, Non Dual |

I have no idea what is correct, only what I have been taught. I certainly do not know what it is. Apparently there isn't consensus on how to use the term, and it's all beyond me. 

Thanks for shedding more light on it!

Can I ask... if those disappearing bodies are incomplete, where do they go? To formless realms? Do they become inorganic beings like those Carlos Castaneda describes, or what? This is probably a stupid question, but I so rarely find someone willing to adress the topic and I find it interesting. 

That's a really nice way of putting it ​​​​​​​