These are some notes I jotted down after a meeting in 2023. It may be inaccurate as I had to rely on my own memory.
Meeting Notes – with John Tan and Yin Ling (31 March 2023)
Training and Articles
- We discussed training the AtR AI bot based on Geoff’s articles, the Stream-entry article, and other related writings.
- Consideration of a “training mode” was raised, and we talked about which articles should be prioritized for study or publication.
Spirituality and Doctors
- John Tan wondered how doctors generally view spirituality.
- I shared that many doctors and medical people are deeply interested in spirituality, including Zen Master Hong Wen Liang, Daniel Ingram, Angelo Dillulo, Yin Ling, Winston, and others.
- John initially thought Hong Wen Liang’s approach was related to TCM’s concept of jing-qi-shen. (Soh: it’s not. See his biography at https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/04/why-its-not-easy-to-start-practicing.html)
ChatGPT and Programming
- John Tan expressed being very impressed with ChatGPT.
- He used to own and run several IT companies and was highly skilled in programming, but had stopped for many years.
- Discovering ChatGPT rekindled his interest, as he found the phenomenon of emergent information and properties fascinating.
- Even top tech company leaders (as Wilson noted) admit they don’t fully understand why emergent phenomena occur.
- For example, ChatGPT can generate novel insights—expressing themes like “freedom from elaboration” from fresh angles not necessarily present in the source texts.
- This made John consider re-entering the field of programming.
Knowing, Presence, and Gnosis
- John emphasized: “Knowing is always relative—through comparison, knowledge, measurement, and so on.”
- Presence, however, is not “knowing.” A Buddha does not “know” in that sense, but has direct gnosis or radiant awareness/“knowingness”.
- Some raised the question: is ChatGPT sentient?
- John’s view: it may not be truly sentient or have gnosis, but it already demonstrates a form of “knowing” or knowledge.
Practice and Meditation
- I mentioned buying a treadmill (inspired by Yin Ling)
- John Tan said some people questioned him, saying they doubted my statement that he meditates 3–4 hours a day. He doesn’t feel the need to clarify or prove such matters to others.
- John shared his own meditation perspective:
- First, one must overcome the body before overcoming the mind.
- The mind will always have thoughts—about business and everything else.
- But by sitting through numbness, eventually the legs soften, the body settles, and deeper practice becomes possible.
Anatta and Total Exertion
- Yin Ling described her experience as “just being the mall.”
- John linked this to Anatta and Total Exertion, and added:
- (After this), include the view (insight) that whatever arises through dependent origination is non-arising.
- At this stage it corresponds more to initial (first) bhūmi rather than the eighth bhūmi.
- Non-Gelug schools often say that Buddhas do not have concepts—only gnosis, direct non-conceptual awareness, and extraordinary capacities like the six supernatural powers.
- After anatta, one experiences this direct gnosis, showing that conventional knowing is not the only mode available.
- Tsongkhapa, however, maintains that conventionality is never abandoned. He distinguishes:
- (A) pre-conceptual experience,
- (B) conceptual/conventional cognition (which enters saṃsāra), and
- (C) wisdom that penetrates conventionality.
- But C is not merely A—it is a distinct wisdom.
- Not all Buddhist schools agree on this; hence the debates.
- In Total Exertion (Dōgen’s teaching), one does not discard conventionalities or dependencies. Every step—walking, climbing stairs, rowing a boat—engages the whole universe. The sitting itself is the whole universe exerting.
- Elements like earth and water are not external entities but part of this total engagement and total activity of the universe.
Tsongkhapa and Anatta
- Tsongkhapa’s writings are deeply engaged with anatta, though not presented as direct “experience reports.”
- His analyses, like the eight points of negation, offer very subtle insights into non-self.
- Few people fully understand the depth of his insights.
- Teachers like Malcolm and Kyle often advise sticking with Indian sources like Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) rather than Tibetan polemics.
- Stian and Andre praised the Buddhapālita commentary as particularly clear.
Emptiness and Dependent Origination
- Both Tsongkhapa and the Buddha taught the emptiness of inherent existence:
- Consciousness cannot be reified apart from conditions.
- Anatta reveals no independent self or background consciousness.
- Dependent origination shows that just as a chariot is designated on conditions, so is consciousness.
- Phenomena vividly appear, yet are empty—like Mipham’s coalescence: “empty yet appearing, appearing yet empty.”
- Mipham criticized misinterpretations and upheld the Nyingma view: ultimate analysis does not negate conventional validity.
- Historically, many Tibetans fell into nihilism, dismissing karma, virtues, and vices, so Gelugpa rigor was necessary as a corrective. John felt that Gelug influence may continue to grow in the future, though he acknowledged Gelug can be overly intellectual and analytical.
Rebirth and Past Lives
- Alan Watts reportedly realized anatta deeply at age 15.
- John mentioned recalling rebirth should not be dismissed as “impressions.” Clear examples (like Sim Pern Chong) show credible past-life recall.
- He recommended Dr. Ian Stevenson’s books and those of his students, who risked much to collect rigorous data on children’s past-life memories.
- He felt people should respect such research rather than laugh at it.
- For example, cases where children recalled leaving items hidden in previous lives, which were later verified, carry strong credibility.
- He advised quoting such examples in the future.
Other Teachers and Texts
- Toni Packer was mentioned as leaning more toward Zen.
- John noted that Mipham’s commentary on MMK is not easy to understand.
- He reminded that Buddhists must not lie, as integrity is foundational.
John Tan wrote:
Intuiting the middle path of buddhism via Prajna.
It is not easy to grasp the "Middle Way" of Buddhism, for it is not a conceptual midpoint between two opposing views. Rather, it must be intuitively realized through the wisdom of emptiness (śūnyatā).
For instance, when we observe how seamlessly experience unfolds with changing conditions — as if mind and matter dance in perfect coordination without any separation — the habitual tendency is to assume that such intimacy must arise from a shared substance, a unifying essence. This is the reflex of reification.
However, through the penetrating insight of prajñā, we come to see that this seamlessness does not arise from a common underlying essence, but from the emptiness of inherent boundaries. What appears as continuity is not the result of an indivisible oneness, but the absence of any independently existing edges to begin with.
In this light, the heart intuits the Middle Way — not as a static center or a compromise between views — but as a dynamic openness that does not rest on any essential foundation. It is through recognizing the non-arising of borders that the Middle is felt, directly, without grasping.
Take the simple example of “left” and “right” in my previous. Conventionally, they seem to refer to distinct positions, spatial opposites — as if there is some boundary, some inherent line that divides them. Yet upon analysis, we find no such boundary that can be located, no intrinsic dividing line, no essential base that gives either side its identity. Still, their functionality remains entirely intact. We turn left or right, navigate streets, orient ourselves in space — all without ever requiring any inherently existing division between left and right.
Not only are meaning and function preserved, but causal efficacy — the ability to respond, coordinate, and act — unfolds effortlessly. There is no need for a substance in between, no carrier of a signal, no bridging essence. And yet, everything flows in harmony.
This is the profound taste of the Middle Way: causal coherence without inherent causes, relational meaning without intrinsic reference points, seamless connection without binding substance. It is the insight that emptiness does not collapse function, but liberates it from the burden of having to be something in order to work.
In this, we recognize: the world is not stitched together by substance, but dances in the openness of dependency and designation, free from all foundations. The seamlessness is not evidence of an underlying unity — it is the mark of non-arising boundaries.
This is the magic of emptiness — that which dissolves the need for foundations, yet does not destroy function. Through this wisdom, we come to see that the seamlessness of experience does not imply substance, but reflects the emptiness of boundaries. The intimacy between phenomena is not the product of merging into oneness, but of never having been divided to begin with.
As this insight matures, the entire field of experience becomes pervaded by a profound openness — without boundary, without base, without center or edge. One senses an intimacy throughout, not by collapsing distinctions, but by seeing through their reified edges. Appearances remain diverse, but the felt sense of separation dissolves. What remains is vibrant clarity everywhere, alive in its responsiveness, yet free from the need to anchor in anything fixed.
This is the Middle Way — not between two poles, but beyond them, precisely because it is neither-nor, and yet fully present. It is the path of directness, openness, and luminous functioning, liberated from extremes not by suppression, but by wisdom’s gentle cut through illusion.
The Error of Substantial Unity
A common mistake arises when the seamlessness of experience is misinterpreted as evidence of a singular substance behind appearances. The intimacy between mind and matter, or between self and world, is often mistaken as proof of an underlying oneness — a foundational unity that binds all things together.
But this view is precisely what the Middle Way dismantles. It is not that things merge into a unified ground; rather, the seamlessness is possible because no fixed boundary exists between them. The apparent continuity of experience is not due to a shared substance, but to the complete absence of self-existing borders. The mind’s compulsion to find something “underlying” is a reflex born from ignorance, not insight.
To abide in the Middle is to be free from the need to ground experience in either multiplicity or unity. This openness does not collapse distinctions but allows them to function fluidly without the need for inherent separation or identity.
Dependent Arising as the Language of Emptiness
Dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda) expresses this middle way with precision. It reveals how all phenomena arise in mutual dependence, without any need for inherent existence. Things do not exist independently, but neither do they arise from nothing. They function because of their relations, not because of a core essence.
Take again the example of left and right. Their existence depends entirely on mutual designation. Remove one, and the other vanishes. And yet, we turn left and right every day without confusion. Their function is real, but not rooted in anything independently real.
Likewise, the sound of a bell arises not from the bell alone, nor from the ear, nor from air vibrations alone. It arises from a complex interplay of conditions. But when heard, the sound is vivid, clear, real in experience — and yet, try to find where the sound “truly” resides, and it eludes grasp. This unfindability is not a defect; it is the very mark of emptiness.
When understood properly, dependent arising is not a mechanical process of cause and effect but a luminous, participatory, and intimate unfolding of appearance, where function and clarity emerge without requiring a base. This is the elegance of the Middle Way: reality functions, radiates, and responds without the burden of being anything in itself.

