Jen Chen Buddhist Blissful Culture Centre

No. 30 Lorong 27 Geylang,

Citiraya Centre #05-01/02,

Singapore 388164

6292 1800 (Mon-Fri 2pm-7pm)

6743 1030 (Sat 5pm-10pm)

*Closed on Sun and Public Holidays

In that particular talk, not so much except brief mentions. It was focused on explaining Refuge, and also it talked about Awareness (Ren Cheng has heavy emphasis on leading people to the realization of Awareness first), practicing the Paramitas (although it did briefly go through the practice of Paramitas without the threefold structures of subject-action-object)

However for the benefit of readers here, I would like to add that I do not easily believe or accept people's claims of anatta even if they made it, or even if it was made by a famous Buddhist teacher. Anatta realisation itself is pretty rare, even among accomplished practitioners and teachers, even in Buddhism. Most people fall into substantialist views even after some realisation, they do not have the anatta insight.

It is clear however, to both me and John Tan, that this teacher Li Zhu Lao Shi has realised anatta. She also agrees with me that awareness is empty of an unchanging substance/substratum like an unchanging mirror underlying reflections. Here are some excerpts from her conversations to me:

My translations:

Li Zhu Lao Shi:

"Originally, mountains and rivers and the great earth are Dharmakaya, furthermore there is fundamentally no Host and Guest or Subject and Object duality. All Host-Guest / Subject and Object dualities are a kind of action of 'Observer/Seer'. In true reality / basis, what you see, mountains are mountains, great earth are great earth, rivers are rivers, that is the true reality of phenomena, the truth / reality which you see. It is the truth or reality of what you see, called dharmata. It doesn't matter whether you see with your eyes or use a binoculors to see with your eyes, or whatever else, (I am making an analogy), there is fundamentally no subject and object duality, there is no seer nor object being seen, that duality. Because all these are simply phenomena and functions / actions, whatever you see is just whatever is, that is a truth / reality. Truth-reality / dharmata is without duality.

Similarly, wind and blowing. Wind is a phenomena, blowing is an action. Phenomena and actions are perceptual objects/spheres of cognitions. Simply speaking, I will speak further about this, all these spheres of cognitions and actions, [results in] duality. When we perceive wind blowing, very naturally [there is the] knowing of wind, the mind does not have to give rise to an additional word 'wind', and also do not have to add an additional 'knowing', 'the knowing of the blowing', very naturally, the wind blows over my body, we naturally are cool, if that is cool wind. If it is hot wind, we are naturally hot. Just like this, either a hot or cool wind blows over the body. This is a true phenomena. We do not need to think additionally, "substantially existing wind", "existing independent of the blowing action". [In truth] "knowing" and "phenomena" are just like wind and blowing, originally were never two. Actually simply speaking, all these are due to the establishing/imputation of names, therefore using names to explain, turns it into a duality. Simply speaking, duality is a verbal characteristic, or name characteristic. True reality is without names and forms, without verbal characteristics. Therefore when disciples asked the Buddha, what is the Dharma of the Dharma King? The Buddha did not speak, [maintained] noble silence. Then, when someone understood true reality, he directly accords with the noble silence of the Buddha. Because, if you ask what is the Dharma of the Dharma King, if we use words, names and forms for explanation, then it is not the true Dharma King's Dharma. The true Dharma King's Dharma is one's self-nature basis, how do I speak about it to you? Once you know this, you attain this, you are [united] with it, it is originally like this. Therefore, the Buddha did not speak, maintained noble silence, this is the true reality of one's self-nature basis."

Original

丽珠老师：“本来山河大地都是法身，而且根本就没有主客和能所的二元。所有的主客和能所都是一个能观、能知的作用。真正的实相、本体，你看到的，山就是山，大地就是大地，河就是河，那个就是真实的现象，你看到的真实相。你看到的真实相，叫实相，真相。那不管，你是用眼睛看，还是用望眼镜通过眼睛来看，还是用什么来看，我是做一个比喻啦，根本就没有能所二元，也没有看者和被看者, 这二元。因为这一些只是现象和作用，看到什么就是什么，那就是一个实相。实相是无二的。

同样的，风、吹。风是一个现象，吹是一个动作。现象和动作也是境界。简单的说，我在进一步讲这个，这一些境界和作用，才有二元。那我们看到有风吹过来，很自然的就知道风，那心里也不需要多生一个风字，也不需多生一个“知”，“吹过来的知”，就是很自然的，那个风吹到我们身上来，我们就自然凉凉的，如果它是凉风。如果它是热风，我们就自然热热的。就是这样的一个热和冷的风从身边吹过，吹到身上来。那是一个真实的现象。我们也不用再去想，实有的风，独立于吹的动作。而“知”和“现象”也就像风吹，本来不二。其实简单来说，这些都是因立名所以就用名来解释，就变成有二元。简单地说，二元也可以说是文字相，也可以说是名相。那实相、真相，没有名相，也没有文字相。所以为什么弟子问佛陀，什么是法王法？佛陀没有讲过哦，默然不语。那，一个已经了解实相的人，他直接与佛的这个默然不语相应的。因为呢，你问我什么是法王法，如果我用文字，用名相来解释，那就不是真正的法王法。那真正的法王法是自性本体啊，我怎么跟你讲呢？你知道了，你证到了，你与它同在了，它本来就是这样子。所以呢，佛一句话都没有讲，默然不语，这才是自性本体的真实相。”

Additionally she also said “ 谢谢分享, 本来就是如此, 故说观无观者, 修无修者, 觉无所觉, 无修自成, 本来具足, 自自然然.

为了要让大众明白何谓本觉何谓本心, 才说一堆法, 所说的法就有一堆文字相.

故弟子问佛陀何谓法王法（本来具足的本觉本心）, 佛陀默然不语, 因为若已知者自然觉性觉知, 空性了知, 不需再说.”

It already IS in nowness/immediacy, birth and death is liberated [in immediacy]

Recently because my husband wanted to start a new kind of career / business, my originally busy life became even busier. Pondering in the silence of the night on how more than half a hundred (> 50 years) years have passed, how many more years and how much energy do I have to begin a new business? Yet if I reject coordinating with him, that will leave him alone and without support. So I could only agree. Yet my inner mind is thinking of another road of practicing. Human life is short and full of suffering, impermanence comes in an instant of breath, if we do not seize this present life and practice with great effort/earnestness, protecting the true dharma, learning the bodhisattva path, practicing the bodhisattva way, wouldn't this life be wasted? Every time I think of this, my heart hurts like being struck with a dagger, I keep lamenting on my lack of blessings and wisdom, and in my lamentations, I fell asleep unknowingly. Upon dawn, I would start again to think of how I can take care of both [career and bodhisattva path] at the same time in my busy life. Suddenly one day, in an instant, a vision arose, where is there the distinction between movement or stillness, busyness or idleness in dharma practice？All these are the discriminations of the false mind. Self-nature basic substance, is empty without any phenomena, its substance is originally quiescent and without action, without birth or cessation, without addition or subtraction, without purity or defilement, it is like space, and equal to the great ocean. No matter how many birds fly and make loud noises within empty space, it does not affect empty space's stillness and vastness/expanse, the empty space is still quiescent and its substance is free. No matter how many boats roll by in the great ocean, it manifests according to conditions but does not change [the substance], [the substance] never changes yet [manifests] according to conditions, the great ocean still remains the great ocean, will it change its essence due to the boats‘ movements?

Practicing the great dharma is just like this! Bodhisattva's Ch'an, Practice in Movement. Originally there never was any distinctions of movement and stillness, while in movement the basic substance is aware and illuminating in freedom, while in stillness the basic substance is still aware and illuminating in freedom. In busyness the basic substance is without addition or subtraction, birth or cessation, purity or impurity. In idleness, the basic substance is without addition or subtraction, arising or ceasing, purity or defilement. The basic substance contains all merits, it does not increase in saints nor decrease in sentient beings (the original face that does not arise nor cease), everyone is replete with it originally, never has it left, so why is there a need to search? "Buddha nature is originally complete, lostness and awakeness is within a single moment of thought", from then on, I only need to maintain, whether in movement or stillness, busyness or idleness, and never give rise to discriminations, naturally aware and illuminating brightly, what work cannot be accomplished? Once one gives rise to discrimination, the false mind has arisen, one loses awareness [mindfulness] and enters into delusion, then later one finds a dharma to practice, hoping to recover the basic substance's purity and undefiledness, the quiescent brightness of the original face, isn't this an extraneous act? If we can maintain awareness never to lose it, all phenomena and events arising and subsiding according to conditions, only need to accord with conditions and exert according to our strength while dealing with things, never to clamber upon conditions nor to reject, neither grasping nor relinquishing, neither joining nor distancing, everything in naturalness, where is there busyness? Where is there idleness? All thoughts do not arise, awareness illuminating and observing in freedom, where is there a need to transform using a dharma? It already IS in nowness/immediacy, birth and death is liberated [in immediacy].

“真如：当一个修行者深刻地体验到“我/我相”的虚幻时，虚幻的“我相”就有如溪河溶入大海，消失于无形。此时也即是大我的生起。此大我清澈灵明，有如一面虚空的镜子觉照万物。一切的来去，生死，起落，一切万事万物，缘生缘灭，皆从大我的本体内幻现。本体并不受影响，寂然不动，无来亦无去。此大我即是梵我/神我。

注: 修行人不可错认这便是真正的佛心啊！由于执着于觉体与甚深的业力，修行人会难以入眠，严重时会得失眠症，而无法入眠多年。"

Once a practitioner deeply experiences the illusoriness of “self/self-image”, the illusory “self-image” dissolves like a river merges into the great ocean, dissolving without a trace. This moment is also the arising of the Great Self. This Great Self is pure, mystically alive, clear and bright, just like an empty space-mirror reflecting the ten thousand things. The coming and going, birth and death, rise and fall, the ten thousand events and ten thousand phenomena simply arise and cease according to conditions as illusory manifestations appearing from within the ground-substratum of the Great Self. The ground-substratum never gets affected, is still and without movement, without coming and without going. This Great Self is the Atman-Brahman, God-Self.

Commentary: Practitioners should not mistaken this as the True Buddha Mind! Due to the karmic force of grasping at a substance of awareness, a practitioner may have difficulty entering sleep, and in serious cases may experience insomnia, the inability to fall asleep for many years.”

oops sorry, I meant:

[In truth] "knowing" and "phenomena" are just like wind and blowing, originally were never two.

Here's a teaching by Buddha:

Traits

Ṭhāna Sutta (AN 4:192)

NavigationSuttas/AN/4:192

“Monks, these four traits may be known by means of four (other) traits. Which four?

“It’s through living together that a person’s virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

“It’s through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

“It’s through adversity that a person’s endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

“It’s through discussion that a person’s discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

[1] “‘It’s through living together that a person’s virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to what was it said?

“There is the case where one individual, through living with another, knows this: ‘For a long time this person has been torn, broken, spotted, splattered in his actions. He hasn’t been consistent in his actions. He hasn’t practiced consistently with regard to the precepts. He is an unprincipled person, not a virtuous, principled one.’ And then there is the case where one individual, through living with another, knows this: ‘For a long time this person has been untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered in his actions. He has been consistent in his actions. He has practiced consistently with regard to the precepts. He is a virtuous, principled person, not an unprincipled one.’

“‘It’s through living together that a person’s virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said.

[2] “‘It’s through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to what was it said?

“There is the case where one individual, through dealing with another, knows this: ‘This person deals one way when one-on-one, another way when with two, another way when with three, another way when with many. His earlier dealings do not jibe with his later dealings. He is impure in his dealings, not pure.’ And then there is the case where one individual, through dealing with another, knows this: ‘The way this person deals when one-on-one, is the same way he deals when with two, when with three, when with many. His earlier dealings jibe with his later dealings. He is pure in his dealings, not impure.’

“‘It’s through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said.

[3] “‘It’s through adversity that a person’s endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to what was it said?

“There is the case where a person, suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, doesn’t reflect: ‘That’s how it is when living together in the world. That’s how it is when gaining a personal identity [atta-bhāva, literally “self-state”]. When there is living in the world, when there is the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain.’ Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, he sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. And then there is the case where a person, suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, reflects: ‘That’s how it is when living together in the world. That’s how it is when gaining a personal identity. When there is living in the world, when there is the gaining of a personal identity, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions: gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain.’ Suffering loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease, he doesn’t sorrow, grieve, or lament, doesn’t beat his breast or become distraught.

“‘It’s through adversity that a person’s endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said.

[4] “‘It’s through discussion that a person’s discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to what was it said?

“There is the case where one individual, through discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies (his reasoning), from the way he addresses a question, he is dull, not discerning. Why is that? He doesn’t make statements that are deep, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. He cannot declare the meaning, teach it, describe it, set it forth, reveal it, explain it, or make it plain. He is dull, not discerning.’ Just as if a man with good eyesight standing on the shore of a body of water were to see a small fish rise. The thought would occur to him, ‘From the rise of this fish, from the break of its ripples, from its speed, it is a small fish, not a large one.’ In the same way, one individual, in discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies (his reasoning), from the way he addresses a question… he is dull, not discerning.’

“‘It’s through discussion that a person’s discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning’: Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said.

“These, monks, are the four traits that may be known by means of these four (other) traits.”

See also: MN 95; MN 110; AN 3:68; AN 4:42; AN 4:73; AN 8:6; AN 10:24; Ud 6:2