Ven. Chi Chern 釋繼程

Flipped through the following books:

https://www.ddc.com.tw/search_list.php?c=1&s=2&k=%E9%87%8B%E7%B9%BC%E7%A8%8B

 默照365

 禪悟之道

禪觀生死

John Tan and I thinks this book by Peter Brown is good. Worth reading. As JT says, his insight is higher than anatta/post anatta. I wrote a critique in 2013 and said his insight sounded substantialist/one mind, but clearly his insights have deepened since (or I simply misjudged him earlier on).

Amazon's A.I. is getting more intelligent at recommending me good books.

His new book ($2.99 for ebook, $10 for hardcopy):

https://www.amazon.com/Yoga-Radiant-Presence-Peter-Brown-ebook/dp/B088PXCQF7/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=&fbclid=IwAR0QBlGVlZGkCP2x5LGn05MrECWwthRTpw0Y2xy-s536JU5zy1F7JZ3pkM4

 

 

Update: Seems like John Tan didn't find it as impressive as he thought it will be, nonetheless I still think it's a good read and the insight of anatta is there.

 

 

John tan said

“U can really sell .

After reading half of the book...so so only. Initially I was quite impressed with certain passages u sent me about his understandings on:

1. appearances as presence

2. how he sees through conventions.

3. vibrancy of aliveness through Yoga.

The word "yoga" in his book title misled me...lol. I thought he was a yogi with deep anatta insight, clear abt deconstruction techniques on conventional and conceptual constructs and more importantly on yoga energy system which will b quite rare.

But nothing about that after buying and reading the book...”

 

[9:00 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: U finished reading?
[9:50 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: Almost
[9:56 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Im still beginning.. think his insight is anatta but a bit of subsuming
[9:56 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: ?
[9:58 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: Depends, seems like he feels that presence is real...
[10:05 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: Also how one deconstructs conventional reality also crucial.  Not mentioned at all...clearly knowing the relationship between mental constructs and presence is pivotal...he talked too much abt presence...lol
[10:05 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[10:05 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: He said presence cannot be found besides experienced characteristics?
[10:06 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: Yes that is good
[10:06 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Seems like dogen and soto zen people also talk about everything being real
[10:06 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: But they dont necessarily use the word presencr
[10:06 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: Their definition is different
[10:07 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: Coz the word "existence" has different meaning.
[10:07 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: All Buddhism need to know the importance of 幻
[10:08 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: 如梦幻泡影 (like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow)
[10:08 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[10:09 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: But the emphasis that things appear but do not exist may not b clear to many.
[10:11 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: “So, this is a very strange state of affairs we find; ultimately unfindable experiential characteristics that turn out to be nothing more than Presence, and ultimately unfindable Presence that turns out to be nothing more than experiential characteristics. Unfindable Presence appearing as actual Radiance (energetic experiential characteristics),”
[10:11 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: So to him presence is both unfindable and actual
[10:11 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Lol
[10:12 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: Just different words
[10:12 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: “and unfindable Radiance appearing as actual Presence.”
[10:13 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: As long as the insight is there is good enough
[10:13 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: Unfortunately nothing about energy system
[10:13 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: And deconstruction clarity
[10:14 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: Rob is much better quality book
[10:16 AM, 8/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[10:16 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: He use ultimate analysis for example to deconstruct time
[10:16 AM, 8/16/2020] John Tan: And talk about not being attached to even eternal now

 

 

[11:59 PM, 8/10/2020] John Tan: This is a really good quality book by Rob Burbea.  Easy to read, lots of tips for practice and full of valuable pointers. Should put into our blog, preferably "must read" section.
[12:00 AM, 8/11/2020] Soh Wei Yu: you mean the summary or the book itself?
[12:00 AM, 8/11/2020] John Tan: Summary
[12:01 AM, 8/11/2020] Soh Wei Yu: ok i post
[12:03 AM, 8/11/2020] John Tan: Almost attempts to integrate everything...
[12:03 AM, 8/11/2020] John Tan: Lol
[12:04 AM, 8/11/2020] John Tan: Maybe I should buy the book...but the section on cause and effect and production is too short.
[12:05 AM, 8/11/2020] Soh Wei Yu: ya i think so.. i remember hale oh likes it very much i think
[12:05 AM, 8/11/2020] Soh Wei Yu: too bad rob burbea died recently from cancer
[12:08 AM, 8/11/2020] Soh Wei Yu: haven't read the book before though. think will get it
[12:08 AM, 8/11/2020] John Tan: Yes
[12:09 AM, 8/11/2020] John Tan: Go read about the summary...u will understand why it is good guide for practice.

Link to buy the book: https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-That-Frees-Meditations-Emptiness-ebook/dp/B00SI7PQD8

[9:09 PM, 8/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Just saw this in chnn book [Crystal and the Way of Light]:

we could even go so far as to say that, essentially, in Dzogchen, the Base is the primordial state, the Path is the primordial state, and the Fruit is the primordial state—and that there is thus a perfect continuity between them in that they all refer to the same thing: the true condition of the individual and the universe.
[11:34 PM, 8/4/2020] John Tan: Yes.
[11:37 PM, 8/4/2020] John Tan: Practice as if you r buddha but u r not yet Buddha.
[11:38 PM, 8/4/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[11:41 PM, 8/4/2020] John Tan: I think U pasted to me right?  Something like result is taken as the basis.
[11:42 PM, 8/4/2020] John Tan: So not from the view that life is impermanent, no-self and suffering.
[12:14 AM, 8/5/2020] Soh Wei Yu: What do u mean
[12:14 AM, 8/5/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oh taking buddha nature rather than impermanence no self suffering as basis and path of practicing?
[12:15 AM, 8/5/2020] John Tan: Yes
[12:34 AM, 8/5/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Do you mean these excerpts by Malcolm:

There are two ways be free of grasping: regarding all things as impure and rejecting them as such (Hinayāna and common Mahāyāna), and regarding all things as pure and accepting them as such. The latter method more rapid, but requires special methods, so that it is not merely an intellectual posture.

...

In sūtra there is no antidotal method of conceiving the appearance of things as pure which are typically conceived by ordinary sentient being as impure. Emptiness, in sutra, is provided as cure for this, in terms of nature, but not in terms of appearance. Vajrayāna address both nature and appearance; sūtra only addresses nature, not appearance.

...


In common Mahāyāna, like Hinayāna schools, relatively speaking, phenomena, other than path dharmas, are still compounded, suffering, and not-self, and hence impure. Their ultimate nature, emptiness, is pure.

In uncommon Mahāyāna Secret Mantra, phenomena are rendered pure through special methods which change our attitude towards phenomena.
[12:34 AM, 8/5/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ok
[12:35 AM, 8/5/2020] John Tan: Yeah

---

For further reading: Excerpts from Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

Malcolm wrote:

It is pretty straightfoward according to Mipham:

"In the realization of the Great Perfection that the three times are not time, there are no phenomena of the ten directions and three times that are not perfect. Therefore, this is the dharmakāya at the time of the basis, but because the temporary afflictions have not been purified it has not ripened into the nature of the result.

While maintaining the position, “This purification of any obscurations is the feature of the time of path. This total purification of obscurations is the feature of the time of the result,” is in accord with the mode of appearance of sentient beings, from the perspective of the mode of existence of dharmatā, it is not possible to move even slightly away from abiding in state of uniformity which lacks any divisions of dualistic phenomena such as division by three times, division into pure and impure, sentient beings and buddhas, and so on."

Thus, florin and krodha are both correct. Florin is correct from the point of view of mode of reality [gnas tshul], kyle is correct from the point of view of the mode of appearances [snang tshul] for sentient beings.

...

Krodha (Kyle Dixon):

Thanks. Although I suppose my gripe is that I'm willing to (and strive to) account for both sides of the equation (mode of reality and appearances) whereas Florin is solely clinging to the mode of reality and declaring that the mode of appearances is irrelevant and "not Dzogchen", which is essentially nihilism.

...

Malcolm:

The so called "primordial state" aka the original basis is called "the basis" because it has not been realized. When that is realized, it is given the name, "the result." "The path" is just the method of realizing that, which in the case of the Great Perfection, is the intimate instructions of the direct introduction and their application.

Florin's point of view is influenced very much by "sems sde", which is primarily about the basis. Your point of view is more influenced by man ngag sde, which is more concerned with the methods of realizing that basis.

Another useful snippet from Mipham:

According to that principle, though from the perspective of ultimate reality it is necessary to propose that the universe and beings are primordial buddhahood and meditate in that way, from the perspective of the conventions of the mode of appearances, the differentiation by wisdom into three — the basis, the reasoning that buddhahood is valid; the path, the time of practice; and the result, the culmination of purification — are asserted up to the Great Perfection. Also the treatises of the Great Perfection purpose buddhahood once the fives paths of trekchö and the four visions of thögal are finished, but in terms of the mode of appearances, they never assert the accomplishment of buddhahood without finishing the path. When these two are differentiated, after the darkness of doubt about the topics that any of the vehicles of the cause and result have difficulty realizing, since there arises the appearance of confidence knowledge that cannot be diverted, this differentiation is very important.

...

Florin:

I dont really understand this quote.

I think it needs some work.

Malcolm:

All Mipham is saying is that there are two perspectives, how things are and how things appear. From the perspective of how things are, "it is necessary to propose that the universe and beings are primordial buddhahood and meditate in that way."

From the point of view of how things appear, the basis, path and result are divvied up by wisdom according their features: the basis concerns proving the validity of buddhahood. This is why, for example, we have the account of Samantabhadra's buddhahood and the account of the delusion of sentient beings. There is also a practice, and also the culmination of the purification of the delusion which gave rise to sentient beings in the first place. Since only deluded people are concerned with liberation, the path of Dzogchen is very much concerned with correcting the delusion that arises from ignorance [ma rig pa] by remaining in the knowledge [rig pa] of how things actually are, i.e. that the universe and beings are primordial buddhahood.

We are not approaching practice from the point of view of accepting something that is not true, i.e., that the universe and beings are impure, etc. But we must acquiesce that this is indeed how things appear to us, and that as long as things appear in this way to us, we are under the influence of the two obscurations, which while temporary and not innate, conceal from us our actual state.

M