Breathe in and breathe out into its natural condition.
    With each breath, purge the mind of pretense and artificialities.
    In this temporary freedom from analysis and reasoning,
    The rhythmic flow of breath turns itself into an alive vitality.
    Recognize this untainted flow of aliveness, it is the original energy (元气).
    Cultivate it calmly and be entire.
    坐忘,斋心,养气

    12 Comments


    Albert Hong
    Very simple and straightforward!
    1

    • Reply
    • 6w

    John Tan
    Albert Hong yes. Simple and innocence.👍

      • Reply
      • 6w

  • Liu Zhi Guan
    Anapanasati?

    • Reply
    • 6w

    John Tan
    Not any particular method but 异曲同工.
    1

      • Reply
      • 6w

  • Michael Hernandez
    "vitarka &vicāra" applied directed thought & sustained thought. Leads to access concentration and the first jhana.
    🙏

    • Reply
    • 6w

    John Tan
    Not anything related to Buddhism. Just something casual that came to my mind when a friend asked me about a question on energy practice.
    4

    • Reply
    • 6w

  • 1

      • Reply
      • 6w






  • Jackson Peterson
    Yes! As described the same by Dogen:
    Treatment of Thoughts in Zen
    YOUTUBE.COM
    Treatment of Thoughts in Zen
    Treatment of Thoughts in Zen
    1

    • Reply
    • 6w

  • Albert Hong
    Do you ever emphasize the holding of in breathe and saturating the whole system with energy, life, nutrition?

    • Reply
    • 6w

    John Tan
    Albert Hong to speed up and manipulate energy yes though I think it is not necessary and it can mess up our system badly.😁
    1

    • Reply
    • 6w
    • Edited

  • Albert Hong
    John Tan I see. so better to go slow and natural.

    • Reply
    • 6w

  • John Tan
    Albert Hong btw gradual and natural does not mean slow. Breakthrough can be instantaneous when condition is riped.
    1

  • Reply
  • 6w
  • Edited
    I wonder why I can't find any article on the internet comparing Dogen's and Tsongkhapa's thoughts.
    If both masters were to meet to discuss their practice philosophies of "mere existence" and total exertion, a gem masterpiece on non-dual epistemology of the 3 times will surely emerge.
    I maybe completely wrong 🤣 but if anyone can find any article linking both of their thoughts, pls leave a note here.

    49 Comments


    Liu Zhi Guan
    No fan of Gorampa?🤔
    1

    • Reply
    • 8w

  • John Tan
    Gorampa is more on the exhaustion of the conventional into freedom from all elaborations. I classified it under the -A of emptiness in ATR context.
    2

    • Reply
    • 8w

    Liu Zhi Guan
    John Tan I see,though afaik Gorampa's presentation of Madhyamika adheres more to the original Nagarjuna's Madhyamika, whereas Gelug or prasangika Madhyamika is more of Tibetan formulation by Tsongkhapa

    • Reply
    • 8w

  • John Tan
    Liu Zhi Guan True in certain sense but Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka also evolved over time from India toTibet before it became the present day Prasangika Madhyamaka. So imo we should also not undermine the creativity and insights of Tsongkhapa.
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w
    • Edited

  • Liu Zhi Guan
    John Tan I concur. Tsongkhapa was certainly a great Buddhist meditator and scholar.
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • Liu Zhi Guan
    John Tan one question I have in mind:Is the purpose of koan to achieve the exhaustion of the conventional into freedom from all elaborations,albeit with different approach from Madhyamika?

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Liu Zhi Guan Zen koans relate more to the direct pointing of one's radiance clarity whereas mmk is abt letting the mind sees it's own fabrications and allowing it to free itself from all elaborations (non Gelug) or free itself from all frabrications (Gelug). The most crucial insight of both Gelug and non Gelug (imo) is to let the mind realizes the primordial purity (emptiness) nature of both mind/phenomena.
    Although Mipham treated gelug's freedom from self nature as categorized ultimate, I can only tell u I disagree. Both are able to achieve their objectives (imo). In fact if u were to ask for my sincere opinion, I prefer freedom from self nature (Gelug) as if understood properly and with experiential insight, it will lead to both +A and -A of emptiness.
    If we were to treat the conventional (conceptuality) as the cause of ignorance, it prevents some very valuable insights that will take probably a lot of time to detail out. I will not go too detail into that.
    In short seeing through intrinsic existence will similarly allow practitioners to see through conceptual constructs (non-conceptualities), see through duality (non-dual) and substantiality (essencelessness). Phenomena lack of self-nature also lacks sameness or difference, therefore their primordially purity will likewise be realized and selflessness also results in natural spontaneity; yet because practitioners put freedom from self-nature at a higher order, they will not be bounded by either conceptualities or non-conceptualities and are free to explore both.
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w
    • Edited

  • Liu Zhi Guan
    John Tan I see,perhaps what I had in mind earlier was actually huatou,which afaik is meant to break mental profilerations?
    Also may you elaborate on the diff btw free from all elaboration and fabrications? Is it that the former break all forms of conceptualities to realize the ineffable state,while the latter still allows for conceptualities but utilizes it to break conceptualities itself?

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Liu Zhi Guan Hautou does not actually "break" as in "seeing through" mental proliferations imo but it does immobilizes the conceptual mind and allows a sudden leap from the conceptual into the non-conceptual where one authenticates the original face directly. Realising how one's mind proliferates is different from realizing our original face.
    U can take freedom from all elaborations as freedom from conceptualities and free from fabrications as freedom from superimposing self-nature/intrinsic existence on mind/phenomena.
    1

      • Reply
      • 7w
      • Edited






  • Edmond Cigale
    Now that would be an interesting discussion for sure. A tantric and a zen master...
    👍👍
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Edmond Cigale indeed. 👍 But definitely beyond me. I just hope there r articles abt it.
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • Edmond Cigale
    John Robert Thurman is a great scholar and writes about Je Tsongkhapa. He does write (or talk) about Mahayana, maybe about zen as well...
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Edmond Cigale Definitely will be interesting if he publishes a book on them since he is so well-versed in Zen and Tsongkhapa's philosophy.👍
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w
    • Edited

  • 2

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • 1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • Michael Hernandez
    John Tan I'll write him. I've written to presidents, house speakers ECT.
    What exactly would you want me to ask?
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • Edmond Cigale
    Michael very good!
    Actually, I wasn't joking. It would be worth while exploring the topics, especially with your empirical background, John.
    👍👍
    2

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • Michael Hernandez
    Yes, I'm not joking either.
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w


    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Michael Hernandez sorry let me finish my candy crush first. Too many rewards.😁🤣
    3

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • Michael Hernandez
    Edmond Cigale I wrote President Trump in the spring around 2017 advising him to take action on North Korea.
    However the action taken wasn't what I had in mind.
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Michael Hernandez Actually nothing in particular...lol. I believe u know ATR well and probably about the +A and -A version of emptiness in ATR.
    To me, Gorampa and Mipham are more on exhaustion of the conventional into freedom from all elaborations. I classify it under the -A of emptiness in ATR context.
    Tsongkhapa on the other hand embraced the conventional wholeheartedly into freedom from all fabrications (fabrication as in attachment to intrinsic existence). I classify it under the +A of emptiness in ATR context. This is very similar to Dogen's total exertion.
    Ippo-gujin (total exertion), I will define here as wholehearted engagement in the mundane activities of everydayness of everyday, essentially no different from bahiya sutta of in the seen just the seen. In this actualisation, entire "body mind environment universe" is one participation without any need to subsume into an all encompassing substantial non-dual awareness; instead all conventional diversities are fully intact yet miraculously involved in a harmonious unity.
    When I read Tsongkhapa's thought somehow I can relate quite easily with my ATR background, from his "one nature different isolates" to "mere existence" to non-dual espistemology via just simply focusing on understanding "lack of intrinsic existence" thoroughly.
    Dogen's total exertion is the mystical and zen-ish approach of epistemic non-dual and often presented in a cryptic manner 😁 whereas Tsongkhapa's is the rational, logical and systematic way towards epistemic non-dual. I think they make good complements. Unfortunately I know too little of Tsongkhapa's tantric teachings to understand how his views are being integrated into his tantric practices.
    Robert Thurman came to my mind when Edmond Cigale mentioned about him. Since he was the Je Tsongkhapa Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies at Columbia University and once commented that Dogen's Zen is very tantric. I think it will be interesting if he has an article on it. In case u write to him, pls don't mention abt ATR, Soh Wei Yu will create havoc out of it.🤣
    3

    • Reply
    • 7w
    • Edited

  • Michael Hernandez
    John Tan there are a number of books that on commentaries on Tsongkhapa's Six Yogas of Naropa from Gelupa view.
    I've never read them.
    "Tantra" if course is an interesting word. We can define and categorize it the historical sense or as you indicated more in a broad spiritual sense experience from other mystic zennish traditions.
    In this sense is there a difference between the Indian yogi living in a cave or an ancient practitioner of chan living in a cave?
    In Jodo Shinshu Amida Buddha "becomes me".
    Completely misunderstood even by most practitioner of Jodo Shinshu who do not understand the Name is the Buddha they believe the Buddha is out there someplace. No. Amida Buddha IS the Name not something said to get to a Pure Land. Misunderstood because this Buddha is not a Buddha until all else are first.
    It is said that one does not become Amida Buddha but "Amida Buddha becomes me".
    That the sound of "AH" was of particular importance.
    So much so that Japanese esoteric Buddhism placed this practice very highly. While Japanese esoteric Buddhism never developed a Dzogchen/Mahamudra like practice they did have something like the generation and completion practices.
    Certainly Zen might be the next "extension" or "expansion" in practice after the completion phase. The way Zen is being practiced as in some American Jodo Shinshu certainly.
    Tantra would though have an element of utilizing visualization in any cultural practice. We might call voodoo Tantric or even some witch craft. However if I draw an imaginary line in the sand I would have to say the goal needs to be (A) "expansion" towards an infinite unlimited ultimate "ineffable" rather than (😎 contraction toward a narrowly defined conventional designation i.e "money", "love" or "revenge".
    Nowadays in India however any tantra is indeed pointed towards the conventionally mundane as "black magic".
    #1 How is Zen like or unlike Tantra?
    Or # 2 are some Zen practices tantric like in nature?
    (I've read it argued Zen is nothing like Dzogchen/Mahamudra. Well certainly the explicit meaning of the word Zen as transliteration of dhyana wouldn't be for sure.
    However when we refer to the ineffability of so named "Buddha Nature" exactly to designate conventional nature would not then make that experience "ineffable" ultimate but like more as Tsongkhapa?)
    So I would if you could John or Edmond Cigale, have the quote from Robert Thurman about Dogen's Zen being very tantric?
    This way I can ask him directly how his meaning this was from the quotation and place and date he quoted it.
    He might not recall exactly without a prompt.
    I can let you proofread the letter first to add or correct any errors.
    Thanks
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • Tyler Jones
    John Tan Jay Garfield comes to my mind, he is very versed in cross-cultural philosophical dialogue, sees connections that others don't, and is an expert on Tsongkhapa, not sure if he knows about Dogen specifically though.
    2

    • Reply
    • 7w
    • Edited

  • Tyler Jones
    Probably easier to get ahold of Garfield than Thurman 😅.
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • Michael Hernandez
    Here's the quote and possibly the answer. The entire article is of interest really in context with your conventional question.
    If we play out the imagination as the Tantric vehicle the as how Robert Thurman puts it then as he says earlier in the interview about zen:
    "RT: In a literal sense, yes. However, I think Zen is very tantric. Take Dogen’s Zen, a practice which says that when you sit you are Buddha. You don’t meditate as a “means-end” practice of trying to attain a buddhahood which is remote from you in time and space. When you sit, you are Buddha. And if you don’t happen to feel like Buddha that’s just a bad habit which you have to pierce or break through.
    IM: So tantra is really a creation and projection of a purified state of mind.
    RT: That’s right. Tantric initiation is an opening of imaginative space where you have a vision of potential perfection. You may still feel like a “schmo,” but that’s the dynamic tension. Your habitual imagination of yourself as an unenlightened schmo is brought into tension with an artificially constructed imagination of yourself as a perfected being."
    Interview with Robert A. F. Thurman: Talking Tantra - Inquiring Mind
    INQUIRINGMIND.COM
    Interview with Robert A. F. Thurman: Talking Tantra - Inquiring Mind
    Interview with Robert A. F. Thurman: Talking Tantra - Inquiring Mind
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • Michael Hernandez
    In Jodo Shinshu "Amida Buddha becomes me just as I am" i.e a foolish ordinary person "bombu"

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Tyler Jones Oh yes! Jay Garfield without doubt will be another one. He too is very well versed with both Dogen's and Tsongkhapa's philosophies.

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Michael Hernandez As Tyler Jones suggested, Jay Garfield is another scholar that is well equipped with both masters' philosophies.
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Michael Hernandez also when u asked, remember it is not about "Zen and Tantra" but "Dogen and Tsongkhapa"😆. The reason is both r based on essencelessness and embracement of the conventional, therefore buddha nature is a buddha nature in ceaseless dynamism, in a matrix of diversities that interpenetrates.
    I have "Tsongkhapa's Six Yoga's of Naropa" in my collection but Robert Thurman "Brilliantly Illuminating the Lamp of the Five Stages" is a better read if we not into the actual practice of tantra (imo) but a great book if u want to know about Tsongkhapa's trantric experiences and achievements.
    Ok back to sleep Zzzzz😁.
    2

      • Reply
      • 7w
      • Edited






  • Tyler Jones
    It's quite possible that no one has seen the potential benefit of such a comparison/exchange. On the surface they would seem quite alien to each other for sectarian reasons, eg. Tsongkhapa's view of Chan. Also, how widely appreciated is it that Dogen is one of very few famous Chan/Zen masters with a non-substaintialist view?
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w
    • Edited

    Tyler Jones
    Even to make such a distinction is rare in comments on Zen writings.

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Tyler Jones that is true too, just my wild wish as I like both masters.

    • Reply
    • 7w
    • Edited

  • Tyler Jones
    Have you seen any East Asian masters with as strong of a potential dialogue with Tsongkhapa as Dogen, for instance from the Huayan or Tiantai traditions?

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • Tyler Jones
    Also, maybe you could entice some scholars into taking up such a dialogue if you first published an MMK commentary 😄.
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Tyler Jones modern one yes like Hong Wen Liang or Hui Lui but rare. Many masters I read will present with cetain scent of substantialist non-dual even ancient masters of Huayan or Tiantai. There is nothing wrong with it but seldom do I see masters like Tsongkhapa and Dogen. But my respect for these 2 masters goes beyond just their philosophies, I feel "connected"🤣. Anyway I do not want to talk about it.
    4

    • Reply
    • 7w
    • Edited

  • John Tan
    Tyler Jones pls, I m way out of the league. 😓

      • Reply
      • 7w






  • André A. Pais
    Jay Garfield indeed is an educated gelugpa with a seemingly zen practice running on the side. At least that's what it sounded like from some in-between the lines comments in his series of videos on yogacara.
    Anyway, he does have an article called Mountains are just Mountains, in a book called Pointing at the Moon - all zen references. I haven't read the book nor the article, but I'll put some sections here:
    2

    • Reply
    • 7w

    May be an image of text that says '6 Mountains Are Just Mountains Jay L. Garfield Graham Priest Before studied mountains After studying mountains, water longer mountains and vater Nagărjuna just vater.' Catușkoți both. proposition philosophy Aristotle, ofequally possibilities. traditional viewi ancestry,is ony). catușkoți. deployed catușkoți Nagărjuna famously ways. 11fou the Everythingis real and not not Neither unreal real. Buddha's teaching. POINTING The second negative. such cases, Thus, argues none four that rgues none four hold. applies the proposition "empty." They nor only for purpose fdesignation.? standardly, common the four possibilities the supposed Nagărjuna's prima facie. positive applied reality, thecontradictions various possibilities need disambiguatedwith'

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • May be an image of text

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • May be an image of text that says '69% Pointing the 76 POINTING THE MOON More emptiness. does from (This why Dögen can insist that practice chapter. Prior world; awaken most helpfully the that dently that inspired water- ssubstantially existent, independent things those Some impermanent. ontologically indepen- analysis, however, shows these phenomena andt fail things mately. Were one while error would would with he stop both his deprecate mountains Hence, mountains and be just from them therefore the two identity forming the existence as apprehension trans We connect dialectic and mans each catuş™koÈis semantic lattice (figure represents Zen dialectic. language, (represented (such the the squiggly truth values'

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • No photo description available.

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • May be an image of text that says 'Cogent Inconsistency isght puzzlinga assertion wac practice But practice initially Buddhist philosophy, And disparaged Madhyamaka despite knowh merely following Nagărjuna apprehends ignorance primor- things that fifth made positive system most external, dentification emptiness negation. POINTING THE extent, vindicated Hakuin's account identity dattainment xplained ox-herding that mountains mountains could eybe?'

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • Tyler Jones
    Interesting, this would have been the perfect place to point out the connection to Tsongkhapa's embrace of the conventional, but he only mentions the antagonism between "some Tibetan Madhyamaka" and East Asian Buddhism, and the embrace of internal contradictions in Zen, something Tsongkhapa's presentation of the conventional was meant to avoid. So honestly, he might not think it's a connection that makes sense.

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Tyler Jones Tsongkhapa was adamant abt quietism which is in direct contradiction to participatory embracement of the conventional. It is most unfortunate that Zen was presented that way after the Heshang Moheyan debate with Kamalasila and the Zen of Mohegan was conveniently stereotyped as promotor of "non-conceptuality without prajna", we know that it is just strawman. However that is a different story.
    The Dogen and Tsongkhapa connection I m interested is not abt "presence" and "mind" or "simultaneist" vs "gradualist" issues, it is how practitioners after maturing one's prajna see the conventional world. In other words, it is the insight of "emptying emptiness".
    1

      • Reply
      • 7w
      • Edited






  • Michael Hernandez
    John Tan practice is ultimately conventional.
    Dogen thought koans were not being understood correctly.
    Could it be that the practice of koans were being used in a dualistic way. In that the koan was being used as a conventional means to get to the ultimate. Like using a temporary mantra to get permanent gold?
    I see it as like western practice of Ngöndro. The mind set is like, "I need to get this beginner stuff out of the way so once I get my count done I get the real stuff".
    What if the prostrations 🙏 are really the essence of the teaching? The actual approach to other " higher" teaching.
    That the most complex teaching was an elaboration on the single most simple?
    We cannot fathom beyond the imaginary conceptual without ultimately relying on the imaginary conceptual.
    To say otherwise is to fall into an extreme.
    To put in another way is to understand that our understanding of so called emptiness is just another conceptual superimposition.
    Hilariously we might think "mountains are not mountains" which is like thinking "I have no-self".
    We cannot get away from conventional understanding because everything we understand is conventional.
    Perhaps we have a glimpse into what we might understand to be the ultimate.
    Immediately the experience is viewed through the lens of our own conventional experience.
    If someone said the practice was walking to the top of the mountain; that could be mistaken to mean the goal was the top of the mountain.
    No, the practice is walkng to the top of the mountain not standing on the top of it.
    So the practice of walking and mountain are ultimately empty of practice, walking and mountain, the practice is emptiness.
    Just as someone who says paradoxically, "I am doing nothing" the practice of stillness is still a doing. Being still is still being and not non-being.
    Tsongkhapa might understand that "nothing is empty" because "nothing" is conceptually designated and thus conventional.
    So turning that around without the designation of quotation marks,
    Nothing is conceptual and thus empty.
    We can further shorten it to:
    Nothing is empty or no thing is empty.
    Then understanding no-self becomes clear.
    So then conceptual designation is empty.
    So emptiness and mountain are not two different things.
    So saying mountain is empty is to just say it is a mountain.
    The illusion of it being a mountain real. A real illusion.
    So it goes back to the saying, "there is no mountain" is just another conceptual superimposition of emptiness.
    Is it a real empty designation or an actualized illusion of an empty designation?
    To suggest either answer could be said to be in error but that's not the answer to the question.
    However the answer is not the practice. If we could answer the question there would be no need for practice.

    • Reply
    • 7w

    John Tan
    Language is conventional. It can be used to express highly structured tetralemma or it can be used to express koan in an unstructured way. How so? Because it's nature is primordially pure and empty, if not how could it be so flexible and dynamic? Where else is the "freedom from all elaborations that is neither same nor different" other than in this dynamism?
    Everywhere and everything is expressing the ultimate by being conventional. The vivid transient appearances that we shunt in search of the "highest" is the very presence in dynamism. First understand "walk not a step, it's it!" and then realized "every step is it!"
    The Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra says,
    The fabricated realm and the definitive ultimate
    Are defined by the lack of sameness or difference.
    Whoever imagines them to be the same or different
    Is possessed of mistaken imagination.
    1

    • Reply
    • 7w
    • Edited

  • Michael Hernandez
    John Tan as a trick question: What do I think is beyond the conceptual?
    (language is a coherent association of perception with symbols to communicate a conceptal image of a given object.
    I cannot think or conceptualize of existence outside conceptuality. I cannot by means of language convey anything non-conceptual. However as you indicated your reply; non-conceptuality can be pointed to by a means of conceptal instruction or practice and thus cannot not be imagined to be the same nor different.
    However experiences that go beyond the ability to describe are still cognized and if cognized exist within the realm of conceptual imagination.
    What is if any then the same difference between a concept and the imagination?
    To say a something can existence beyond the imaginary is to simple say not all phenomena has yet been perceived.
    In this way mystical experiences occur beyond the relative and thus beyond the convention of language)

    • Reply
    • 7w

  • John Tan
    Michael Hernandez that is another problem. Let's take the 3 major representatives -- Mipham of Nyingma, Tsongkhapa of Gelug and Dharmakirti of Yogacara, each has his own definition. To Dharmakirti, linguistic and inference cognition is conceptual, perception is non-conceptual. Mipham has 3 categories of conceptualities, I shall not elaborate here. To Tsongkhapa, all cognitions both conception and perception are conceptual. That is y Tsongkhapa sees everything as dependently originated and conventional and negation of intrinsic existence as ultimate since by his definition nothing isn't conceptual and dependent.
    Yet the so called "conceptuality" they all agreed that when dissolved will give rise to non-conceptual gnosis is actually "the very subtle tendency to dualify" which imo is no different from "inherent existence".
    As for me, after all these years of sorting out I prefer to restrict "conceptual" definition to mental activities that relate to linguistic, mental inference and labelling which is closer to our daily usage. I do not classify deep karmic tendencies as "conceptual".
    For the ineffable beyond speech, there is nothing that can be said as it is the termination of all words and the way of leaping to that can be triggered by koan or by way of negation and deconstruction. We can also do somatic or energy practices to achieve that.
    2

  • Reply
  • 7w
  • Edited
Labels: , | edit post
0 Responses