Very simple and straightforward!

Albert Hong yes. Simple and innocence.

Anapanasati?

Not any particular method but 异曲同工.

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

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

John Tan

Excellent

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

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

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

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

No fan of Gorampa?

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.

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

Mr. LZG 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.

John Tan I concur. Tsongkhapa was certainly a great Buddhist meditator and scholar.

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?

Mr. LZG 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.

John Tan I see,perhaps what I had in mind earlier was actually huatou,which afaik is meant to break mental profilerations?

Mr. LZG 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.

Now that would be an interesting discussion for sure. A tantric and a zen master...

Edmond Cigale indeed. But definitely beyond me. I just hope there r articles abt it.

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

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.

John write him.

Edmond Cigale lol..

John Tan I'll write him. I've written to presidents, house speakers ECT.

What exactly would you want me to ask?

Michael very good!

Edmond Cigale

Yes, I'm not joking either.

Michael

Michael Hernandez sorry let me finish my candy crush first. Too many rewards.

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.

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.

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?)

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.

Probably easier to get ahold of Garfield than Thurman .

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

Mr. TJ Oh yes! Jay Garfield without doubt will be another one. He too is very well versed with both Dogen's and Tsongkhapa's philosophies.

Michael Hernandez As Mr. TJ suggested, Jay Garfield is another scholar that is well equipped with both masters' philosophies.

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.

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?

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

Mr. TJ that is true too, just my wild wish as I like both masters.

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?

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

Mr. TJ 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.

Mr. TJ pls, I m way out of the league.

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.

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.

Mr. TJ 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.

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.

Michael Hernandez

John Tan as a trick question: What do I think is beyond the conceptual?

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.