Did Shakyamuni Really Practice Zazen?

[MagnificentTreeFrog]

Context: Though my practice-home has been in the realm of Chan-Zen, I set out to study the historical development of the Zen approach. I started with the major schools of Buddhism that influenced Zen: Madhyamaka, Yogacara, and Huayen in addition to Taoism and Confucianism.

But history is a slippery slope. I soon found myself delving into the origins of Mahayana tracing back to the Second Buddhist Council. Here arose the first set of doubts - which sect carried the "true spirit" of the Buddha's teaching? Can the Mahayana Sutras be trusted to convey this spirit? Are there some that do and some that don't? Etc. This line of questioning led me further back into a study of pre-sectarian Buddhism. Can strains of Mahayana and Zen thought and practice be found in the early Suttas? Would Shakyamuni recognize Zen as a legitimate application of his teaching?

Thankfully, I've managed to overcome the major mass of these doubts. It's clear to me that the teachings of emptiness, no-self, and impermanence are strong and enduring bridges that remain between all schools of Mahayana and the early Buddhist teachings. The Bodhisattva Ideal seems inherent in the Buddha's teaching. And I find very familiar the practice teachings laid out in the Satipaṭṭhāna (MN 10) and Bahiya (UD 1.10) Suttas just to name a couple.

One sticky doubt that remains is the question of what did the Buddha actually practice? The Pali Suttas of course make substantial reference to the Jhanas, although it seems that these are not to be regarded as ultimately liberative i.e. "But in the training of the Noble One these are not called ‘self-effacement’; they’re called ‘peaceful meditations’" (MN 8). Despite this, there are folks like Stephen Mugen Snyder who believe that the jhanas made up much of the Buddha's day-to-day practice both before and after enlightenment.

Enter Dogen, in whose writings we have forceful claims around Zazen/Shikantaza as the essential liberative practice transmitted from Shakyamuni down to Bodhidharma and beyond. My view is that shikantaza is indeed a transformative practice and I believe in the overall Zen project as an enduring culture of enlightenment, but I'm curious as to how Dogen came to such a strong belief.

Are the Agamas cited anywhere in Dogen's writings to back up the claim of Zazen as the essential Buddha-seal passed down over generations? Did Dogen provide any historical analysis beyond reference to Bodhidharma's wall-gazing? Or are we to trust in Dogen's practice experience, coming himself face to face with Shakyamuni and the ancestors?

Thanks for listening, I appreciate any and all comments on anything.

Gassho,
Adam

[Jundo]

Hello Again,

This is a tricky question. First, I am just reading this short book by Bhante Sujato, "How Early Buddhism differs from Theravada: a checklist "(LINK), as so much was added by later interpretation and commentary that we cannot say that even the Theravada is necessarily "original." Also, the early Suttas are so fuzzy on some matters, and also contradictory, that there is room for interpretation there. The rest is lost in the fog of history, so much so that there is even doubt about the Buddha's biography (most details were added centuries after his life), and some even doubt if he was a historical figure!!! (LINK)

No doubt, the Mahayana is a later interpretation, and Zen is Indian Buddhism encountering Chinese sensibilities and traditions (such as Confucianism, Daoism), then also Japanese sensibilities and traditions ... but the question then becomes whether it is a good interpretation. It is a bit like asking, "What is the real flying? What the Wright Brothers did at Kitty Hawk, or today in a 787 or the Space Shuttle?" One might say that the sky is the sky, and all ways are good ways of flying the sky.) As you know, the thousands of Suttas and Sutras are themselves often varied and filled with conflicting approaches ... but there are many good ways to fly! We might say that all Buddhist traditions emanate from the same root, same yet sometimes different ... sometimes different yet always precisely the same.

Thankfully, I've managed to overcome the major mass of these doubts. It's clear to me that the teachings of emptiness, no-self, and impermanence are strong and enduring bridges that remain between all schools of Mahayana and the early Buddhist teachings. The Bodhisattva Ideal seems inherent in the Buddha's teaching.

Yes.

As to Shikantaza Zazen and the Jhanas, I sometimes comment this ...

... We do not practice Jhana in the way of the Theravadan tradition. Actually, the Theravadan way may be based on concentration practices that come more from Brahmanism, introduced after the lifetime of Buddha in the later commentarial tradition, so not the early explanation of Jhana. We practice what may be closest to the 4th Jhana in the original "Sutta Jhana" tradition, i.e., the highest "fourth" Jhana as it was explained in the early Suttas before the commentaries changed the meaning. It is very close to Shikantaza in key aspects.
.
~~~~

A book that should be mentioned is the recent "The Experience of Samadhi" by Richard Skankman, a survey of historical and modern Theravadan interpretations of Samadhi and Jhana. What is particularly interesting in reading the book is the extent of disagreement and widely varied interpretations from teacher to teacher, Sri Lankan vs. Burmese vs. Thai vs. Westerners, Lineage to Lineage even in that neck of the Buddhist world. Here is a Buddhistgeeks interview the author gave ... and as he discusses, there is little agreement, either currently or in centuries past, among the South Asian traditions either about "what the Buddha taught", or at least, how to interpret "what the Buddha taught" on the subject of Jhana. In the book, he interviews about two dozen teachers in South Asian traditions, and gets about two dozen, often very dissimilar interpretations.

We continue our discussion with insight meditation teacher and author, Richard Shankman. In this episode we continue to dissect the different kinds of samadhi and their respective fruits--what in the Theravada tradition are called jhana (or "meditative absorption"). According to Shankman there are two ways of approaching the attainment of jhana, one as was taught in the original canonical texts of the Theravada, the Pali Suttas, and the other from the later commentaries on the Buddha's teachings, the Vishudimagga. As a result we get two different forms of jhana--one called Sutta jhana and the other called Vishudimagga jhana. ...

https://art19.com/shows/buddhist-gee...d-611262bfad41

Richard Skankman's book makes one very interesting point that, perhaps, can be interpreted to mean that practices such as Shikantaza and the like actually cut right to the summit of Jhana practice. You see, it might be argued (from some interpretations presented in the book) that Shikantaza practice is very close to what is referred to as the "Fourth Jhana in the Suttas" ... as opposed to the highly concentrated, hyper-absorbed Visuddhimagga commentary version. The Fourth Jhana in the Pali Suttas was considered the 'summit' of Jhana practice (as the higher Jhana, No. 5 to 8, were not encouraged as a kind of 'dead end') and appears to manifest (quoting the sutta descriptions in the book) "an abandoning of pleasure.pain, attractions/aversions, a dropping of both joy and grief", a dropping away of both rapture and bliss states, resulting in a "purity of mindfulness" and "equanimity". Combine this with the fact that, more than a "one pointed mind absorbed into a particular object", there is a "unification of mind" (described as a broader awareness around the object of meditation ... whereby the "mind itself becomes collected and unmoving, but not the objects of awareness, as mindfulness becomes lucid, effortless and unbroken" (See, for examples. pages 82-83 here))

http://books.google.com/books?id=lQ_ZzFgJ1AwC&dq=%22the+experience+of+sama dhi%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Nej_Tar5b T&sig=4Aa-dpUHDX3TeIfMCoKHBbLZEC0&hl=en&ei=YJVMS5GkI8-HkAWOrPWcDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 &ved=0CBQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

A bit of the discussion of the highest (in Buddhist Practice) "Fourth Jhana", and its emphasis on equanimity while present amid circumstances (and a dropping of bliss states), can be found on page 49 there.

This is very close to a description of Shikantaza, for example, as dropping all aversions and attractions, finding unification of mind, collected and unmoving, effortless and unbroken, in/as/through/not removed from the life, circumstances, complexities which surround us and are us, sitting still with what is just as it is.

As to Dogen and the Agamas (old Chinese translations of Indian Suttas) ...
Well, communication and the internet, let alone printing, were not exactly as they are today back in the 13th century. He did encounter a copy of the Agamas that we know about late in life. Before that, he would have encountered Buddhist teachings through the filter of his Tendai and Zen training primarily, although his writings are filled with many stories inherited from Indian traditions. Shkantaza seems to be Dogen's interpretation of the Chinese "Silent Illumination" tradition, which has roots in both Indian meditation traditions (remember that the Buddha preached a variety of techniques and teachings as Upaya, expedient means, at varied times) and perhaps some Daoist influences. That said, there are clear hints of Shikantaza in some Theravadan teachers, such as many of the writings of Ajahn Chah, so it is very possible to find common ground. Buddhadasa's primary meditation approach was very close to the Zen style of open spacious awareness.

I personally believe that the Buddha saw the Morning Star, shining just to shine, nothing more to do or attain but to shine.

https://tricycle.org/article/shikantaza-advice/

Gassho, Jundo
SatToday

PS - Since you just joined today, would you do us the kindness of introducing yourself here (LINK). Thank you. When you can, you should add a human face too to your posts, and sign a human name. It helps us keep things a little more human around here. Thank you too.

[MagnificentTreeFrog]

Thank you, Jundo, for an honestly inspiring response.

Your points are all well-taken. I especially appreciate the comparison of "real flying." It seems to me that any practice that leads to insight along the lines of the Three Marks must be essentially in-line with "what the Buddha practiced." Any difference in technique is a matter of upaya, as you raised. If the same sickness has many treatments, how can there be one that is more valid than the others?

Oversimplifying things, I trace shikantaza/silent illumination primarily back as an application of Madhyamaka philosophy, as an elaboration of dependent origination as taught in the suttas. Though clearly this ignores a whole lot and carries some bias.

What you've shared on the jhanas is really great. I had heard that the Vishudimagga introduced some deviations from the suttas, but did not realize that there was such a variety of views on the subject beyond this. I'll be very happy to investigate further. I'm not at all qualified to make this claim, but my sense is that the Chan-Zen view of meditation as an integrative (samatha-vipassana) practice tends more in line with original Buddhist descriptions of jhana.

But then, to your initial point, what even is original Buddhism?

Thank you for the discussion!

[Seiko]

That said, there are clear hints of Shikantaza in some Theravadan teachers, such as many of the writings of Ajahn Chah, so it is very possible to find common ground.

What a lovely reply. Thank you Jundo. My first teacher was Luang Por Sumedho - who was trained by Ajahn Chah. I remember Sumedho fondly - he was both a strong leader and a man full of love, and always laughing. I doubt he would remember me, I was one of many young, scruffy lads who landed in his temple from time to time. Perhaps in some way he prepared me for Zen.

Gasshō, Seiko, stlah

[FNJ]

This is somewhat a continuation of a conversation we were having earlier. I did listen to the "Skankman(sp!?)" interview and found it interesting. Richard Shankman identifies two types of jhāna: the sutta jhāna of the Pāli Canon, which is lighter, integrated with mindfulness and insight, and allows some sensory awareness, versus the Visuddhimagga jhāna, which is a later, highly absorbed, and sensory-excluding state focused on deep concentration. One point I’d like to tease out further is the role of jhāna in the Buddha’s awakening, especially the idea, often echoed in some circles, that the Buddha’s enlightenment was a result of deep jhānic absorption, or that jhāna is essential for anyone seeking the same.

From my reading of the early suttas, jhāna is certainly praised, and rightly so, as a powerful meditative accomplishment. But it’s also clear that jhāna is not sufficient for liberation. The Buddha repeatedly emphasizes that even the highest absorptions do not, by themselves, lead to insight into impermanence, no-self, and dukkha. As MN 64 puts it:

“Even if a monk has attained the four jhānas, still, if they have not made the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths, they have not attained the goal.”

And conversely, there are hints that jhāna is not strictly necessary either, especially not in its highly technical, deep-absorption form. Consider the Bāhiya Sutta (Ud 1.10), where Bāhiya, upon hearing a single teaching and practicing immediate non-clinging to sense experience, attains liberation, no mention of formal jhānic training.

This seems to point to something important: Liberation isn’t the fruit of a particular meditative attainment. Jhāna may support that, and for some, it may be essential scaffolding, but it’s not the heart of the path. Jhana then seems be an ongoing practice that people engaged in religious life can refine before and after enlightenment.

So maybe it’s less useful to ask, “Did the Buddha do zazen?” and more powerful to ask, “Does this practice reveal the same insight he awakened to?” I'd say probably.

Once awakened why not continue to develop ones mastery and precision of Jhanic states if one feels compelled to do so? There are very many things we can do on the cushion that are not what Dogen would recognize as "Zazen". What else was an "awakened" one going to do with all that time on their hands? Get off his ass and help people?

sat LAH
gassho
Niall

[Jundo]

From my reading of the early suttas, jhāna is certainly praised, and rightly so, as a powerful meditative accomplishment. But it’s also clear that jhāna is not sufficient for liberation. The Buddha repeatedly emphasizes that even the highest absorptions do not, by themselves, lead to insight into impermanence, no-self, and dukkha.

I agree with this. Neither is Shikantaza sufficient without some understanding of these fundamental teachings to give form and direction (formless form, non-direction direction). It is not merely book learning, however, but getting a feel for it. In this sense, it is like learning to play music or do an art. Some theory is necessary, but not sufficient. One must pick up the horn or brush and let it rip. On the other hand, just picking up horn or brush without some idea is generally a ticket to a mess.

And conversely, there are hints that jhāna is not strictly necessary either, especially not in its highly technical, deep-absorption form. Consider the Bāhiya Sutta (Ud 1.10), where Bāhiya, upon hearing a single teaching and practicing immediate non-clinging to sense experience, attains liberation, no mention of formal jhānic training.

Some folks get a feel for the music like dampness which wets the sleeves until they are soaking wet, rather than a dive into the deep end. Nonetheless, the brain must register this, get a sense for this, one way or another so that it is not book learning. Our way is an ongoing practice.

Nonetheless, we sit each day Shikantaza Zazen, nothing lacking, nothing more to do.

Gassho, J
stlah

[Bion]

My apologies for feeling the need to express something here. It's probably redundant. Also, excuse the length of this, and my audacity of trying to summarize something as complex as this, please. Probably very foolish of me..

I find it that folks complicate things tremendously and go around in circles forgetting that practice is dynamic and all-encompassing. A few weeks ago this precise topic came up for me, and here's the basic gist of my personal stance, which is probably worth nothing for anyone else's practice: Buddha taught many ways of training the mind, many techniques to help different folks with different challenges and never said only one of them is valid. I believe it was Barbara O'Brien in "Circle of the Way" that made the statement that almost certainly the Buddha did not teach Shikantaza... That, however, does not invalidate the practice. The basic teaching of the Buddha is fully comprised in the "simple" act of sitting Shikantaza:. The first Noble Truth of the existence of suffering, which he said is to be understood, is understood with the marrow of the bones in the immovable sitting, as we allow everything to be, to arise and cease, with no interference, as we are actualized by the myriad of things. The second Noble Truth of the cause of suffering, which the Buddha said is to be abandoned, is fully abandoned in our sitting. All clinging and grasping is put aside, all separation and distinction unconstructed, all chasing and aiming, all striving are abandoned. The third Noble Truth, of the cessation of suffering, which the Buddha said is to be realized, is realized in our sitting as well. The fourth Noble Truth, the Path, which the Tathagata said is to be developed, is at least for the duration of the sitting developed. None of the paths of the Eightfold Path are left unrealized in the sitting... the three "prongs" of sila, Right speech, action and livelihood are realized, the two "prongs" of Prajna, Right understanding and thought are also realized, the two prongs of "Samadhi", right mindfulness and concentration are also realized, and of course, pursuing this practice of just sitting is an expression of Right effort.

So, my take is, the Buddha's whole life was zazen in motion, the lives of arhats once they awaken and abandon even the Path they'd been walking is also zazen in motion.. Does this eliminate other practices? I seriously don't think it does... But, there is nothing about the wholehearted sitting of zazen that is not in accordance with the Dharma of the Buddha. Everything else taught by the Buddha can be used to help us more efficiently embody this Just Sitting in all other moments of life, but one needs to continuously apply appropriate attention to oneself, and that is never ending practice, as fluid as our lives. So, we sit shikantaza wholeheartedly and with complete faith in its completeness when we sit.

* I think it's also tricky to use the term zazen, without acknowledging it encompasses more than just master Dogen's version of it. Za Zen .. seated chan (dhyana, jhana, zen).. sitting concentration. I think it's safe to say, the Buddha and his disciples sat zazen.

Gassho
sat lah

[Shinkon]

A few years ago, a new person came to the Bozeman Zen Group. A very enthusiastic practitioner, he dove headfirst into zazen/shikantaza. Later, he revealed that he developed a home practice not unlike MagnificentTreeFrog's above statement.
However, he concentrated so much on developing jhanas that he came to zazen as a way to improve his quest. After attending a few months of zazen and services, he wondered where were our levels of attainment, like it was a type of certification.
When I expressed that Zen and the Soto tradition were not like that - that no one was above the other, novice practitioner's mindset valued just as much as a sage teacher's experience, he argued, growing angry. I mentioned that maybe our practice may not be his cup of tea. He shouted and left.
Reading about our practice's development from those early days until now is very important but should not be taken piecemeal and in a literal matter. I commend his practice and pursuit. However, without a teacher, he floundered about and hubris an inhibition. Later, I saw him at the center's Theravada group. It took him a year to come back around.

gassho, shinkon
stlah

[Shinkon]

My apologies for feeling the need to express something here. It's probably redundant. Also, excuse the length of this, and my audacity of trying to summarize something as complex as this, please. Probably very foolish of me..

I find it that folks complicate things tremendously and go around in circles forgetting that practice is dynamic and all-encompassing. A few weeks ago this precise topic came up for me, and here's the basic gist of my personal stance: Buddha taught many ways of training the mind, many techniques to help different folks with different challenges and never said only one of them is valid. I believe it was Barbara O'Brien in "Circle of the Way" that made the statement that almost certainly the Buddha did not teach Shikantaza... That, however, does not invalidate the practice. The basic teaching of the Buddha is fully comprised in the "simple" act of sitting Shikantaza:. The first Noble Truth of the existence of suffering, which he said is to be understood, is understood with the marrow of the bones in the immovable sitting, as we allow everything to be, to arise and cease, with no interference, as we are actualized by the myriad of things. The second Noble Truth of the cause of suffering, which the Buddha said is to be abandoned, is fully abandoned in our sitting. All clinging and grasping is put aside, all separation and distinction unconstructed, all chasing and aiming, all striving are abandoned. The third Noble Truth, of the cessation of suffering, which the Buddha said is to be realized, is realized in our sitting as well. The fourth Noble Truth, the Path, which the Tathagata said is to be developed, is at least for the duration of the sitting developed. None of the paths of the Eightfold Path are left unrealized in the sitting... the three "prongs" of sila, Right speech, action and livelihood are realized, the two "prongs" of Prajna, Right understanding and thought are also realized, the two prongs of "Samadhi", right mindfulness and concentration are also realized, and of course, pursuing this practice of just sitting is an expression of Right effort. So, my take is, the Buddha's whole life was zazen in motion, the lives of arhats once they awaken and abandon even the Path they'd been walking is also zazen in motion.. Does this eliminate other practices? I seriously don't think it does... But, there is nothing about the wholehearted sitting of zazen that is not in accordance with the Dharma of the Buddha. Everything else taught by the Buddha can be used to help us more efficiently embody this Just Sitting in all other moments of life, but one needs to continuously apply appropriate attention to oneself, and that is never ending practice, as fluid as our lives. So, we sit shikantaza wholeheartedly and with complete faith in its completeness when we sit.

Gassho
sat lah

"So, we sit shikantaza wholeheartedly and with complete faith in its completeness when we sit."
Very well said!
gassho, shinkon

[FNJ]

Thank you, Jundo, for an honestly inspiring response.

Your points are all well-taken. I especially appreciate the comparison of "real flying." It seems to me that any practice that leads to insight along the lines of the Three Marks must be essentially in-line with "what the Buddha practiced." Any difference in technique is a matter of upaya, as you raised. If the same sickness has many treatments, how can there be one that is more valid than the others?

Oversimplifying things, I trace shikantaza/silent illumination primarily back as an application of Madhyamaka philosophy, as an elaboration of dependent origination as taught in the suttas. Though clearly this ignores a whole lot and carries some bias.

What you've shared on the jhanas is really great. I had heard that the Vishudimagga introduced some deviations from the suttas, but did not realize that there was such a variety of views on the subject beyond this. I'll be very happy to investigate further. I'm not at all qualified to make this claim, but my sense is that the Chan-Zen view of meditation as an integrative (samatha-vipassana) practice tends more in line with original Buddhist descriptions of jhana.

But then, to your initial point, what even is original Buddhism?

Thank you for the discussion!

Hey Adam I looked up White Forest Sangha because I had never heard of it. I find it interesting that you would choose to ask a question here in this Sangha that you could have asked at White Forrest. Is this because there is no teacher there who has been formally transmitted to? I noticed this written on the website:

"Over the next two years our weekly zazenkai was vigorous and lively. We supplemented our practice with half-day and all day sits at the Downing Street zendo or in a member’s home zendo. Our liturgical practice expanded to include the beginnings of the ritual Zen meal, oryoki, and a monthly Ryaku Fusatsu Service, the chanting service of repentance and vow which dates to the time of Shakyamuni Buddha. The sangha study continued unabated. With the help of our dear teacher and mentor, Kazuaki Tanahashi Sensei, we worked through the Shoyoroku (the “Book of Serenity”), a 12th century Chinese koan collection. This work was a two and a half year project which included poetry, music, visual art, and Zen Theatre. On the sapling’s nascent trunk, branches began to appear."

So I think it's important for everyone to know that as gifted a translator and interpreter of Dogen that Kaz is he is not, nor has he ever ben transmitted to officially/publicly. He is an accomplished artist and perhaps someone may give him an honorary lay "dharma holder" recognition someday. I should mention I have met him and though very impressive (and everything you could want in a taoist immortal) he's just a guy like you or me. But he has never spent any serious time training under a Buddhist teacher.

sat LAH
gassho
Niall

[MagnificentTreeFrog]

Hey Adam I looked up White Forest Sangha because I had never heard of it. I find it interesting that you would choose to ask a question here in this Sangha that you could have asked at White Forrest. Is this because there is no teacher there who has been formally transmitted to? I noticed this written on the website:

"Over the next two years our weekly zazenkai was vigorous and lively. We supplemented our practice with half-day and all day sits at the Downing Street zendo or in a member’s home zendo. Our liturgical practice expanded to include the beginnings of the ritual Zen meal, oryoki, and a monthly Ryaku Fusatsu Service, the chanting service of repentance and vow which dates to the time of Shakyamuni Buddha. The sangha study continued unabated. With the help of our dear teacher and mentor, Kazuaki Tanahashi Sensei, we worked through the Shoyoroku (the “Book of Serenity”), a 12th century Chinese koan collection. This work was a two and a half year project which included poetry, music, visual art, and Zen Theatre. On the sapling’s nascent trunk, branches began to appear."

So I think it's important for everyone to know that as gifted a translator and interpreter of Dogen that Kaz is he is not, nor has he ever ben transmitted to officially/publicly. He is an accomplished artist and perhaps someone may give him an honorary lay "dharma holder" recognition someday. I should mention I have met him and though very impressive (and everything you could want in a taoist immortal) he's just a guy like you or me. But he has never spent any serious time training under a Buddhist teacher.

sat LAH
gassho
Niall

Hi Niall,

Thanks for your interest. The White Forest Sangha has been without a teacher for some time now, I talk a little bit about it on the May introductions thread.

It's funny you mention Kaz, we just had someone in the other day who read this part of our website and guessed that Kaz must have been our teacher. Maybe we should revisit some of the presentation here.

Actually this paragraph you're quoting was written by our actual teacher, who was always a teacher in an unofficial sense since they were never (to my knowledge) a dharma holder but had been given authority to confer precepts under the auspices of Baker Roshi at Crestone Mountain Zen Center. He himself never allowed us to call him teacher, but we felt that we was the real deal and he nonetheless provided much teaching. He was a good friend and calligraphy student of Kaz.

Gassho,
Adam

[Onsho]

Thoughts of a passer by.

I feel no draw to hold the single piece of the purest Buddha practice. The complete way is a beautiful mosaic held by all practitioners in all sects, in all reaches of time. I don't need to have it because WE have it, and I hold my piece along side the other infinite fragments. There is no thing to weild and true satisfaction wont be found by the discerning mind.

With a step backwards for a better view,
Gassho,
Onsho
satlah