If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
For instance,let's say that during my sitting, I experience a pain in my knee. I gently note it as "pressure", "stabbing", etc. Feel it and observe the sensation as it changes. If I notice that I'm pulling away (aversion) from that pain, then I note that, too. Once it subsides, back to the breath, until something else comes up in the present moment. Let's say a memory pops up about someone who upset me the other day. Anger or feelings of embarrassment might accompany that thought. I note it as "anger" or "embarrassed". The physical sensations accompanying it such as a tightening of the belly or chest, reddening of the face,etc Sometimes formaly mentally noting the sensation, mental state, feeling, image, etc. isn't even necessary. Just being aware of it is enough. People get so tensed up about technique, especially when they're starting. No need. Meditation practice isn't about rigidity. It's really about being open, aware and accepting.
People get so tensed up about technique
Hi Marina.
Yes. It is like the dog chasing his tail. Eventually one is probably more apt to learn to notice, observe, and perhaps let go, if one isn't stressing it so much. All things are empty; however, we need to be kind of relax a bit to get anywhere near that kind of relization. A relaxed state being more conducive to a open observing. So when people try too hard it really ends up effecting their practice. But it's a two sided coin. You have to have a bit of effort to sit a lot, but not attaching to any specific idea of what you are trying to do. Also,some are caught up in sensations so much that any possible breakthrough is nil. That's what anapansati (mindfulness of the breath) and what not are initially good for.
I think the practices are basically the same result, and perhaps not fully in a sense. Soto Zen is big on not only realizing that all things are empty, but also dropping any realization that things are empty. Some only stop at a certain point I think, where as some Zen practices take it further. Perhaps the other practices are like that aswell. I couldn't really say.
Gassho Will
[size=85:z6oilzbt]
To save all sentient beings, though beings are numberless.
To penetrate reality, though reality is boundless.
To transform all delusion, though delusions are immeasurable.
To attain the enlightened way, a way non-attainable.
[/size:z6oilzbt]
greetings, new guy here -- probably just like zen, there's vipassana, and then there's vipassana -- some structure is necessary, i suppose, but there are degrees, and i guess the personality gets to choose -- but i've found that in years of vipassana teachers/retreats(only cause they were more available than zen), that when working with a teacher, some become very unstructured, and then its hard to say "this is vipassana, or even this is " "" -- for instance, the practice steve hagen describes, and the practice my old teacher, dhiravamsa, described, sound a lot alike, minus the vipassana metta practice(which dhira admitted was "cheating", but useful), and dhira was a thai monk for many years -- but the last time i did a long retreat at ims("vipassana") forest refuge, 2 months, it just happened that the monthly instructors were a lot more structured -- so i got to see what it was like to spend 2 months with more structured guys
and didn't i notice in charlotte joko beck's book a description of a "noting" technique that sounded an awful lot like vipassana? -- i don't do well with the noting, many vipassana teachers do not use it, but its up to the individual -- i start stumbling all over myself -- i was taught to just sit, no goal, and that sits well with me -- but there's a lot of flavors to choose from
used to live near the dalai lama's monastery in ithaca, ny -- loved the people, but it was way too structured for me -- tried to make it mine, couldn't
I not sure exactly what you mean here Bob, but I think that part of practice is really about not making it our own. It seems to me that if we try to personalize Zen practice too much, we are sort of encouraging our ego or seeking as apposed to lessening it or letting it go. From my understanding Dogen's Zen practice is very ritualistic. There's no real room for personalization. I think maybe that's one of the reason why he wrote all those rules and guidlines.
Gassho Will
[size=85:z6oilzbt]
To save all sentient beings, though beings are numberless.
To penetrate reality, though reality is boundless.
To transform all delusion, though delusions are immeasurable.
To attain the enlightened way, a way non-attainable.
[/size:z6oilzbt]
and didn't i notice in charlotte joko beck's book a description of a "noting" technique that sounded an awful lot like vipassana? -- i don't do well with the noting, many vipassana teachers do not use it, but its up to the individual -- i start stumbling all over myself -- i was taught to just sit, no goal, and that sits well with me -- but there's a lot of flavors to choose from
Hi Bob,
Welcome again.
We came across that passage in Joko's Everyday Zen when reading it last year for our book club. I wrote this ...
Hi Ho,
The subject is what "what practice is' is.
Joko starts off the section, "Practice is very simple. That doesn't mean it won't turn our life around, however."
A simple truth about simple truth.
If I might comment, though, on one part of the Chapter: In one paragraph, Joko seems to be recommending that we actively "label thoughts precisely" during Zazen, as thoughts arise and before releasing them. Then, we should return to 'just sitting." However, if that is what she is recommending [it turns out from a later chapter that she probably did not mean it like that], I would have to disagree firmly with that approach and say that such a way is not standard for Shikantaza practice as instructed by most teachers I know. I would not encourage that. Perhaps a little Vipassana influence in her method? I am not sure. When we "just sit," we "just sit" ... we let thoughts go without analysis during Zazen. There is nothing to do or attain in the sitting, nothing to examine or focus on ... and that non-doing and non-focusing is VERY important.
Now, on the other hand, I think her "thought labeling" recommendation is a wonderful thing to do at other times in daily life, as thoughts arise during our busy day ... when tired, hot, a little angry, happy, etc. Just not during Zazen itself. I think, which should have no object or focus to it.
Gassho, Jundo
***
Originally posted by DontKnow
Jundo, Beck mentions the labeling-type meditation. Is that common in Soto or simply an peculiarity of her's?
That's it for now,
Bill
Hi Bill,
This came up in an earlier chapter. It is not standard Soto practice, which is 'just sitting' Shikantaza. When this came up in an earlier chapter, I guessed it might be something that she had picked up from Vipassana practice, although Joko confuses me a bit in this chapter as she seems critical of such practices.
I will tell you that I also advocate the practice of labeling, just not --during-- Zazen itself (when we are not to be doing anything). Labeling is, however, a very important part of learning to observe our mind's workings. So, for example, instead of just feeling angry, greedy or tired, and instead of just saying to ourselves merely "I am feeling angry/greedy/tired now), we should learn to say to ourselves such things as "this is my mind now temporarily feeling angry/greedy/tired during present conditions ... I can feel it arising, I can feel it developing, I can feel it passing away". When we learn to do that, experiencing the emotions of the mind becomes just watching a bit of theatre.
All that is good, just not a practice for "during" Zazen, when we observe everything and nothing.
Gassho, Jundo
P.S - By the way, I think that times of great structure are very instructive, times of great looseness can be very instructive. When in a formal Sesshin, for example, run tightly, a prison ... up at 4am for sitting ... every step during the day set, whether we like it or not, day after day ... it can be very free-ing. We can learn that freedom is not a matter of being confined, that monastery walls cannot hold us.
jundo - interesting, i definitely had a reaction to that section of her book, was a bit disappointed, but everything else was like she was speaking to me -- as far as books go, its great - thanks for the clarification
will - thanks -- i dont' always review stuff i type, and even if i did, don't always communicate clearly - by making it my own, i meant that i wanted it to ring true to me, like charlotte beck's book, which is how i judge everything, but i coiuldn't make it, cause, as you know, if you can lie to your self that well, you got a long ways to go -- tibetan is just not my path - at least so far
by structure i am not referring to ritual, which i have no problem with, as long as you(thats me) just do it, you know what i mean -- completely, then leave it, like life -- i feel there has to be that type of structure in any open buddhism, like zen, or a pure "vipassana", in order to then have the freedom to be totally without structure -- i mean, really, we are like astronauts, exploring space, so its good to have a home base, something shared with those here, and those, like dogen, who've gone before --
but in my encounter with tibetan, over the years, the emphasis was not on sitting, it was on studying texts -- and on passing along stories of how life is, and how death is, etc. -- "and on the third day ....." -- thats what i meant by structure, certainly i chose an obscure way to express it -- probably "form" would have been better
if buddha had said "here's where its at:blah-blah-blah", i'd turn and run the other way, cause we already have a few folks very willing to tell me that -- they come knocking on the door with little pamphlets -- god bless them - but as the story goes, what the buddha said was something to the effect:"dont' believe this,etc., you check it out, and if it rings true, follow this path" -- that is my way, and maybe some day i'll get burnt by doing it this way, but what's the alternative? -- you can't give that responsibility away, even if you want to-- if you decide to not decide, thats a decision! - and as far as i can tell, the process goes on every moment, no?
thanks again, i enjoy speaking with you, gassho bob
[size=85:z6oilzbt]
To save all sentient beings, though beings are numberless.
To penetrate reality, though reality is boundless.
To transform all delusion, though delusions are immeasurable.
To attain the enlightened way, a way non-attainable.
[/size:z6oilzbt]
Putting the technical aside for a moment, allow me to share my experience:I have practiced both insight and zazen and found both to be very useful. Some time back I realized I needed to do one or the other, however, and deciding this was a struggle. Insight meditation taught me a great deal about myself and has had a strong influence on my being mindful throughout the day, but I also found it very "busy" with all this noting and analyzing going on. For a beginner it is hard to do that noting/analyzing lightly, as everything seems to have a "heavy step" when you first become mindful of it, but I suppose that lightness goes away in time with enough insight practice. Another factor was that insight was easier, in a sense, than zazen because it gave me something to do, and it's nice to have that crutch when you are a beginner. Eventually, however, I gave up insight in favor of zazen because zazen was more liberating. I mean, the point of insight seemed to be practicing awareness with analysis that allows you to let everything go, so why not just practice letting everything go in the first place. Also, I have found the "step" to be lighter in zazen because I don't dwell as much in the analysis like I did in insight. Anyway, I feel like my practice evolved from insight into zazen. The one practice seems to include the other without actually being the other, and that feels very zen to me.
How does this apply to you? You need to find your own way on the Path like I did. Do what works, but be prepared for what works to change as you do.
AL
AL (Jigen) in: Faith/Trust
Courage/Love
Awareness/Action!
Basically it is written by one the teachers I see(who unfortunately is too far for me to get to) from the Thai Forest lineage. He is pali scholar as well a practicing monk and is particularly interested in the earlier suttas (theravadin texts of buddha's teaching) which he sees as more authentic and less adulterated by later writers of the same suttas.
Anyhow, a swift pair of messengers is an analogy buddha gave of the nature of calm abiding meditation and insight (vipassana) practice. That was like a pair of messengers to the centre of a fortress, vipassana and samatha are messengers to the heart and should both be part of the practice and not one to the exclusion of the other. This is what facinates me as a part of shikatanza practice. I get the impression that it does have a lot of samathaesque parts to its practice even though it primarily an "insight" practice (just observing things as they are).
Just to add with my experience of vipassana, the approaches are as varied as the teachers. I have had one teacher from the Sri Lankan tradition that taught the exact same as Shikatanza, a Thai teacher that taught differently depending on the student -more formal teaching as those shown by the suttas, the body sweeping Goenka technique, a monk from the Burmese tradition that taught beginners about noting, another Burmese monk that taught the same technique Marina uses and a burmese female monastic that did all the kammathana meditations (all 16 or so them, including contemplating the body). So basically, take your pick, whatever is suiting oneself's practice really is the key, but the message all the teachers had about seeing what suits you is don't fish around all the time and put some persistence once comfortable with a particular approach.
Regarding remarks made about Joko Beck and her recommendation to label thoughts, this is just a short quote from her book "Nothing Special, Living Zen" which would seem to indicate that she is in favour of this method.
"The work we do on the cushion is at times very dreary. We get tired of labelling our thoughts and going back to our body sensations. This work is not pointless, but it takes years. ....Renunciation of self happens each time we see our thoughts spinning and we label them and give up our little self - that's what the thoughts are - and return to what's happening. We return to taking in the body sensations, the sound of the cars, the smell of lunch. When we sit for a week in retreat we should do this ten thousand times;
labelling our thoughts, seeing the fantasy, and returning to the awareness of what is, which is renunciation of little self for the sake of big self. The result; just life itself coming in."
Why would we label our thoughts? There all really just thoughts. Wouldn't the thing be to just let them come and go, without adding any labeling to them?
Angry thought=thought. Craving thought=thought. Sad thought=thought. Happy thought=thought. Thought=thought.
Gassho Will
[size=85:z6oilzbt]
To save all sentient beings, though beings are numberless.
To penetrate reality, though reality is boundless.
To transform all delusion, though delusions are immeasurable.
To attain the enlightened way, a way non-attainable.
[/size:z6oilzbt]
Why would we label our thoughts? There all really just thoughts. Wouldn't the thing be to just let them come and go, without adding any labeling to them?
Angry thought=thought. Craving thought=thought. Sad thought=thought. Happy thought=thought. Thought=thought.
Gassho Will
To be fair, you're not really aware of how vipassana works. It's got its reasons. (I read a lot of vipassana about twenty years ago, and my first forays into meditation were of that kind.)
Why would we label our thoughts? There all really just thoughts. Wouldn't the thing be to just let them come and go, without adding any labeling to them?
I think for someone starting into zazen it's a way of being aware of your thinking process and letting go of that thought. At least that's one reason I was given when I started zazen.
I'm gonna join Erik: labeling thoughts is a technique popularized by Joko Beck and I think it is valuable for beginners, training wheels just like watching the breath if you will. Shikantaza is damn hard at first, and while that feeling of having nothing to hold on to is ultimately a great thing, it may be unsettling or downright devastating for somebody that is just starting. My impression is that nobody sane can keep on watching breaths or labeling thoughts for too long, and that those practices and some good Dogen-inspired teaching will land people on the shores of good ol' Shikantaza.
Comment