Is 'Shikantaza' the same as 'Zazen'?

[Taiten]

I learnt zazen in a different Soto Zen organisation. I've now listened to all the beginner talks that describe 'shikantaza' and to me the instructions seem identical to what I know as 'zazen'.

Is Shikantaza simply another word for Zazen? Or does it describe a particular way of doing it? If so what would distinguish Shikantaza from other types of Zazen?

Gassho,
Nick

Sat today & LAH

[Kotei]

Hi Taiten,

as far as I understand, which may be quite limited,
Shikantaza "just sitting" is one form of Zazen (the form, we're practicing).
There is also Koan introspective Zazen, like it is practised in the Rinzai lineages, and maybe some more types?

Gassho,
Kotei sat/lah today.

[Jundo]

Hi,

Yes, the two principle flavors of Zazen are "Just Sitting Which Hits The Mark" (Shikantaza) in the manner of Master Dogen and the Soto Way, as we Practice here. Perhaps what sets it (non-)apart is the radical wholeness and completeness of the action itself of Just Sitting, without seeking goals or special stages, and without judgment, thus to realize emptiness.

There is Kanna (Koan Introspection) Zazen, in which the sitters wraps oneself in a phrase or word from a Koan, usually with some intensity. The goalless goal there is usually to reach some intensity or merging with the phrase where there is an experience of emptiness.

Both ways may be said to be means to lose oneself and find OneSelf again through somewhat different roads to the very same right here and every where and no where at all.

The grandfather of Shikantaza is Silent Illumination, often taught these days by Chan Teachers such as Sheng Yen, although the way he taught it seemed to emphasize reaching deep states of concentration that is a bit different from our Shikantaza way (where we are not particularly running toward, or away from, any particular concentrated state). I once wrote this about that ...

Many forms of meditation focus on reaching rather intense, extra-ordinary and highly concentrated mind states. So, for example, Ven. Sheng Yen and Guo Gu speak of:

... When you urinate, the body, urine, and toilet are not separate. Indeed, you all have a wonderful dialogue! ... [Then] There are progressively deeper states of this second stage. ... the environment may become infinite and boundless, bringing about a state of oneness with the universe. ... The second experience is infinite sound. This is not the sound of cars, dogs, or something similar. Nor is it like music or anything else you have ever heard. It is a primordial, elemental sound that is one with the experience of vastness. It is harmonious in all places, without reference or attribution. ... In utter clarity, the mind is unmoving. Why? Because there is no self-referential mind.

Having such experiences is wonderful and powerful when they occur, and each can be a great insight into and piercing of the "self-other divide", "Emptiness" and impermanence, the underlying light, peace and harmony which can be found when the divisive mind is put aside. Koan centered Zazen with a heavy emphasis on reaching a radical "Kensho" is another way. In Shikantaza too, one may sometimes experience such perspectives (because subject-object is transcended, we can better call some of them "non-perspectives") as well, and they are important and to be cherished when they occur, but reaching so is not the emphasis or central point. My own view is that getting "hooked" into running after such states is like seeking an intense drug trip (and, truly, some narcotics might actually get one there faster and with more intensity than years of meditation).

In Shikantaza, the great insight into and piercing of the "self-other divide", "Emptiness" and impermanence, the underlying light, peace and harmony etc. fills life and arises from our marrow in a more subtle way. The best analogy I have for this is my "bus trip to visit the Grand Canyon". I already posted the following once in this thread, but I will do so again here because I feel it that important.

Through Shikantaza, one realizes that all the wonder has been present in this world, right before one's eyes (and one's eyes too) all along.
https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/show...l=1#post168953

Tibetan Dzogchen meditations, which are sometimes compared to Zazen, also are different for their emphasis on attaining such highly concentrated state or state of oneness.

There are some teachers who teach what I would call just "being in the moment" or "mindfulness" relaxation techniques, or very forms of just following the breath to center and relax, and I would not really say that is Zazen.

On the other hand, I recently finished a book by the great Indian-Burmese Vipassana Teacher Goenka, where I found great commonality and overlap with aspects of Shikantaza (and some differences too, as they are different traditions).

I like to say that all these ways are "just the same, but often very different; Sometimes quite different, yet always precisely the same." (A Koan)

Gassho, J

SatTodayLAH

[Jundo]

Here, if I may, is my recent essay on what makes Shikantaza as Shikantaza.

WHAT's OFTEN MISSING in SHIKANTAZA EXPLANATIONS ....

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?15111-WHAT-s-OFTEN-MISSING-in-SHIKANTAZA-EXPLANATIONS

Gassho, J

SatTodayLAH

[davidh]

Jundo,

Thank you, I found your replies very helpful. Especially the following, and especially the repeated use of the word "or".

One should sit in the Lotus Posture (or, these days, some other balanced way such as Burmese or Seiza or in a chair), focus on the breath or the body or just be openly aware, letting one’s thoughts go without grabbing onto them. If finding oneself caught in trains of thought, return to the breath or posture or spaciousness. Sit daily for a certain length of time, but without objective or demanded pay-off. Do not seek anything from your Zazen, whether “enlightenment” or to become “Buddha” or anything at all.

I think I'm doing it right ... but could you explain "spaciousness"?

Thanks again, Gassho,

David

SatToday

[Jishin]

Jundo,

Thank you, I found your replies very helpful. Especially the following, and especially the repeated use of the word "or".



I think I'm doing it right ... but could you explain "spaciousness"?

Thanks again, Gassho,

David

SatToday

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/spaciousness

or

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_no_man_has_gone_before

https://youtu.be/hdjL8WXjlGI

Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

[Jishin]

Maybe just sit?

IMG_0187.JPG

Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

[Jundo]

I think I'm doing it right ... but could you explain "spaciousness"?

Not really, but maybe it is that boundless feeling of sitting with everything, and nothing in particular, in the whole world. Something like that. Sit and find out for your own self.

Gassho, J

SatTodayLAH

[davidh]

Thank you Jundo and Jishin

Jishin, I liked the dog cartoon. The dictionary definition of spaciousness, and the Star Trek video, not so much. It had the tone of STFU and left me with the feeling of 'if I can't ask questions then what's the point of a forum? But I am taking it in the spirit of a zen tweak of the nose, a koan perhaps. Q: What is the meaning of spaciousness? A: Star Trek.

To get back to the thread's original question about shikantaza vs zazen. Jundo, I was interested in your comment that the term zazen includes koan meditation, which is quite distinct from shikantaza (and not given much emphasis in soto zen). Yesterday day I came across Dainin Katagiri's essay 'To live is just to live' and I would like to share the following quote as a humble contribution to this conversation: "What we have to do is realize we are buddha; this is a big koan for us. This practice is called shikantaza and is our koan for our whole life. There are hundreds of koans, but those koans are just leaves and branches, that is all; the root is shikantaza."

Gassho, David

SatToday

[Jishin]

Thank you Jundo and Jishin

Jishin, I liked the dog cartoon. The dictionary definition of spaciousness, and the Star Trek video, not so much. It had the tone of STFU and left me with the feeling of 'if I can't ask questions then what's the point of a forum? But I am taking it in the spirit of a zen tweak of the nose, a koan perhaps. Q: What is the meaning of spaciousness? A: Star Trek.

To get back to the thread's original question about shikantaza vs zazen. Jundo, I was interested in your comment that the term zazen includes koan meditation, which is quite distinct from shikantaza (and not given much emphasis in soto zen). Yesterday day I came across Dainin Katagiri's essay 'To live is just to live' and I would like to share the following quote as a humble contribution to this conversation: "What we have to do is realize we are buddha; this is a big koan for us. This practice is called shikantaza and is our koan for our whole life. There are hundreds of koans, but those koans are just leaves and branches, that is all; the root is shikantaza."

Gassho, David

SatToday

Hey David,

Few people get what I say and that is Ok. I have a weird sense of humor and it wold take a very long time to explain where it comes from. But that it's ok. The thing about zen is that when you think you have it just slips right out of your hands. I always miss the mark when I aim. When I don't I may hit the mark because there is not mark to begin with. Don't pay me any attention. Some of what I say is humorous (to me), some not (I have a temper and am impulsive) but I provide an excellent opportunity to practice tolerance. Spaciousness is not limited to to space, it includes space, Star Treck, exploration of new worlds and beyond the beyond. It even includes STFU and the feeling of STFU.

If you try to catch Shikantaza you miss it. Like trying to catch your shadow. Don't chase it and it's right under your butt. Just sit. That's all. It's experiential. Words do not do it justice. You have to find out for yourself the meaning of it. My Shikantaza is mine. It's not for sale. Jundo's is his. Not for sale. Go get your own.

Gassho, Jishin, ST

[davidh]

Hi Jishin

Thanks for your reply. And yes, I fully intend to get my own shikantaza (while at the same time not getting too caught up in the idea of "mine")

Gassho, David

SatToday

[Meishin]

Spaciousness

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-Lkry-SF01&hsimp=yhs-SF01&hspart=Lkry&p=I+Heart+Huckabee+blanket+scene#id=1&vid=1f8f54879109a203ea22e731ec6833b4&action=click

Gassho
Meishin
Sat Today LAH

[Byokan]

Spaciousness

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-Lkry-SF01&hsimp=yhs-SF01&hspart=Lkry&p=I+Heart+Huckabee+blanket+scene#id=1&vid=1f8f54879109a203ea22e731ec6833b4&action=click

Gassho
Meishin
Sat Today LAH

I <3 that movie! One of my favorites.

I like that Katagiri quote, David, thank you!

Gassho
Byōkan
sat + lah

[Jishin]

Hey Meishin,

The link was no good for me. Here is the one that worked for me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdrwqLUpD0

And here is a little essay someone wrote about it:

https://www.grandpractical.com/single-post/2015/10/16/FILM-AS-PHILOSOPHY-The-Blanket-Scene-from-I-Heart-Huckabees

October 31, 2015
Recent Posts
FILM AS PHILOSOPHY: The Blanket Scene from 'I Heart Huckabees'

October 16, 2015

|

Lindsay Hunt

The 'Blanket Scene' from I Heart Huckabees (Russell, 2004) depicts a practice of transcendental meditation which is synonymous with Platonic metaphysics. Certainly the scene is an overt presentation of a philosophical dialogue, but there are also ways in which the scene goes beyond simple presentation to do philosophy. ‘Albert’ visits the existential detectives ‘Bernard’ and ‘Vivienne’ to find the meaning of a particular coincidence in his life. Allegory is used in the way characters are dialogically involved in narrative roles. Albert occupies the role of ‘enquirer’, confused by mystical phenomena.



Vivienne embodies a rational figure who is adamant about ‘specifics’ and due process –

“...approach, patience, finesse...”,



Whilst Bernard embodies an empirical figure -



“...It’s always too much too soon - that’s the nature of the beast.” (08:00)



Bernard tries to convince Albert that contemplation of metaphysical possibilities requires that he focus not on everyday drama, but on his own presence in order to resolve his questions about fate and coincidence. Perhaps the most interesting feature of the scene is Bernard’s explanation of universal materialism using the blanket. To explain the distinction between reason and the confused social world of physical objects Bernard confirms that:



“...everything is the same even if it's different.... but our everyday mind forgets this.” (09:10)



Whilst Plato uses allegory to explain that object signifiers are like ‘the cave’, Bernard uses allegory to explain how a blanket is not ‘the cave’ – a positive theory of monistic materialism. From a cognitivist perspective, the viewer is confronted with Bernard explaining that the ‘blanket is everything’ – then what is Bernard? The answer is that even the person explaining the blanket is the blanket – the example is also the analogue. This can be extended to say that even the film showing Bernard explaining the Blanket is also the same. The film is part of the explanation, which is part of the blanket, which is everything.



Beyond the allegorical or narrative aspects of the scene there are a range of visual devices which allow the film to present philosophical ideas in ways which are unique functions of the moving image. These involve point of view (POV) manipulations which switch from omniscient eyewitness to first person perspective as Albert enters a deprivation cloak. This filmic device is useful for taking the spectator into a realm of remembering. The switch of photographic perspective demonstrates (mimetically) the cognitive ability to ‘take someone else’s view’ – the viewer is objectively positioned, and then, thanks to Albert’s submission, the viewer is subjectively positioned.





The adoption of Albert’s subjective point of view rather than the common 'objective' observer/companion P.O.V (his ‘learning’ self) also raises questions about the claim that the moving image is compatible with realist photographic ontology on the grounds that it is a ‘detached device’. The point where Albert is enclosed inside the zippered bag ‘closes down’ the space to the point where Albert’s inability to escape is an example of negated ‘physico-causality’1. At this point the viewer’s subjectivity can connect with Albert’s in a way which is not possible through still photographic reality. It is the (moving) image of ‘zipping up’ which produces both the perceptual/interpretive constriction and also the cognitive attachment. This attachment is secured through what Thomson-Jones refers to as the ‘referential’ mode of narrative comprehension. This describes the way that the viewer is able to continue to understand what is going on in the moving image, despite the absence of clear ‘logical’ continuity of P.O.V and modes of signification, as distinct from the ‘explicit’ and ‘symptomatic’ modes which have closer ties with interpretation2.



This is proof that realist photographic ontology is further found to be unsuitable. The idea that photographic objectivity of the ‘machine made’ image3 persists within film is challenged by the coherent depiction of Albert’s ‘thoughts’ and feelings. These are represented through a montage of still and moving imagery, in such a way that mentation is simulated sufficiently enough to be discernible by the viewer. This also demonstrates Thomson-Jones’ point about the active construction of meaning through comprehension, interpretation and evaluation - the practical reasoning which combines active perception with active interpretation through ‘semantic fields’4.



If “Art forms are made by human beings in order to serve human purposes”5 then the way that I Heart Huckabees presents philosophical ideas, the way these are incorporated formally and aesthetically, and the way that audiences are able to engage with it, shows that film can be understood as an art form in the pure sense.

Gassho, Jishin, ST

[Meishin]

Thanks for the corrected link, Jishin.

Gassho
Meishin
Sat today lah