Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

[Janne H]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

Hi again,

just wanted to express my gratitude for this thread and for all the great words of advice and guidance! This question has for some time been troubling me and my practice, going on and off trying to find the right way of doing it, to concentrate or not to concentrate, looking or not looking for that state of "enlightenment", when the mind is completly still and perfect. But one can really not expect anything, life is more dynamic than that, there´s both stillness and some chaos, and I guess that Shikantaza is really about dropping it all and being able to just sit with whatever is, not excluding anything. And thats what I really like about it, the simplicity of it.

A sidenote:

At the moment I´m reading the book The Method of No-Method by Sheng Yen, about Silent Illumination, and he´s talking about the view of stages in the practice, and I quote:

"Although we talk about stages in Silent Illumination, please do not expect to experience distinct and separate stages. We use the term "stages" as points of reference for instructing you. Therefore, do not imagine having to work your way systematically up to the highest stage. You can realize Silent Illumination even with the foundation practice of sitting in awareness."

"Since it is more natural for most people to understand practice as occurring in stages, I have described Silent Illumination as occurring in stages. It is possible to contemplate emptiness and selflessness at any stage in Silent Illumination; it is also possible to experience enlightenment at any stage of this practice."

Same, different to Shikantaza? The only real difference that I can find is that he/they choose to point out different stages that might or will occur in the practice, not prefaring one over the other, as in Shikantaza one probably may experience the same "stages" or depts, so there doesn´t seem to be any real difference to the actual practice of sitting in comparison to Shikantaza, if done correctly. But off course there are probably many differences to other aspects around the practice, like other practices and the words of the teachers etc. Any thoughts on that?

If you have previously discussed this book, then maybe you could redirect me to that thread?

And thanks again!

Janne

[Jundo]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

Hi Janne,

My reading of the late, wonderful Master Sheng Yen is that he mixed and matched several styles, as is very common in Chinese Buddhism in general ... but even more so with Sheng Yen, who was a little bit Rinzai (he taught Koan centered Zazen), a little bit Soto (he had some training in Japan and held a Soto Lineage), and some other things too.

To answer your question, yes, I have read some things by Master Sheng Yen in which he speaks of meditation as a means to the attaining of various highly concentrated states and world-removing attainments of Samadhi. I have in the past year re-read his "Hoofprint of the Ox" book, for example, and there he presents a quite instrumentalist, goal oriented view of what he calls "Silent Illumination" ... as a means to attain very deep states of "one pointed" mind. Search the phrase "Seven Phases" here, and read from page 45 to 49 here. He draws some diagrams to represent this, and it is an excellent description of the types of "one pointed" meditation aimed at special states that we have been talking about on this thread ...

http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=myQN ... es&f=false

While that may be a wonderful path, it is not the exclusive way "Silent Illumination" has been described over the centuries and others (such as me) interpret "Silent Illumination" as more "open, spacious, unified, illuminated mind". It is not "one pointed", so much as unified and found "neither inside, nor outside, nor in between" wholly with one's environment and circumstances. What Sheng Yen presents is of a rather different flavor from that view of "Silent Illumination", and is also different, I believe, from "Just Sitting" in Dogen's meaning (I do not see anywhere in Dogen's writings an emphasis on attaining deep Samadhi states, and Dogen is more about "sitting with all phenomena in the universe as sacred, whole, and each the universe's 'total exertion' of Buddha in each grain of sand).

I hope that helps.

Gassho, J

[Janne H]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

I don´t feel that there really is any reason for me to try to ponder on that issue, there´s too much that I don´t have a clue about, and it would probably only get me distracted from doing Shikantaza, witch buy the way I feel is all I need at the moment. So I will drop that question.

Janne

[disastermouse]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

While that may be a wonderful path, it is not the exclusive way "Silent Illumination" has been described over the centuries and others (such as me) interpret "Silent Illumination" as more "open, spacious, unified, illuminated mind". It is not "one pointed", so much as unified and found "neither inside, nor outside, nor in between" wholly with one's environment and circumstances.

This is the best description I've heard, and Shen Yeng does emphasize this more in 'Method of No-Method'. Part of the main reason I dig Treeleaf so much is because Jundo and Taigu are so much more in line with my personal experiences over the years about Shikantaza and Soto zazen. It was only after experiencing Shikantaza that I ended up getting more involved with various concentration practices, and they became a real distraction and source of wrong-headedness in my practice.

YMMV, however.

Chet

*Edited to add*

I should add that I'm only now starting to 'empty my cup' so that I can learn more from Jundo and Taigu about deeper understanding on the Soto path. So far, they've only been a help, even if/when I opposed them at the beginning. Jundo keeps reminding me about the 'form' aspect so I don't get lost in emptiness and Taigu calls me on my shit. I have definitely found my Dharma home.

*gassho*

[Stephanie]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

I just got 'Method of No Method' as this "no-method" of shikantaza is what seems to be most in accord with my recent practice and experience... it would be unfortunate indeed of Sheng Yen's "method of no method" was really just a concentration method!

Dogen arises again and again for me as the most profound explicator of the path of Zen... Soto Zen or otherwise. I love the Rinzai koans too (which seem to me perfectly compatible with Soto practice also, just not as something to carry into zazen), which also come up like refrains from old songs in my head from time to time, but it's really Dogen that seems burned into the heart. I keep meaning to buy and start to read the entire Shobogenzo but I don't yet feel "ready." So far I've only read from it here and there at leisure. But I can say it, like koans, makes more sense the more I sit and practice. Finally understanding something Dogen wrote, years after first reading it, has been a helpful guide in the deepening of my practice/understanding!

Anyway, all that said, it helps to find explications of the "method (of no method)" also. Though you could have bounced as many off my head in the beginning and I would have never "gotten it." Shikantaza baffled me when I first read descriptions of it. I couldn't comprehend anything that didn't involve some sort of "conquering effort." I've always been more of a "warrior type" personality. I like intensity, challenge, and learning through adversity. But even with that disposition, I find that any practices that are about "conquering" rather than "letting go" just lead to more delusion.

One thing I can say about concentration states, from my personal experience of jhana (I assume I hit at least the first one, but who knows), though, is the paradox is that even though concentration practice requires some effort, concentration states arise from letting go. The deeper you let go, the more the bliss.

So all this stuff isn't so unrelated as it may seem at first.

The problem though is that the bliss and the feeling of accomplishment from concentration practice can just further entrench the ego once one gets off the cushion. All that led to a spiritual dead-end for me.

[Jundo]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

[

This is the best description I've heard, and Sheng Yeng does emphasize this more in 'Method of No-Method'.

I should mention that, after having read Method of No-Method (which I almost was going to recommend for our book club here) and some other later writings by Rev. Sheng Yen ... it seems that he softened his views in later years, and came closer to a Just Sitting approach. It seems Master Sheng yen did change some of his ways of presentation as he came more and more in contact with Western lay students as the decades passed, and adjusted some of his attitudes as the years passed. His later writings seem rather softer in tone, more "open spacious mind" and less "one pointy concentration states".

Gassho, J

[jgreerw]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

Thank you for putting it so well. "Just as it is."

Jamie

[Grizzly]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

Looks like I am on my own on this one but I really don't think the two are incompatible. The digital distinction between focussing on one thing ie the breath and then focussing on anything that comes up as it arises, in open awareness, I see as an illusion- or perhaps more accurately just a view. The other view is they are part of a spectrum.
Given that, so far, searches on Western Theravada teachers and Western Zen teachers have revealed to that the Zen side has some serious problems then I hypothesise something is lacking in practice. I may be wrong and have just not found the Theravada issues in which case I would withdraw this theory.
A cursory view of Zen in the West reveals far too many teacher level people who indulge in poor behaviour (to put it mildly) and while the "pick yourself up and carry on" view has merit, if we don't live better lives and act more comapssionately and be less harming than the ordinary person then Zen is just an indulgence.
1) Allegations from within the zen community with evidence for them:
2) Sexual predation on vunerable women by one teacher (possibly rape), with the organisation knowing and disagreeing but taking no action.
3) Inappropriate sexual behaviour detailed in a book on one centre- over many years.
4) Alcoholism in a supposedly enlightened teacher.
5) A teacher revoking transmission to students, leading their heir to say that this wasn't the same person they had learnt under- and by the looks of it losing their inheritance through that.
6) The situation with that has been detailed on here- which at the very least included speech designed to provoke, violence and someone lying afterwards, if I read the thread right and the post on the other site. These behaviours are ones I could find in a lot of pubs here on a Saturday night amongst people who have never had an interest in anything remotely "spiritual".
[Given I wasn't present for any of these events and even though they seem well documented in the public arena I should say for legal reasons these are allegations and personally I have no proof one way or another, and so haven't posted names]
The trouble is that these scenarios show that if indeed these people have some experience of "absolute truth" they have not done too well in practice dealing with "relative truth" issues, and ultimately the oneness of absolute and relative.
I personally would never put on robes nor seek to teach until I lived the eightfold path to a very high degree. That is a long way away....
If concentration practice and jhanas produce states of happiness/equanimity that, even though conditioned, allow us to behave peacefully and in a moral way, while we continue to work on non-attainment then they are useful and a vital part of Buddhism in my opinion.
In this sense they are no different than the replacing of unwholesome states with wholesome states- a Theravada practice borrowed, quite rightly in my opinion, by Jundo and Taigu here on Treeleaf.
My practice at the moment, with relation to this post, involves "just sitting" with the anger/sadness this has evoked for me but also using metta to love these folks from the above examples. This seems contradictory, much like the concentration and shikantaza, but isn't. If I can live a decent caring life, helping others and doing no-harm but never achieving the perfection of just sitting I would chose that rather than the other way around.
All the best
Rich

[disastermouse]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

My practice at the moment, with relation to this post, involves "just sitting" with the anger/sadness this has evoked for me but also using metta to love these folks from the above examples. This seems contradictory, much like the concentration and shikantaza, but isn't. If I can live a decent caring life, helping others and doing no-harm but never achieving the perfection of just sitting I would chose that rather than the other way around.
All the best
Rich

Although it's admirable for you to chose the one over the other, it's foolish. Not so much to choose the perfection of sitting, but the perfection of wisdom, would be best. In fact, it is only though awareness directed at your 'harmful' actions that you can even begin to approach wisdom. Without harmful actions from which to learn the nature of suffering and the destructiveness of clinging consciousness, there can be no wisdom.

Personally, I'm glad you have been disappointed! Your hopes were pinned on a false belief and a conditioned situation. The ethical choices of another are not my 'business' - they aren't your business either. If we wait until people are 'perfect beings' before we allow them to be teachers, there will be very, very few teachers.

It's mistaken to rest your faith on the teachings of the Buddha or on the path of Zen entirely on your teachers. The path of the Buddha begins and ends with you.

Chet

[Grizzly]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

Although it's admirable for you to chose the one over the other, it's foolish

I am guessing you missed the IF in the sentence.

In fact, it is only though awareness directed at your 'harmful' actions that you can even begin to approach wisdom

I think I demonstrated in my last post that Zen training doesn't lead to this necessarily. If you aware of a harmful action and then don't repeat it then you may have been said to develop wisdom, but you don't have to try everything that's harmful to know that is so. In fact that was implicit in my post. If you know that using concentration practice can lead to happiness for an hour or a day or so after sitting and that happiness allows you to be kinder and constructive, then not to do so is foolish. It is the practical application of the path. Of course from that place of happiness you can sit and be aware and get insight into impermance, non-self and dukkha which is ultimately the transformative process. If just sitting with anger leads one to see through it and not repeat it then all well and good but if after some time it is still there then it is practical to change it by any skilful means possible. You can do both. At the end of the day if the practice doesn't lead to a better life for each of us collectively then its just a kind of mental masturbation.

If we wait until people are 'perfect beings' before we allow them to be teachers, there will be very, very few teachers

And that is bad because? One good teacher who lives entirely by the eightfold path could well be worth a thousand others, don't you think?

The path of the Buddha begins and ends with you

No disagreement there. That's why I'm going against the grain of the group here and discussing this point. The Buddha said to prove this to ourselves. What can we prove? We can't prove anything but our behaviour towards others and the way we live.
If someone wants to sit for an hour per day and a month per year and in 20 years they are still misusing alchohol and saying things just to get a reaction from someone else (or similar) then yes, you are right, its not my business, but it is my sadness.

Your hopes were pinned on a false belief and a conditioned situation

I'm certainly not saying I'm right about all of this, but its not a false belief. Its a choice to say that unless we have a practice that makes better people we are wasting our time. Talking of conditioned situations is a belief- because you are implying the unconditioned as an absolute- which is common in some forms of Buddhism although there is no evidence for anything unconditioned. The suttas in fact speak of being unconditioned by greed, hatred and delusion- again a practical aim- not a metaphysical postulate.

Best wishes

Rich

[Stephanie]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

Hi Grizzly.

You're circling around what has been one of the central "koans" of my practice: what good is this practice, if it cannot make us perfect? What does it mean that someone can be realized and yet still behave so badly, and seem to still be so deluded?

Well, the first approach to this question is to posit that it is possible to either achieve or approximate perfection, and that realized teachers never make mistakes or have bad vices. My practice and experience has shown me that this is definitely not the case. Of course, you are going to have to realize this for yourself if you have not already.

I can tell you if you dig hard enough, you will find the "dirt" on any spiritual teacher, no matter what style or tradition. Some people are just scam artists, but even the greatest teachers will have some sort of "dark side" or "character flaw." It's just that some keep it better hidden than others. In Zen, there is less emphasis on ideals of purity and more acceptance of "as it is," so these things are more in the open and dealt with more fearlessly and publicly. Therevada is more about purity, so a lot more effort will be put in by the teacher and community to give off an impression of purity. That doesn't mean that "the ugly stuff" isn't there, it's just more hidden.

Zen is a practice, not a state. One will "fall off" again and again, and will need to get back up, dust oneself off, and return to clarity, again and again. Again and again, "for ten thousand years nonstop" as Seung Sahn would say. Are you ready for that?

The trouble is that these scenarios show that if indeed these people have some experience of "absolute truth" they have not done too well in practice dealing with "relative truth" issues, and ultimately the oneness of absolute and relative.

You're absolutely correct. And I wouldn't recommend Buddhism as necessarily the first place to go to deal with "relative truths" of the marketplace. For that we've got economics, sociology, psychology, law... Buddhism is a monastic tradition about tools for waking up to Reality. It's not a way to realize worldly "success," no matter how many "Zen and the art of..." manuals say otherwise.

I just finished reading Steve Hagen's Buddhism Plain and Simple. A wonderfully clear presentation of the directness of Zen practice. Zen practice allows us to not to waste our time spending years chasing after pie-in-the-sky idealist visions, giving us the chance instead to see right here and now that these are just ideas that have nothing to do with Reality itself. Hagen says that our one and only intention needs to be to be awake. That doesn't mean we don't care about right action, but rather that we realize that our conceptions of what "right action" is are hopelessly confused until we wake up and see the insubstantiality of our thoughts.

Do you want to wake up? Do you want to face Reality? If your answers to these questions are "Yes," then you must be ready to set aside your ideals, your hopes and opinions about how things "ought to be." I'm not saying you have to set them aside now--you're just going to have to be willing to drop them when you come to the fork in the road and the sign on one fork says "Reality" and the other says "My Ideas." If you like your ideas more, you can certainly choose to go that route, but you're going to be heading away from Reality.

Trust me, I know--I've been stubbornly heading in the opposite direction from Reality for years :lol: I've basically had to run into walls, fall a thousand feet and go "splat," get hit with bricks, blown up... all the usual Wile E. Coyote stuff, to even start to be open to the fact that maybe my brilliant and clever ideas, about how things should be and actually are, aren't getting me very far... :shock:

[Jundo]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

Given that, so far, searches on Western Theravada teachers and Western Zen teachers have revealed to that the Zen side has some serious problems then I hypothesise something is lacking in practice. I may be wrong and have just not found the Theravada issues in which case I would withdraw this theory.
A cursory view of Zen in the West reveals far too many teacher level people who indulge in poor behaviour (to put it mildly) and while the "pick yourself up and carry on" view has merit, if we don't live better lives and act more comapssionately and be less harming than the ordinary person then Zen is just an indulgence.

Hi Griz,

Well, I cannot accept many of your premises or conclusions.

It is way past my bedtime, and Stephanie said it with more elegance than I can right now, but let me say this. I want to bring right up to the start here what I say at the end of this posting ...

One would be perhaps foolish to argue that a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. One would be perhaps foolish to assert that someone who, perhaps, had an affair while married is to be lumped into the same category as rapist or a child molester. One would be perhaps foolish to assert that a teacher with a family propensity to alcoholism is thus to be completely written off as a teacher (and would be perhaps foolish to discount the possibility the the weakness will strengthen his or her ability to speak to fellow human beings dealing with addiction issues).

In fact, the vast number of Zen and other Buddhist teachers I know are kind, gentle, non-violent, honest folks who are genuinely decent people who live what they preach (same for the vast majority of Catholic and Christian clergy, despite the bad ones).

One would be wrong both to throw out "all the babies with the bath water", and one would be foolish to demand saints of 100% of the clergy 100% of the time. (The only reason, I believe, that old religious books ... Buddhist, Christian and any other ... contain images of "Perfect Saints" is that they have been scrubbed of any hint of human failing after the "religious hero" died in a process of hagiography. That is not to say that there were not truly saintly, truly moral people in all religions throughout history ... but that few people are not without some imperfections.). I would rather study Buddhism's teachings on managing human imperfections with someone who has managed his or her imperfections well, then with someone who had never any at all or denies them artificially.

I wrote an essay addressing many of these issues awhile back, and ask you to have a look if you have time.

http://www.treeleaf.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=29575#p29575

The central theme is as follows:

All human beings, from 'Great Bodhisattvas' right on down to the rest of us, are human beings ... and that means rough edges, cracks and ugly spots, flesh, fallings down and flaws. (At least, of course, until we eventually become Perfect Golden Buddhas ... assuming that even those ideals reside anywhere beyond our flawed human imaginations) Human beings are human. That includes Zen and other Buddhist teachers, no less.

What matters most is what we do with those flaws in life, how we live as human beings ... with a bit of grace, ease, non-attachment, wholeness, peace, at-oneness and sincerity, great Compassion and Loving Kindness toward our fellow flawed beings. Practice does not remove all our human rough spots, but it allows a wild and imperfect stone to be imperfect (perfectly imperfect) yet simultaneously material to be polished into a jewel ... so many rough edges made soft and round. The Precepts are a guide for constant moment-to-moment practice in "not falling down". One cannot polish a tile into a Buddha ... but the constant polishing is Buddha.

Yet, despite the roundness and polishing, some rough edges may remain. All human beings have the tendency to fall down from time to time, some more than others.

It is a fallacy to think that Zen or other Buddhist priests are ever completely free, during this life, from being human. In any large group of people ... whether Zen priests, other Buddhist, Christian or Jewish priests and clergy of all kinds ... there will always be examples of greed, anger and ignorance. Furthermore, in the lifetime of any one individual ... even among the best of us ... there are sure to be moments of greed, anger and ignorance.

But our Practice does, more often than not, free us from the worst. It makes us better people. (In fact, most clergy I have met ... not just Buddhist clergy, but of all religions ... are good, caring, ethical people, the bad apples aside). Most of the Zen teachers I have met ... especially those with a few years and some maturity under their belt ... tend to be lovely, gentle, well rounded, self-actuated, moderate, compassionate, healthy people - balanced, living life with fullness and well.

What is more, a teacher can be 95% good, wise and decent, a caring and profound minister ... yet have a proclivity in the remaining 5% that is an inner devil. The fact is that being a Buddhist teacher has not allowed many to avoid getting led around by the "little Buddha" in their pants sometimes, getting involved in sex scandals. There have been several modern Buddhist masters with addiction issues. I do not know of any case of child abuse involving a modern Zen or other Buddhist teacher ... but I would not be shocked if there ever was such a scandal. I know of Zen teachers who have punched other Zen teachers, or momentarily "lost it" and taken to an instant of violence.

The question is whether the 95% that embodies Wisdom and Compassion is completely canceled and nullified by the 5% which is an ass and a human fool. Certainly, if the 5% is serious enough (child abuse as seen among some rabbis and priests is certainly an example, as are other acts of violence or truly malicious conduct), I say it does, certainly. (In fact, while recognizing that even the victimizer is too a victim of beginingless greed, anger, ignorance ... toss the worst of them in a cell, and throw away the key!). On the other hand, if what is seen is a relatively minor human weakness or failing ... I say it does not. What is more, it may make the teacher an even greater teacher because of his/her humanity.

In other words, I would rather learn about some things from a fellow weak and fragile human being wrestling, right now, with Mara than from a stone Buddha statue, a Dharma machine, a Flawless Saint (although how many of those long dead saints and ancestors in religious hagiographic story books, their lives cleaned up and dipped in gold and set on a pedestal after their deaths, were truly so flawless during their flesh and blood lives?).

I reject the premise that this is an issue limited to any one branch or branches of this or any religion. A 5 minute search through Google will reveal similar abuses and "fallings down" by members of the Theravada Sangha, human beings too ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/429961.stm

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/35809-thai- ... rape-claim

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... n-war.html

In fact, if one reads the Vinaya Rules established by the Buddha himself back with his original students 2500 years, one sees each rule established in reaction to a real situation (or one that was felt to be likely). For just about every form of human falling down one can imagine ... there was a case of it happening and a rule against it had to be made.

I could find like stories about Jewish Rabbis, Mullahs, Christian Ministers and Catholic Priests.

One would be perhaps foolish to argue that a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. One would be perhaps foolish to assert that someone who, perhaps, had an affair while married is to be lumped into the same category as rapist or a child molester. One would be perhaps foolish to assert that a teacher with a family propensity to alcoholism is thus to be completely written off as a teacher (and would be perhaps foolish to discount the possibility the the weakness will strengthen his or her ability to speak to fellow human beings dealing with addiction issues).

In fact, the vast number of Zen and other Buddhist teachers I know are kind, gentle, non-violent, honest folks who are genuinely decent people who live what they preach (same for the vast majority of Catholic and Christian clergy, despite the bad ones).

One would be wrong both to throw out "all the babies with the bath water", and one would be foolish to demand saints of 100% of the clergy 100% of the time. (The only reason, I believe, that old religious books ... Buddhist, Christian and any other ... contain images of "Perfect Saints" is that they have been scrubbed of any hint of human failing after the "religious hero" died in a process of hagiography. That is not to say that there were not truly saintly, truly moral people in all religions throughout history ... but that few people are not without some imperfections.). I would rather study Buddhism's teachings on managing human imperfections with someone who has managed his or her imperfections well, then with someone who had never any at all or denies them artificially.

Finally, you state ...

If concentration practice and jhanas produce states of happiness/equanimity that, even though conditioned, allow us to behave peacefully and in a moral way, while we continue to work on non-attainment then they are useful and a vital part of Buddhism in my opinion.

Yes, but I see little evidence that they lead to particularly better human behavior. I could list the dozens of "scandals" among the Tibetans too on that issue.

Listen, the Precepts are arrows which point toward behavior generally avoiding harm to self and others (not two, by the way). They are standards we wrestle with all though life, and which will sometimes be broken by human beings.

Gassho, Jundo

[Grizzly]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

Thank you Jundo for those examples...I retract the hypothesis on just affecting Zen. That apart the rest I am happy with.

With regards to the percentages, I agree that a 95% is very good. As long as the other 5% is relatively minor stuff then that's good overall. I am certainly not having ago at anyone who is practicing to improve themselves. The "relative world" stuff is a part of the whole..and, using these terms- which I am far from accepting as accurate- the absolute and relative are not two. A lot of Buddhism from the Pali Canon is psychotherapeutic, and "relative world" stuff, and with the tools we are developing today many of these things can be helped for most people. This was the crux behind my argument for the use of the concentration practice- if indeed it does "what it says on the tin" then its a useful tool albeit not liberation itself. (Stephanie- the Pali texts show the Buddha advising on rulership, society, finances and lay life generally- it couldn't be otherwise as Buddhism is the whole of life)

Apart from complete removal of harmful traits there is the transformation of those parts that stay. I think Ram Dass summed it particularly well when he said that he still has the same neuroses he always had but now they are like friends he invites round to tea. Both these approaches I have seen to produce nothing short of life changing results in clients

This means that for a complete Buddhist practice we deal with both sides- we use psychotherapeutic (and other) methods to eliminate what we can, we accept and transform those things that stay into harmless old friends and we accept the liberation of just sitting. The person that does this will not harm themselves or others.

It might be a lofty aspiration but we can hold an aspiration, and work towards it, with acceptance of the now as it is. That I would tentatively posit as wise.

Having just listened to the very interesting Stephen Batchelor talk, where he suggests some parts of Buddhism have been widely misunderstood and/or the texts have been tampered with, I think we all have to maintain "don't know" even as we discuss these things. I am completely uncertain of anything- and have mentioned this before- but I get the impression of certainty from some other posters.

I don't care if ultimately I am right or wrong. If I pursue this track for the rest of my life and fail then OK, if I change my mind from practice later then OK, but maybe the turtle appearing at the right moment in the vast ocean to put its head through the ring may occur and my propositions may turn out to be true. So I'll stick with the "relative" world values of working towards being a Boddhisatva- non-harming and making the world a better place- I have a long way to go but also I'll sit and be with "just this" as best I can.

Rich

[disastermouse]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

I'm certainly not saying I'm right about all of this, but its not a false belief. Its a choice to say that unless we have a practice that makes better people we are wasting our time.

'Better' is based on belief - not the choice. It's the particular way of looking at things which pretty much forces the decision and the action in a certain direction, don't you think? Your decision would be totally common-sense and hard to argue with if the basic a priori assumption (that spiritual practice exists to make us 'better' - whatever that means) - people.

Talking of conditioned situations is a belief- because you are implying the unconditioned as an absolute- which is common in some forms of Buddhism although there is no evidence for anything unconditioned.

Have you not tasted the unconditioned? In fact, you are soaking in it! The conditioned are expressions of the unconditioned, the unconditioned is the essence of the conditioned. Re-read the Heart Sutra in light of earnest practice if you have not already.

The suttas in fact speak of being unconditioned by greed, hatred and delusion- again a practical aim- not a metaphysical postulate.

A subjective and inter-subjective experience is not a metaphysical postulate. Quite the contrary. When the Diamond or Heart Sutras try to get to the 'heart' of this (

[Rich]

Re: Concentration practice incompatible with shikantaza?

I think we all have to maintain "don't know" even as we discuss these things. I am completely uncertain of anything- and have mentioned this before- but I get the impression of certainty from some other posters.

I don't care if ultimately I am right or wrong. If I pursue this track for the rest of my life and fail then OK, if I change my mind from practice later then OK, but maybe the turtle appearing at the right moment in the vast ocean to put its head through the ring may occur and my propositions may turn out to be true. So I'll stick with the "relative" world values of working towards being a Boddhisatva- non-harming and making the world a better place- I have a long way to go but also I'll sit and be with "just this" as best I can.

Rich

If you maintain this "don't know" which cuts off all your opinions then you will be a 'Boddhisatva- non-harming and making the world a better place- '
In your everyday life you are the teacher. Even though I didn't agree with all your opinions, you raised some good points and held my attention. I'm sorry if sometimes I give the impression of certainty
/Rich