[Non-Split Topic] Shikantaza Zazen is Not "Doing Meditation"

[FNJ]

I also find language of Zen to be needlessly obtuse. But I think I understand the reason for it.

I mean for some reason Thai Forest monks seem to be able to talk very clearly about meditation and states of meditation, different levels, factors, jhanas.

But in Zen it would appear that the expediency of the method is to just stop getting caught up in the thinking about meditating instead of actually doing it.

But I do think some amount of "cross training" is good because ultimately it's all the BuddhaDharma. And so if one feels a little lost listening to Dogen prattle on about mountains walking into teacups or whatever, one can read about what the experience of the first Jhana feels like and this can help a person gauge their progress (because such a thing does provisionally exist in Theravada Buddhism).

In fact I find the Theravada tradition to be some of the most straightforward(albeit somewhat dry and repetitive) instruction on the practice of meditation.

So the following recommendation is not Zen. I am not necessarily sold on the methods of Zen at this point though I am here to learn more (thanks for letting me). To the extent that Zen is Buddhism it might be interesting to compare it to what's written in Culadasa's "The mind illuminated". Which is a very modern practical guide to the subjective experience of meditation from beginner to advanced (and back again). But beware it will give you a lot to think about

Satlah,
Gassho,
Niall

[Jundo]

But I do think some amount of "cross training" is good because ultimately it's all the BuddhaDharma. And so if one feels a little lost listening to Dogen prattle on about mountains walking into teacups or whatever, one can read about what the experience of the first Jhana feels like and this can help a person gauge their progress (because such a thing does provisionally exist in Theravada Buddhism).

In fact I find the Theravada tradition to be some of the most straightforward(albeit somewhat dry and repetitive) instruction on the practice of meditation.

So the following recommendation is not Zen. I am not necessarily sold on the methods of Zen at this point though I am here to learn more (thanks for letting me). To the extent that Zen is Buddhism it might be interesting to compare it to what's written in Culadasa's "The mind illuminated". Which is a very modern practical guide to the subjective experience of meditation from beginner to advanced (and back again). But beware it will give you a lot to think about

Zen is Buddhism, but 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. I will reprint below about that:

Gassho, J
stlah

~~~~

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.

[FNJ]

Zen is Buddhism, but 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. I will reprint below about that:

Gassho, J
stlah

~~~~

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.



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"

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.

Again we were just talking about books and now I am going off topic.

When we decided to meditate as opposed to doing whatever else we might do, we are choosing to do something to the exclusion of other things (at least in the beginning!?) This is by definition a concentration practice and would be pragmatically the same in ANY tradition.

But at some point you forget to do whatever you were "supposed" to be doing. When you realize this you come back to what you think you are supposed to be doing. Wash, rinse, repeat. In the beginning is "supposed" to be doing refers to grosser states (like not moving too much and not scratching your face) but eventually moving to subtler things like thoughts.

I guess my question now is, Is Shikantaza the eventual letting go of the "supposed to be doing" Where we stop cracking the whip as often?

Another big question for me how is it we can be having thoughts and not be aware that we are having them? Or is that just me?


Sat LAH
Gassho,
Niall

[Jundo]

Again we were just talking about books and now I am going off topic.

When we decided to meditate as opposed to doing whatever else we might do, we are choosing to do something to the exclusion of other things (at least in the beginning!?) This is by definition a concentration practice and would be pragmatically the same in ANY tradition.

But at some point you forget to do whatever you were "supposed" to be doing. When you realize this you come back to what you think you are supposed to be doing. Wash, rinse, repeat. In the beginning is "supposed" to be doing refers to grosser states (like not moving too much and not scratching your face) but eventually moving to subtler things like thoughts.

I guess my question now is, Is Shikantaza the eventual letting go of the "supposed to be doing" Where we stop cracking the whip as often?

Another big question for me how is it we can be having thoughts and not be aware that we are having them? Or is that just me?


Sat LAH
Gassho,
Niall

Hi Niall,

I might suggest that you even more radically drop the "instrumentalist" view of Shikantaza (seeing at a tool do accomplish something), and the idea that it is "doing" or "not doing" something. It is not a "concentration practice," but rather, just untangling from thoughts, neither seeking to concentrate or not concentrate.

Sit beyond measures of "doing" or "not doing," untangled, in radical equanimity, with a profound trust and faith in the bones that "nothing needs be done, nothing is left undone" while sitting. If one sits in such way, there is no whip left uncracked, no whip to crack.

One can be having thoughts, but just be in equanimity about the thoughts, untangled from them, letting them be, not "getting in the passing cars for a ride." Like that.

Gassho, J
stlah

PS - I moved this to its own thread.

[FNJ]

Hi Niall,

I might suggest that you even more radically drop the "instrumentalist" view of Shikantaza (seeing at a tool do accomplish something), and the idea that it is "doing" or "not doing" something. It is not a "concentration practice," but rather, just untangling from thoughts, neither seeking to concentrate or not concentrate.

Sit beyond measures of "doing" or "not doing," untangled, in radical equanimity, with a profound trust and faith in the bones that "nothing needs be done, nothing is left undone" while sitting. If one sits in such way, there is no whip left uncracked, no whip to crack.

One can be having thoughts, but just be in equanimity about the thoughts, untangled from them, letting them be, not "getting in the passing cars for a ride." Like that.

Gassho, J
stlah

PS - I moved this to its own thread.

Nice!

But again even your suggestion sets up the exclusion of whatever you thought I was doing before and seems to go against the very spirit of what you're trying to communicate about Shikantaza.

Your suggestion to "Sit beyond measures of "doing" or "not doing," suggests I should stop whatever I was doing before (which was wrong) and TRY TO DO what you recommend instead, (which is right.)

When you try to do something to the exclusion of other things you are necessarily concentrating on that thing. It is pragmatically (at least at the outset, until you forget what you're supposed to be doing) a concentration practice. Which is why in many traditions you start with counting your breaths (as is the case with Shamatha).

It's obvious now, this is one of those philosophical things that can go around in circles. A problem born of language.

Now I will go concentrate myself on sitting instead of typing.

Sat LAH
Gassho
Niall

[Houzan]

Hi Niall,

Your suggestion to "Sit beyond measures of "doing" or "not doing," suggests I should stop whatever I was doing before (which was wrong) and TRY TO DO what you recommend instead, (which is right.)

The suggestion I think is to try shikantaza, not necessarily to stop any samatha practice Both can be done. But yes, when you sit shikantaza you only sit shikantaza. And it’s while sitting shikantaza that you sit beyond measures of doing and not doing.

When you try to do something to the exclusion of other things you are necessarily concentrating on that thing.

In shikantaza, the way I see it, you try to do something WITHOUT excluding anything, and the “trying” is very subtle, an effortless effort. Calling shikantaza a concentration practice, I feel misses the mark.

Gassho, Hōzan
satlah

[Jundo]

Nice!

But again even your suggestion sets up the exclusion of whatever you thought I was doing before and seems to go against the very spirit of what you're trying to communicate about Shikantaza.

Your suggestion to "Sit beyond measures of "doing" or "not doing," suggests I should stop whatever I was doing before (which was wrong) and TRY TO DO what you recommend instead, (which is right.)

Hmmm. No, not really. If what you "were doing before" were, for example, eating cheese sandwiches or robbing banks, which you claimed to be equivalent to Shikantaza, I would tell you that they are not, and that you are doing Shikantaza wrong. Instead, Shikantaza is sitting with sitting the fruition of sitting, Good and Complete by just sitting, beyond all small human judgements of "good and bad, right or wrong." One sits in radical equanimity, with the conviction in one's bones that this place, this instant, of sitting is Right!

Shikantaza is not a concentration practice, and we do not count the breaths. Neither do we wallow in thoughts.

If you come here to practice, please make sure that you are sitting this Shikantaza each day for a time, even if you also engage in other practices at other times or eat cheese sandwiches. Hopefully, you will avoid robbing banks in any case.

Gassho, J
stlah

[Jundo]

The suggestion I think is to try shikantaza, not necessarily to stop any samatha practice Both can be done. But yes, when you sit shikantaza you only sit shikantaza. And it’s while sitting shikantaza that you sit beyond measures of doing and not doing.

Yes, perhaps both could be done so long as, when sitting Shikantaza, on could truly put down all the effort and goals of samatha practices, and practice purely Shikantaza while sitting Shikantaza.

In shikantaza, the way I see it, you try to do something WITHOUT excluding anything, and the “trying” is very subtle, an effortless effort. Calling shikantaza a concentration practice, I feel misses the mark.

I would drop away even that "trying," subtle or not.

Gassho, J
stlah

[FNJ]

If you come here to practice, please make sure that you are sitting this Shikantaza each day for a time, even if you also engage in other practices at other times or eat cheese sandwiches. Hopefully, you will avoid robbing banks in any case.

I'm trying boss! And the first step is I need to know what shikantaza IS in order to do it.

So far the closest I can come is what I'm doing when I forget to do Shamatha. Perhaps more inclusively it includes the Shamatha as well.

I will probably do that everyday until I understand what you're talking about and how it is different than what I am currently doing.

And about robbing banks. I do have some burning questions about the precepts! I get the feeling we might run in circles there a bit as well.

Sat LAH
Gassho
Niall

[Shui_Di]

I also find language of Zen to be needlessly obtuse. But I think I understand the reason for it.

I mean for some reason Thai Forest monks seem to be able to talk very clearly about meditation and states of meditation, different levels, factors, jhanas.

But in Zen it would appear that the expediency of the method is to just stop getting caught up in the thinking about meditating instead of actually doing it.

But I do think some amount of "cross training" is good because ultimately it's all the BuddhaDharma. And so if one feels a little lost listening to Dogen prattle on about mountains walking into teacups or whatever, one can read about what the experience of the first Jhana feels like and this can help a person gauge their progress (because such a thing does provisionally exist in Theravada Buddhism).

In fact I find the Theravada tradition to be some of the most straightforward(albeit somewhat dry and repetitive) instruction on the practice of meditation.

So the following recommendation is not Zen. I am not necessarily sold on the methods of Zen at this point though I am here to learn more (thanks for letting me). To the extent that Zen is Buddhism it might be interesting to compare it to what's written in Culadasa's "The mind illuminated". Which is a very modern practical guide to the subjective experience of meditation from beginner to advanced (and back again). But beware it will give you a lot to think about

Satlah,
Gassho,
Niall

Hi Niall,

I believe any traditions of Buddhism are as you said, Buddha Dharma. But how the ancestors teachers may taught with different flavors and approach. The Sutra said there are 84,000 Dharma-doors.
Even in the Buddha time, Shariputra's disciple and Upali's disciple had conflict debating about the teaching. (In that time Shakyamuni Buddha even still alive).

Even in Theravada itself. There are many traditions. In Thai, there is forest tradition who focus on the Jhana practice. There is also Dhammayut. Here in my country Indonesia, the Theravada order here is from Dhammayut who taught me, their approach is NOT to attain Jhana, their argument is because Jhana itself not leading oneself to wisdom. It is just a mental stillness, which bring you to the realm of Brahma. The focus on Theravada in my country is to practice awareness. Similar with the approach of the Burmese Theravada Mahasi Sayadaw. But in Burmese itself, there another approach which focusing on the practice of Jhana. This is the order of Pa Auk Sayadaw. And some Burmese focusing in the study of Abhidhamma and it's commentary.

So eventhough the truth of Buddha Dharma is only one. But, the approach to it can be so many. And all are good. Different kind of people need different kind of approach.

It is like doctor. Different doctor can give you different medicine prescription. They have their own approach. And the goal is the same, to make you healthy.

BUT, if you want to mix the medicine between different prescription from different doctor, make sure that you already understand the medicine from both prescription. Otherwise you may turn the medicine to be poison.

That's why, try one approach for several times (1 or 2 years), then if one approach doesn't really work, you can try another approach for 1 or 2 years. Find which approach is fit for you. This is to make sure you really understand each approach before you want to mix it up, otherwise you will just mess it up. But yeah, it will take a lot of time.

For because you already on Treeleaf, I suggest you to focus on Shikantaza, sit regularly every day. Study the philosophy, at least for a year. After that, you can choose to cross to another tradition if you want. Make sure you understand the core of any traditions. Well, it is just my opinion anyway.

Gassho, Mujo
Stlah

[Houzan]

I would drop away even that "trying," subtle or not

Thank you. Yes, it suggests grasping. We sit in radical equanimity, thus not excluding anything. When we get caught up in thoughts, we simply return, again and again as needed (this «simply returning» is what I was trying to get at with «effortless effort» or «subtle trying»).

Gassho, Hōzan
Satlah

[FNJ]

Hi Niall,

I believe any traditions of Buddhism are as you said, Buddha Dharma. But how the ancestors teachers may taught with different flavors and approach. The Sutra said there are 84,000 Dharma-doors.
Even in the Buddha time, Shariputra's disciple and Upali's disciple had conflict debating about the teaching. (In that time Shakyamuni Buddha even still alive).

Even in Theravada itself. There are many traditions. In Thai, there is forest tradition who focus on the Jhana practice. There is also Dhammayut. Here in my country Indonesia, the Theravada order here is from Dhammayut who taught me, their approach is NOT to attain Jhana, their argument is because Jhana itself not leading oneself to wisdom. It is just a mental stillness, which bring you to the realm of Brahma. The focus on Theravada in my country is to practice awareness. Similar with the approach of the Burmese Theravada Mahasi Sayadaw. But in Burmese itself, there another approach which focusing on the practice of Jhana. This is the order of Pa Auk Sayadaw. And some Burmese focusing in the study of Abhidhamma and it's commentary.

So eventhough the truth of Buddha Dharma is only one. But, the approach to it can be so many. And all are good. Different kind of people need different kind of approach.

It is like doctor. Different doctor can give you different medicine prescription. They have their own approach. And the goal is the same, to make you healthy.

BUT, if you want to mix the medicine between different prescription from different doctor, make sure that you already understand the medicine from both prescription. Otherwise you may turn the medicine to be poison.

That's why, try one approach for several times (1 or 2 years), then if one approach doesn't really work, you can try another approach for 1 or 2 years. Find which approach is fit for you. This is to make sure you really understand each approach before you want to mix it up, otherwise you will just mess it up. But yeah, it will take a lot of time.

For because you already on Treeleaf, I suggest you to focus on Shikantaza, sit regularly every day. Study the philosophy, at least for a year. After that, you can choose to cross to another tradition if you want. Make sure you understand the core of any traditions. Well, it is just my opinion anyway.

Gassho, Mujo
Stlah

Hi Mujo,

I'm not suggesting that Thai Forest monks have the best path or anything. In fact, I've bumped into monks who don't even meditate. They just study the sutras adhere to the vinaya and endeavor to have a solid intellectual understanding of Buddhism.

As I related to Jundo Roshi as a new person here im trying to understand what shikantaza is so that I can do it everyday.

However, all of the explanations that I have read or have been told to me here don't give me much to go on.

Basically it would seem the posture doesn't change much between what I have been practicing and what is being suggested. So I don't really know what to change.

So far I've got, pragmatically speaking:

1. Stop eating your cheese sandwich
2. Sit down for a period of time
3. Stand up and resume eating cheese sandwich

So far this is no different than what I'm doing except in Shamatha and many other types of Buddhism I pay particular attention to my breath. And then inevitably I forget to do that and when I remember, I resume paying attention to my breath.

I have heard it said that shikantaza has no object of meditation. So it would seem once I stopped paying any particular attention to the breath, I would then therefore be doing shikantaza. Right!?

Sat LAH
Gassho
Niall

[Shui_Di]

......

So far I've got, pragmatically speaking:

1. Stop eating your cheese sandwich
2. Sit down for a period of time
3. Stand up and resume eating cheese sandwich

So far this is no different than what I'm doing except in Shamatha and many other types of Buddhism I pay particular attention to my breath. And then inevitably I forget to do that and when I remember, I resume paying attention to my breath.

I have heard it said that shikantaza has no object of meditation. So it would seem once I stopped paying any particular attention to the breath, I would then therefore be doing shikantaza. Right!?

Sat LAH
Gassho
Niall

Hi Niall,

Eventhough it is said in Shikantaza we drop all goals, but yes of course Shikantaza has purpose. That's why Dogen Zenji give more emphases on Zazen and Shikantaza, compare to the Rinzai school of Zen.

About what you said:

1. Stop eating your cheese sandwich
Because in daily life we always busy busy busy eating, even we don't know what we are eating and why we are eating. We just eat eat and get hungry and eat again. So this first step is stop eating your cheese sandwich.

2. Sit down for a period of time
In Shikantaza we stop chasing for sandwich. We sit down for a period of time. But of course the mind of "wanting eating sandwich" still remain. Because it already be our habit to eat cheese sandwich. In Shikantaza, we are not concentrating our mind to one pointed object, so we can forget about the sandwich. In Shikantaza we sit with that sandwich, but of course we are not chewing the sandwich because we are sitting. But this time, if you are patient enough to keep sitting, you will NATURALLY aware the impermanent nature of the "wanting eating cheese sandwich". This is also part of the 5 skanda/Khansa/agregats. The mind which is come and go. You will SEE it clearly NATURALLY. Trust me. But you need to be patient in the practice.

Before, I typed about Natural Awareness. What is it? I don't know the exact name of it, but we can call it Buddha Nature, True Face or whatever. But to see our own Buddha nature, you can't use your eye. Why? because IT is your eye itself. You can't see your eye ball using your eye, can you?. So do, we can't use our intellectual mind to understand it nor using any method AT ALL. Because the method to see your own eyes is JUST to SEE. Any method like pointing awareness to one object is just a step by step approach, like using a raft to go to the other shore which actually you should let go the raft to be able to stand on the other shore, which actually like Jundo Roshi said in Jhana Sutta, the step of the 2nd Jhana, actually we drop the object, and only the Piti/meditative joy, and at last in the 4th Jhana we drop all. So the approach in Jhana Sutta is the approach of gradual way.

While our Shikantaza is the direct Way, the way when Shakyamuni Buddha turned the flower in his hand and Maha Kasyapa smiled. Yes, the form of sitting upright, with the zazen mudra is also raft, but in Zen we make a very minimalist raft .

The direct approach of Shikantaza doesn't mean when you just sit once, and directly you become a Buddha. It doesn't work that way. But in Shikantaza we just let the mind naturally understand its own nature. Remember, ITS OWN NATURE. Means it should happen naturally. So, to let it mature naturally, that's why when we are sitting we even drop the mind of becoming Buddha. We drop the goal. Because we don't have to make it happen. Because it is happening. The mind mature step by step naturely.
You will see how the mind of eating sandwich come. The mind of eating sandwich suddenly become pizza, then in some moment you just don't care if it is sandwich or pizza, then your mind back to your butt sitting, Then eating cheese sandwich again. It is okay. It is part of the process till you understand it is all just the passing clouds. But not the SKY. Till you understand that you have nothing to do with sandwich or pizza and you JUST SIT.

3. Stand up and resume eating cheese sandwich

After patiently practice, you develop a new habit in Zazen. Well yes, you back to eat your cheese sandwich again. But this time you really understand what you are eating, why you are eating it, and why you shouldn't eating it too much.

This is just my opinion.



Gassho, Mujo
Stlah

[Jundo]

Oh Shui Di! That was lovely. And made me want a cheese sandwich for lunch! Very nice explanation.

Hi Niall,

Sorry to toss more written explanations at you. See if these help ...
.

https://forum.treeleaf.org/forum/teacher-talks-tips/teacher-talks-tips-aa/vital-points-of-shikantaza-zazen/9866-what-s-often-missing-in-shikantaza-explanations

.
and
.

https://forum.treeleaf.org/forum/teacher-talks-tips/teacher-talks-tips-aa/vital-points-of-shikantaza-zazen/14967-shikantaza-and-the-morning-star

.
and (an oldie I should rewrite sometime) ...
.

https://forum.treeleaf.org/forum/teacher-talks-tips/teacher-talks-tips-aa/vital-points-of-shikantaza-zazen/2716-how-to-attain-enlightenment

Sorry, but I am something like a broken record. If those don't get through, then the best thing to do is to sit with trust that sitting is complete, letting thoughts go. Then, hopefully, they will start to make sense.
.

Gassho, J
stlah

[FNJ]

Wow... To the extent that I understand what you are saying I think we agree on a lot. I'm just trying to figure out the difference between shikantaza and how I was taught to meditate for the past 10 years ish.

It actually reminds me of conversations I've read between Dzogchen masters comparing their practice to Zazen (and there are many interesting points of convergence when you listen to them). But I am not Dzogchen master.

I'm guess I'm interested in hearing people talk about some of the physical and mental things that happened to them during meditation. I am usually shy to do this because I want to seem advanced, like I have experienced deep things and not expose where I'm really at. Like if I tell them exactly how I experience it, maybe they will tell me that that is not what I am supposed to be. Or that they are experiencing something totally different. Most of the time if I just keep quiet I can fool myself. But I'm trying to turn over a new leaf.

So again back to the cheese sandwich.

1. Stop eating your cheese sandwich
Because in daily life we always busy busy busy eating, even we don't know what we are eating and why we are eating. We just eat eat and get hungry and eat again. So this first step is stop eating your cheese sandwich.

This is not about the cheese sandwich. This is about whatever it was that I was doing before I sat down. And yes, I generally have to stop whatever it was that I was doing in order to sit down. I think one of the most difficult things is getting off my phone which I use as a meditation timer. But there have been a few times I've sat down. Looked at my phone and got caught up in something and so in that situation I'm sitting in the position I would normally for meditation but I am not meditating as I am on my phone. My body in mind are separate. Once I put the phone down I am physically ready to meditate.

2. Sit down for a period of time
In Shikantaza we stop chasing for sandwich.

I'm sitting at this point so the sandwich or the cell phone or whatever is no longer an issue. These are physical things that I have stopped doing. I have excluded many different types of physical activity in order to concentrate on particular activity. The activity of sitting down. But of course I'm not just sitting. I'm also breathing and my heart is pumping and all sorts of bodily sensations are happening. So now my attention is focused on my body Joy. My body and mind are no longer separate. And so that is what I'm generally paying attention to until the timer goes off. As I do this, there is generally a fairly reliable feeling of calm that happens as my nervous system settles down. I am not trying to do this. This kind of just happens and it's very scientifically explainable.

Any method like pointing awareness to one object is just a step by step approach, like using a raft to go to the other shore which actually you should let go the raft to be able to stand on the other shore, which actually like Jundo Roshi said in Jhana Sutta, the step of the 2nd Jhana, actually we drop the object, and only the Piti/meditative joy, and at last in the 4th Jhana we drop all. So the approach in Jhana Sutta is the approach of gradual way.

That is very interesting. I don't know if there's anything wrong with the gradual way. It allows for a goal to exist but that there is no rush to get there and getting there is really where it all happens. It seems to me that people who are attracted to shortcuts are in a rush to get somewhere, which is kind of against the spirit of the thing. Everywhere everybody is rushing rushing rushing. Where are they going? To the grave basically. So another good aspect of meditation is learning how to appreciate the present moment so we don't always feel like rushing straight to our death.

So there is a difference in what happens when I have been sitting for a long time. There is a lot of weird visual stuff that happens to me now that I keep my eyes open (which is another major difference between shamatha as I was taught to keep my eyes closed). It's kind of like the lights dim and it is accompanied by a very calm feeling and I start doing my "sleepy breathing" as my wife likes to call it.

And there is this feeling of being "absorbed" even when I'm not trying to do it. It seems to happen just because I have decided to sit down and not move much and to pay attention to my experience to the exclusion of anything else like petting my dog. The longer I am there generally the more intense this feeling of absorption seems to get. That is until something catches my attention or I have some body pain and then I move. This is nothing that I am trying to do it just happens.

Is this how shikantaza feels? If not, could someone please describe a period of shikantaza to me. What's happening physically? What's happening mentally?

3. Stand up and resume eating cheese sandwich

Usually I tend to eat my cheese sandwich a little slower after meditation. And taste it a little more. And to enjoy this life where I get to eat cheese sandwiches pretty much whenever I want. Mmmmm velveta!

Sat LAH
Gassho
Niall