TED Lecture

[Jundo]

Yes, but we are not discussing flower arranging or karate, we are specifically discussing different ways of sitting, and the validness of such. I asked specifically, "are their experiences any less valid than ours and who decides that?"

If you are talking about Vipassana meditation, I think it is a wondrous Buddhist Path suited to those to whom it is suited.

If you are talking about non-Buddhist "mindfulness" meditation, I have already expressed my reservations about (and if) certain vital Teachings which are possibly left out of the mix.

If the topic is meditation just to relax, yes, I think the experience is less valid to treat human ills.

Am I missing something that you are asking?

Also, can you please answer my question about Buddha:

"But what of Buddha (the original one)? I know he was taught but did what he learn bring him to his awakening, or was it just sitting? By all accounts, he didn't suffer himself before leaving home but he was capable of feeling compassion for those who did. Did he have to learn compassion, or is it just part of our human-ness? And if you don't have to learn compassion, do you really have to learn dharma to be able to realize (awaken to) the truth?"

The Buddha taught many different paths suited to different people. To each his own. The only Buddha I personally know is the one encountered when sitting on my own Zafu! His realization and his sitting brought him to awakening ... and that was his realization of Non-Self, Impermanence, Emptiness (in the Mahayana interpretation), Dukkha and the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path.

I believe that most Buddhist would say that the Buddha did "suffer" (experience Dukkha) before he left home when he saw sickness, old age and death and the other dissatisfactions of life in the palace. Thus he left, seeking awakening.

I think that "compassion" is part of our humanness ... and so is a tendency toward "greed, anger and ignorance" ... and we have to learn to nurture one and not the other. I think many people who do not practice Buddhism (and practice some other religion or philosophy or none at all) are compassionate. However、to awaken to the Truth, I believe one has to pierce Non-Self, Impermanence, Emptiness, Dukkha and the Four Noble Truths and the like. Without that, one may be awakening or learning something, even some truth, but not the Buddha's Profound Realization.

I am asking questions in order to learn, will you teach? Or will you dismiss me and my observations with "if wanting to learn flower arranging one should best seek out a teacher of flowers."

Gassho,

Lisa

Vipassana meditation is a wondrous path. Secular "Mindfulness" might be a wondrous path, I don't know. But here we Practice Shikantaza as the Path. If someone would be interested in practicing Vipassana or "Mindfulness", they should seek our Vipassana or Mindfulness teachers, as we do not Practice those here.

Let me know if I missed responding to something you asked.

Gassho, Jundo

[Sydney]

Vipassana meditation is a wondrous path. Secular "Mindfulness" might be a wondrous path, I don't know. But here we Practice Shikantaza as the Path. If someone would be interested in practicing Vipassana or "Mindfulness", they should seek our Vipassana or Mindfulness teachers, as we do not Practice those here.

I have wondered on occasion how my own practice might have evolved differently if I had been exposed to just one of these approaches to putting my butt on a cushion. I learned the basics of vipassana before encountering shikantaza, but right from the start I was introduced to the idea of "just sitting with poise". So by the time I found myself in a zendo I already had some tools at my disposal to use (and then drop), but I can only guess whether this helped or not.

Dusting off the old vipassana CDs lately has brought all this to mind. It's a bit like cross-training in a way, like working on my bicycling with a little supplementary hiking. But doing so for a few weeks gives me whole new respect for the people who seem to successfully do both long-term.

I'm not sure I would have done any of it for very long just for a bit of relaxation, though. It has been decidedly more than that from the start.

[Jinyo]

Hi Lisa - I have just started reading Jon Kabat-Zinn's 'Full Catastrophe Living' again after reading your post. I haven't read it for many years but 'am already struck by the opening pages as to the degree to which the writing is influenced by and exemplifes Zen. I think Zinn's work is more subtle than often realised (perhaps even by the health practitioners teaching it?) - and really this work has to be couched in secular terms as it's being rolled out in health clinics all over the UK.

Like you - when it comes to my own practice - I'm a bit of a purist and want to understand every facet of Soto Zen - but I really take your point. I'm not so sure that something vital gets missed in other forms of practice/non-practice, and I would never judge another person's practice or way of being against my own. My husband is a hundred times nearer to practicing the dharma than me and he's an aetheist and has never picked up a book on Zen.

I also appreciate Jundo's point of view - he teaches what he totally believes and practices here and that gives great clarity to the teaching.

Gassho

Willow

[Daitetsu]

Don't know where to begin, but I'll try:

We "Zennies" take meditation/zazen as something normal/commonplace, because we practice it every day. I take it for granted myself.
However, many people consider meditation something exotic or complicated or esoteric or relaxing. It's easy to forget this when you have practiced for some time.

When I came to meditation it was just a relaxation technique I wanted to try out.
I am still conviced that when you are physically and mentally relaxed it is much harder to feel tense.
I practiced Self-Hypnosis which is still IMHO the most effective way to "just relax" - nothing beats it in this aspect. The only problem was that often I dozed off.

So meditation was something new and someone recommended a book on meditation that only focused on the techniques - nothing Zenny, Taoist, etc., but just a pure scientific approach.
The techniques were about focusing on breath, sound, body sensations, etc.
However, at the end it featured a Loving-Kindness Meditation! I am convinced that many authors of these books leave out the "spiritual stuff" on purpose, because this is exactly what shies most people away. It would have scared me off! If I had read something about satori/kensho I would have thought, what kind of weird sect is this?

However, thanks to these simple techniques I surprisingly had an "experience/realization" (don't know what it was precisely, but it does not matter anyway). Nothing spectacular, just a tiny experience of connectedness/oneness that lasted for about 1 - 2 minutes.
This brought my attention to Zen - not because I wanted to have further experiences (I think a spectacular experience would have scared me off) - and without it Zen would have been a just a nice, exotic philosophy that emerged out of the marriage of Taoism/Buddhism. But then I thought there might be more to this.

My point is: These meditation/mindfulness techniques are a valuable entry point for many people (like Jundo wrote above), and combined with other philosophies like Taoism, etc. they can be positively life changing, even an own path.
For me it's just a matter of taste: I like this Soto way here most, it feels natural for me, I feel at home with it.
The 4 Noble Truths and the 8th fold Path are a kind of "Manual for Life" IMHO, with Zazen holding it together.

Anyway, sorry for my spontaneous rambling...

Gassho,

Timo

[alan.r]

Buddhism is Buddhism and is also not Buddhism. Buddhism is just a word. Zen is just a word. If we think we're practicing Zen, we're not. Buddhism, especially Zen, is filled with words for the conceptless, the living thing. Is non-self a concept, an idea, or a living reality? Is emptiness a concept, an idea, or a living reality? If it is a living reality, I say nothing to worry about - it exists, it is, therefore, some may enter directly into it (zen folk), some may not (non-zen folk), though there is no way to ever be away from it. And some who enter it directly corrupt it, use it and abuse it through use (to play on Taigu's latest vid), and some who have never heard of it embody it completely - how could it be otherwise, as long as we know that non-self, emptiness, four noble truths are living realities? How could it be otherwise?

So mindfulness, zazen, secular meditation - it matters and doesn't matter. I mean to say: I've known people who are not buddhists at all who are so much more "zen," so much more "Buddhist" than me, than buddhists I know, that it's possible to define where zen ends and where it begins. Does it matter if they call it "zen?" No, just a word. No beginning no end.

Still, I understand where Jundo is coming from, too: we practice sitting.

[Jundo]

Is non-self a concept, an idea, or a living reality? Is emptiness a concept, an idea, or a living reality?

I would say all of the above.

There are definite Teachings, perspectives and ideas to be taught in this Buddhist and Zen way. Non-self and Emptiness, Dukkha and all the rest have to be explained to people in ways they can understand (we spend a lot of time and energy doing so around here). They are not just naturally realized by most people (there may be natural talents who are exceptions) without some prior understanding. (For example, you have to explain to most people a bit about what Emptiness is before they can set off to realize such in their lives).

On the other hand, if one just stays in the arm chair, philosophizing about these things, one completely misses the point. They must be put into practice, realized-experienced. They are living realities that must be pierced and lived, not merely ideas. We do not merely read books about baseball ... but get out and play (though with some coaching).

The Zen Masters of old did not typically realize and master this Way out of thin air. It is not true that one would suddenly have a "Moment of Satori" and understand much of this with no prior preparation. Far from it, almost all the monks of old were raised and trained in a Buddhist environment where they were told and explained, time and again, about the basic principles of Buddhism. They knew what they were on the hunt for before they realized it.

Otherwise it is like asking a small child to bake a cake who has no concept of how to work an oven or mix batter. The uninitiated must be shown some basic things before they set to baking.

Gassho, J

[Daitetsu]

The Zen Masters of old did not typically realize and master this Way out of thin air. It is not true that one would suddenly have a "Moment of Satori" and understand much of this with no prior preparation. Far from it, almost all the monks of old were raised and trained in a Buddhist environment where they were told and explained, time and again, about the basic principles of Buddhism. They knew what they were on the hunt for before they realized it.

I have the suspicion that there are lots of people out there who have certain "moments" (I am not talking about a big satori), but don't know what to make out of them.
When I already was into this practice for some time I remembered such a "small moment" (it was while taking a photo) from the past, but I had not been able to understand it back then.
So I agree with you, without a certain (Buddhist) environment, it is hard for someone to understand such things.

I think nobody claimed that anyone realizes this Way out of thin air though. The methods of Zen are based on a fundament that was built over years.
However, I think that many people that come to this practice already began their "spiritual journey" somewhere else. I daresay that the minority just starts right away with Zen. So there is always some kind of preparation somehow.

In this way, I don't see "secular meditation" (couldn't come up with a better term) as a "competition" to Zen or other established practices.
To the contrary: It gets people to meditate who would never have thought about it before.
Those who feel there is more to all this meditating, automatically go traditions like Zen.
And those who stay with "secular meditation" would neve have gone to these traditions anyway.

Gassho,

Timo

[alan.r]

I would say all of the above.

There are definite Teachings, perspectives and ideas to be taught in this Buddhist and Zen way. Non-self and Emptiness, Dukkha and all the rest have to be explained to people in ways they can understand (we spend a lot of time and energy doing so around here). They are not just naturally realized by most people (there may be natural talents who are exceptions) without some prior understanding. (For example, you have to explain to most people a bit about what Emptiness is before they can set off to realize such in their lives).

On the other hand, if one just stays in the arm chair, philosophizing about these things, one completely misses the point. They must be put into practice, realized-experienced. They are living realities that must be pierced and lived, not merely ideas. We do not merely read books about baseball ... but get out and play (though with some coaching).

The Zen Masters of old did not typically realize and master this Way out of thin air. It is not true that one would suddenly have a "Moment of Satori" and understand much of this with no prior preparation. Far from it, almost all the monks of old were raised and trained in a Buddhist environment where they were told and explained, time and again, about the basic principles of Buddhism. They knew what they were on the hunt for before they realized it.

Otherwise it is like asking a small child to bake a cake who has no concept of how to work an oven or mix batter. The uninitiated must be shown some basic things before they set to baking.

Gassho, J

I'm with you fully - absolutely, we need ideas and concepts. Though of course they aren't the most important thing. Only trying to suggest that baking a cake or making flan, I try not to be too worried about whether the cake baking is better than the flan making, and certainly not whether which technique is more beautiful or true or leads to the more free baker, which seem to me to be just concepts. Nothing important and just thoughts. I'm just trying to say I try not to discount anything is all and that there are possibilities beyond my understanding that I try to remain open to.

Gassho

[Jundo]

.

Classical music following strict forms is beautiful music, Jazz is beautiful music. So is country, rock & roll whether heavy metal or punk or Elvis. I love Gospel. Easy listening music to chill in the dentist's waiting room sometimes is just right. I like kids banging on toy drums, even squirrels or cats who play the piano ...

All great!

Here, I like to think that we are not caught in the rigid forms of classical music (and before one of our classical musicians comments, I know that there is much freedom to be found even expressing those forms). We are also not in a garage band after learning to play a guitar just last Tuesday．We are not merely chilling to relax. We leave cats to cats.

I like to think that we are vibrant, free and flowing like Jazz folks perhaps. Even a jazz musician who cannot read music can do it! On the other hand, even a Jazz musician needs endless hours of practice and training, and an understanding (even if just taught by another old Jazz hand off the books and with no sheet music) of syncopation and jazz chords, polyrhythms and such. That is their "Emptiness" and "Non-Self".

Here we play Jazz. It has its own harmonies, even in the disharmonies and bent notes. Jazz musicians without the drugs. Even some classical musicians, and most rock & rollers and cats can't play it well.

Gassho, J

[Jundo]

Here is another JazzZen "Monk" ...

Thelonious, by the way, started to read some music when he was 10, then trained with a classical teacher, before ditching all that to just play. Like many a Zen Monk in this "Way Beyond Words and Letters" ... he burned the books, but only after some awareness of what was in them!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122019275

Gassho, J

[Jundo]

Speaking of silly music, I hope some folks sitting the Zazenkai this time are ready for ... the HEARTlem SHAKE! ...

http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?10690-March-9th-2013-OUR-MONTHLY-4-hour-ZAZENKAI%21-%28Come-Dance-the-HEARTlem-SHAKE-%21%29

[Risho]

Nice! hahahhaha

[Matt]

Interesting thread, which reminds me of the buddhism without beliefs thing of recent years. While I definitely understand and agree with some of the reasons for that, I think it misses something profound about the human experience, which is all part of the dharma. Gassho, Matt

[ZenHarmony]

Thank you, Jundo, the Jazz analogy makes sense to me. I learned to read sheet music at 10 and could play quite a few songs by ear on quite a few instruments (including the piano) by the time I was 13. Could I sit down at a piano and play like Thelonious Monk? Heck, no. Like you said, you need to have that classical background to get to that point, to be able to "burn the books," as you say, and, even if I had continued on my own, I doubt I would have ever gotten to the point where my soul would have burst forth with song like his does! (Doesn't mean I can't appreciate it and feel my heart nearly burst with the genius of it all!)

Gassho,

Lisa

( I have lots more to say, but no matter how I want to say it, it doesn't want to come out right, so I give up.)