Shikantaza too “advanced”?

[Liang]

A Chan teacher described Shikantaza as being too advanced for beginner students of Buddhism and compared it to lucid dreaming or other advanced tantric practices within Tibetan Buddhism. He said for beginner students there was a risk of falling apart in their practice and they needed to have a better foundation in the basics of Buddhism and more experience in meditation beforehand.

I am not sure if I agree with him in general, but I think in my case this was true. I know that Shikantaza is a practice beyond difficult or easy, beginner or advanced. In my case I joined TreeLeaf within weeks of starting my Buddhist practice and found it very transformative and helpful. Over time though I noticed that I became overly content and no longer felt a push or drive to sit in zazen. I became an armchair Buddhist in that I embraced the philosophy of nothing to attain yet no longer practiced meditation. I fooled myself into thinking that because I still practiced mindfulness and still had moments of kensho that I didn’t really need to sit and it was there if I ever needed it. Like the plunger that stays in the basement till needed. It didn’t take long for my whole practice to fall apart and I realized that aside from my new philosophy pretty much everything else in my life was as if I didn’t have a practice.

So what the teacher said was true, for my own practice at least. I needed to step back and return to what first drew me to Buddhism, a more Rinzai/koan approach and the basics of the four noble truths, the precepts, and three refuges. Yet I was reflecting how before TreeLeaf I had been erring too far on the other side of becoming obsessive and even anxious about my practice. I’m not mixing practices but I think Shikantaza has given a vital perspective that will hopefully keep me grounded. Also I don’t plan to pack my bags and go, there is a wonderful sangha community here and I am sure there is plenty more to learn.

So what do you think about Shikantaza and beginning Buddhists? Should you have an established practice already or is it beyond prerequisites or being advanced or a novice?

And again I mean no offense or contention.

Gassho,
-Liang/Fred

[Kokuu]

Hi Liang

In my experience shikantaza is fine for both beginners and advanced practitioners. Of course, their experience of the practice and ability to sit for long periods may differ markedly. Vipassana is not so terribly different (note: yes the practice is different but in essence you are just sitting with experience) and newbies often start with a 10 day intensive course.

Milarepa experienced a similar predicament to you when he started practicing Mahamudra and thought he could just do whatever he wanted and be practicing because he already had buddha nature. His teacher Marpa soon set him straight on that.

Practice falling apart is part of the path. How long do you think you have to practice before that stops happening? Also, practice usually has a large effect early on then settles into something of a plateau or even regresses as it gets harder and enthusiasm wanes. The antidote is just to keep sitting without attachment to results. The same thing can happen with koan practice, vipassana, mantra recitation and guru yoga. It is probably true that certain practices suit certain people better than others but the ups and down, changes in attitude and bottom falling out of your life are, in my humble opinion, more the result of human nature than the practice itself.

Gassho
Andy

[Ishin]

Hi Liang/Fred

I am new to Zen Buddhism. I haven't even undergone Jukai yet, but I have been practicing Shikantaza for about 9 months now, and studying fairly consistently. I haven't noticed any "problem" with regular zazen practice. What I have noticed is the saying that the precepts support zazen, and zazen supports the precepts is absolutely true, for me at least. I think it is wonderful to have a firm grasp of buddhist basics, but it is a bit like reading a manual on riding a bike, and yet not riding a bike yourself.

So your Chan friend may have their reasons for why they told you this, but I think either the advice or your understanding'explanation may be a bit oversimplified. In Zen Buddhism the main practice is Zazen. I am given to explanations and I still have many questions, but I sit daily nonetheless. the sitting has helped my understanding of the philosophy, but at the end of the day I think true understanding is "beyond words and letters".

Gassho
Clark

PS even Buddha continued to sit.

[Ryumon]

Well, not to indulge in wrong speech, but if someone says it's similar to lucid dreaming, they don't know what they're talking about.

Shikantaza is similar to what the Tibetans call Dzogchen, which is one of those meditative practices you sort of have to be initiated to learn.

As for your practice waxing and waning, that's the case with all sorts of meditation. I wouldn't blame it on shikantaza; that might just be a way of not blaming yourself. (All due respect...)

Gassho,

Kirk

[Hans]

Hello,

alhtough the following is a gross generalisation, the practise of Shikantaza is the union of Shamatha and Vipashyana practise, a combination of calm abiding and insight. In practise however, most individuals will spend most of their first couple of years trying to consolidate their capacity to just let go and to be with whatever arises. The Vipashyana/insight aspect will gradually become more apparent as practise deepens. Since we are all buddha nature since beginningless time however, it is absolutely possible even for a beginner to "slip" into the recognition of the vast non-dual openness which we express through just sitting.

Most teachers saying that Shikantaza is too advanced are trying to underline the fact that one needs a certain capacity of aware presence first, before being able to recognize that the bottom of the bucket has fallen out.



Please note that no practise CAUSES awakening

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen


P.S.

The Trekcho part of Dzogchen practise is indeed very similar to our Shikantaza approach, but there is another key Dzogchen approach which is very different in the way it is expressed.

[Mp]

It is probably true that certain practices suit certain people better than others but the ups and down, changes in attitude and bottom falling out of your life are, in my humble opinion, more the result of human nature than the practice itself.

I feel this is a wonderful point, thank you Kokuu. =)

Gassho
Shingen

[Ryumon]

the ups and down, changes in attitude and bottom falling out of your life are, in my humble opinion, more the result of human nature than the practice itself.

As we say in my line of work, they're the result of user error. :-)

Gassho,

Kirk

[Daijo]

I don't think it's unfair to say that "it aint for everyone". Whether one is capable of taking a horizontal or vertical approach to zazen may very well be up to the individual practitioner. Some people may not have the body awareness required for some of the more pointed or "vertical" practices often associated with Rinzai Zen or other forms of Buddhist meditation. For them, shikantaza may be much "easier?" or at least more practical....For others, there might need to be more of a focus in sitting, some body point, the breath, a koan....and for some, perhaps both are too difficult. Maybe these people would find there time better spent chanting Amida Butsu or making 108 prostrations at the crack of dawn.

Maybe there is no "right" and no "wrong". We might just have to find the path that is best for us and then try to commit to it. So I would say, continue to "just sit" for awhile. And understand that most Chan monks are going to tell you their practice is the best.

[Liang]

I am grateful for all the excellent responses that addressed many things I hadn't considered. (Perhaps that is where a good foundational practice and experience are most helpful)

-Kokuu thank you very much for sharing that we all have points along the way where our practice collapses. This isn't often addressed in dharma talks or sutras. It is helpful to not be expecting that altering my practice is any guarantee against future implosions. I also feel less of a failure/Shikantanza isn't for me now.

-of course, and I was hoping it went without saying, that I don't see anything wrong with Shikantanza nor did the chan teacher. The lucid dreaming parallel was in context of not being for beginners and besides he was a bit grumpy that day anyways! I think the main place his motivation was in helping me identify what wasn't working. He never said anything negative to me about the practice in the past. And I agree besides he is no expert as he hasn't actually practiced it. So again no offense intended.

-Daijo, exactly I think the reason I want to return to a koan-approach is it provides something to focus on and will motivate me to sit zazen. Ultimately the problem was that I had stopped sitting.

Your comments were very helpful. I should have turned for help earlier, but all is not lost. One thing I have learned is that is more important to meditate regardless the method than spin my wheels over who to follow. It all falls away anyways.

Thank you for your teaching.

[Sydney]

I suspect that I might have taken to shikantaza more readily if it had been the first such practice to which I was introduced. I practiced what I thought of as "silent prayer" for a period in my teens that I have since come to think of as not entirely unlike shikantaza.

But when first introduced to buddhish practice, it was insight/vipassana. And all the good stuff I learned in that context seemed to make it harder for me to get the hang of "just sitting".

[Amelia]

I was practicing mantra and chakra meditation before shikantaza, so I had trouble too. It moves along eventually. Everything takes practice, especially practice.

[Joyo]

Hmmmmm, shikantaza too advanced for beginners? I would disagree with that, sounds like overthinking to me. Shikantaza is what you make of it, if you overthink in your head that it is difficult or advanced, it will be. I just sit, with a racing mind; clouds in my head, and don't have any expectations, just sit.

Gassho,
Joyo

[Myosha]

Hello,

alhtough the following is a gross generalisation, the practise of Shikantaza is the union of Shamatha and Vipashyana practise, a combination of calm abiding and insight. In practise however, most individuals will spend most of their first couple of years trying to consolidate their capacity to just let go and to be with whatever arises. The Vipashyana/insight aspect will gradually become more apparent as practise deepens. Since we are all buddha nature since beginningless time however, it is absolutely possible even for a beginner to "slip" into the recognition of the vast non-dual openness which we express through just sitting.

Most teachers saying that Shikantaza is too advanced are trying to underline the fact that one needs a certain capacity of aware presence first, before being able to recognize that the bottom of the bucket has fallen out.



Please note that no practise CAUSES awakening

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen


P.S.

The Trekcho part of Dzogchen practise is indeed very similar to our Shikantaza approach, but there is another key Dzogchen approach which is very different in the way it is expressed.

Nice.

Thank you.


Gassho,
Myosha

[Jundo]

Hi Liang,

The Chan teacher, with all do respect, seems very much ill informed about Shikantaza (as sat in the Japanese Soto Zen tradition anyway), and his comments are quite strange. It is not the first time that I have encountered folks from other traditions who do not really understand the practice. It is a shame. Have him get in touch with me, and I will be happy to put him straight.

I noticed that I became overly content and no longer felt a push or drive to sit in zazen. I became an armchair Buddhist in that I embraced the philosophy of nothing to attain yet no longer practiced meditation. I fooled myself into thinking that because I still practiced mindfulness and still had moments of kensho that I didn’t really need to sit and it was there if I ever needed it.

I noticed ... I became ... I felt .. I fooled myself ... I didn't need ... I I I .... me me me ...

Your "I" seems to convince itself of all kinds of stuff. Hopefully, your "I" can convince itself of better ways of seeing, and perhaps even get beyond that "I" sometimes. I would not be so fast to judge based on your couple of months of Practice, apparently undertaken without a clear understanding of how to sit Shikantaza.

Unfortunately, folks chasing after this, or chasing after that, find it very hard to learn to rest and put down the chasing. They may confuse doing so with "complacency", which is simply an inability to get their head around "stillness in action".

As I said, I hope you find a path good for you. Good luck.

Gassho, Jundo

[alan.r]

Hello,

alhtough the following is a gross generalisation, the practise of Shikantaza is the union of Shamatha and Vipashyana practise, a combination of calm abiding and insight. In practise however, most individuals will spend most of their first couple of years trying to consolidate their capacity to just let go and to be with whatever arises. The Vipashyana/insight aspect will gradually become more apparent as practise deepens. Since we are all buddha nature since beginningless time however, it is absolutely possible even for a beginner to "slip" into the recognition of the vast non-dual openness which we express through just sitting.

Most teachers saying that Shikantaza is too advanced are trying to underline the fact that one needs a certain capacity of aware presence first, before being able to recognize that the bottom of the bucket has fallen out.



Please note that no practise CAUSES awakening

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen


P.S.

The Trekcho part of Dzogchen practise is indeed very similar to our Shikantaza approach, but there is another key Dzogchen approach which is very different in the way it is expressed.

Yes, this is right on. Thanks Hans.

Gassho