Dzogchen and Shikantaza

[thigle]

Hi,

I'm Martin, a non-sectarian "Dzochenpa" with strong Soto roots in my past and I am firmly convinced that there is ultimately no difference between (unfortunately secret) Dzogchen mengagde teachings and Shikantaza. It is important for me to know what Zen practitioners think of them.

One short definition of Shikantaza is: Just sitting. This is complementary to the task: Just sit. Or: Sit down and do nothing. Or: Sit down and leave everything as it is. Or: Sit down and don’t focus on anything. Or: Sit down and be natural. The deeper meaning of these tasks is exactly the same. But what is meant by the term “deeper meaning“?

Soto-introduction:

Task: Just sit. But now you may practice: "just sitting", instead of just sitting.

Different possible Dzogchen-menagde introductions:

Task: Do nothing. But now you may practice: “doing nothing”, instead of doing nothing.
Task: Leave everything as it is. But now you may practice: “leaving everything as it is”, instead of leaving everything as it is.
Task: Don’t focus on anything. But now you may focus on “non-focusing”, instead of not focusing on anything.
Task: Behave yourself completely natural. But now you may practice “completely natural behavior”, instead of behave yourself completely natural.

If you are practicing these tasks, you’re like the client of a hypnotist. You automatically fabricate and grab his suggestions because you hold specific expectations for the session. And an artificial state of mind is the result. But primordial nonpractice has nothing to do with suggestions and hypnosis. Rather, it is the exact opposite of a self-hypnosis like meditation. Do that please absolutely clear.

One is practicing these tasks, because of grasping. It’s important to detect this process exactly. If I tell you for example, that I have no name and you answer: “Hello no-name“, you fabricate an artificial reified-concept out of the fact, that I have no name. In our special case one fabricates a reified-concept out of these tasks and a quality like “just sitting’nes” seems to appear and permeates experience. That’s consciousness; a fabricated state of mind. This quality is reified-identified with experience and because of that one want to get something very specific from these tasks. That brings us right back to the start of this circle of ignorance. All this only because of fabrication.

How can you break out of it? Recognice the difference between practiced “leaving everything as it is” and factual ‘leaving everything as it is’ exactly .. and leave everything as it is. That’s primordial unfabricated looseness. Since it is completely unfabricated, the reified-concepts of an origin or source or subject or object .. doesn’t matter naturally from itself. This knowledge is an immediate obvious fact, not just a thought or insight like: “It doesn’t matter naturally from itself.” It’s impossible to understand knowledge trough consciousness, because knowledge is primordial inseparable from appearances; so everything is like a vivid reflection. This expression is called transparency.

Note A: It’s not a vivid reflection, it’s like a vivid reflection. Don’t misunderstand the term “vivid reflection” in a reified sense. You can’t understand transparency through consciousness.

Note B: Don’t think: “There’s nothing to do”. That’s just an idea, just thinking, just like philosophy. The task must be implemented. And there are two ways to implement the task. As unfabricated fact, or grasping. As primordial nonpractice, or practiced nonpractice. For a person who is still on the ordinary path of training, when he follows one of these tasks, in the first time it is unavoidable not to practice one of these tasks, because ones own consciousness is the expression of grasping and fabrication. But if you realize the difference between your fabricated task and the factual unfabricated task, primordial natural looseness is immediate obvious. Since it is completely unfabricated, the reified concepts of an origin or source doesn’t matter naturally from itself.

“Knowing” does not mean perception; for perception is of little measure. It does not mean understanding; for understanding is artificially constructed. Therefore, this “knowing” is “not touching things”, and “not touching things” is “knowing”. (..) Thought” is itself “knowing”, without dependence on another’s power. “Its knowing” is its form, and its form is the mountains and rivers. These mountains and rivers are “subtle”, and this “subtlety” is “mysterious”. (Dogen, Zazenshin)

Conclusion: The task: “Just sit”, can be the beginning of recognicing the process of fabrication and if this process is fully understood, it can be the beginning of primordial natural looseness, which is completely unfabricated.

From your Soto-Perspective, can you define important differences, or not? Big sorry for my bad english

[Hans]

Hello Martin,

great to hear from you. As someone who has great respect and is often inspired by some of the wonderful dharma teachings coming from the Dzogchen corner of the Dharma-universe, I am sure we'll have plenty of interesting conversations in the future.

Now I have to digest all your questions

It'd be wonderful by the way if you were able to post a short introduction in the greetings by new folks thread, a picture of you would also be very appreciated by many, since we are much more than a discussion forum here, we are a breathing Sangha

Schön, dass Du zu uns gefunden hast.


Gassho and viele liebe Grüße,


Hans Chudo Mongen

[Jundo]

Hi Martin,

Welcome again. Your English is fine, although your questions are difficult. As I am not a Dzogchen practitioner, I do not know I can answer. I have posted some words from a Dzogchen Teacher recently that resonate of Zazen ...

http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?11984-A-Dzogchen-Teaching&highlight=dzogzhen

... but noticed many other aspects of Practice with an Esoteric Buddhist flavor rather different.

I must confess that I have read what you wrote three times, and I cannot follow sufficiently to respond. I do not think it is your English, but what is being asked and the manner of asking.

Would you kindly review and sit with our "We're All Always Beginners" series of talks to get a sense of the flavor of Shikantaza practiced here? Then perhaps we can continue the discussion better.

http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?63-A-SERIES-OF-TALKS-FOR-NEW-FOLKS

Gassho, Jundo

[Hans]

Hello Martin,

it's me again. What a surprise!

There are two major differences between most Soto-Zen approaches and Dzogchen.


1. We have no specifically designated "pointing out instructions" (which are symbolic, gesture and/or explanation based ways of introducing practitioners to the fruit of practise, or the nature of awakening itself at the beginning of the path)
2. We have no special internal energy methods and Thögal (both these Dzogchen topics are rather secret and cannot just be learned from books)

However, through dropping body and mind as we call it, we affirm and express our dynamically swimming in the ocean of awakening. Right here, right now, beyond and including here and now.

At the beginning this seems like an intellectual statement, but through practise one can wake up (either instantly or over time) to it being a living reality.

We don't care too much about traditional internal energy theories, and even amongst some Zen teachers who do, the assumption is that the full lotus position is in itself sufficient to balance whatever one might call internal energies.


In an intimate dokusan conversation, a cocoon pregnant with possibilities, or whilst sitting on the toilet, Buddha nature can reveal itself and the bottom falls out of the bucket.


From my arguably limited experience there are just as many gifted and also heavily deluded individuals practising Dzogchen as there are practising Shikantaza. If one were true and the other were not true, we'd see a much greater difference.

While similarities are fascinating, the important bit is the actual work, the actual practise. So my two cents are in both cases, find a teacher, and dig dig dig until you see your shovel is made of diamonds.


Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[thigle]

Hi Jundo,

I must confess that I have read what you wrote three times, and I cannot follow sufficiently to respond. I do not think it is your English, but what is being asked and the manner of asking.

Can you detect - based on direct experience - any difference between the described possible tasks?

Would you kindly review and sit with our "We're All Always Beginners" series of talks to get a sense of the flavor of Shikantaza practiced here? Then perhaps we can continue the discussion better.

Yes I do, thank's for your links.

()
Martin

[thigle]

Hello Hans (again),

1. We have no specifically designated "pointing out instructions" (which are symbolic, gesture and/or explanation based ways of introducing practitioners to the fruit of practise, or the nature of awakening itself at the beginning of the path)

But you have the instruction: Just sit. And there are two ways to implement this task. One you call Zazen (practice) the other one Shikantaza (primordial nonpractice)...?

2. We have no special internal energy methods and Thögal (both these Dzogchen topics are rather secret and cannot just be learned from books)

In Dzogchen there are no special energy methods. That's tantrism. Preliminary practices.

However, through dropping body and mind as we call it, we affirm and express our dynamically swimming in the ocean of awakening. Right here, right now, beyond and including here and now.

Yeah. But From my point of understanding, the focus on a "here and now" .. is a focus .. not "just sitting" ..?

We don't care too much about traditional internal energy theories, and even amongst some Zen teachers who do, the assumption is that the full lotus position is in itself sufficient to balance whatever one might call internal energies.

That's why I like Zen so much. But beliefe me - Dzogchen and Tantra are very different. Two different ways, two different fruits. Your practice begins with the task: "Just sit", Dzogchen (mengagde) begins with the possible task: Do nothing, leave everything as it is". I want to emphasize the common, that's all.

From my arguably limited experience there are just as many gifted and also heavily deluded individuals practising Dzogchen as there are practising Shikantaza. If one were true and the other were not true, we'd see a much greater difference.

You're right.

While similarities are fascinating, the important bit is the actual work, the actual practise.

It's not about the "fascination" of similarities. It's about the end of a long dispute and much more.

()
Martin

[Ryumon]

Martin,

I really can't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Dzogchen is better than shikantaza? If so, do Dzogchen. It's not like rooting for different teams here...

Gassho,

Kirk

[Hans]

Dear Thigle,

there are orthodox Zen teachers and orthodox Dzogchen teachers....who will say what is being practised is not the same on any level. Some of those know the other tradition rather well, others don't.


There are others who teach Zen who come from a perennial philosophy point of view, and others who teach Dzogchen who come from such a place......they might say non-dual awareness stuff is the same wherever you turn.....and again there are people like Lex Hixon, who were "fluent" in multiple approaches and held a multiple-dharma citizenship ID card, who will agree it is one reality and one awakening, but that paths have to be travelled on their own terms and are not to be mixed.


All I am trying to say (and feel free to disagree) is that intellectual analysis will never resolve this kind of dispute. Which is why the question "what do YOU do?" is so much more important.

To loosely quote Kodo Sawaki: "Hey! What are you looking at? Don’t you see that it’s about you?"


Gassho,


Hans Chudo Mongen

[thigle]

Hi Kirk,

Are you saying that Dzogchen is better than shikantaza?

No. I'm saying that Shikantaza like Dzogchen mengagde is primordial nonpractice. So it can't be different. Same fruit.

()
Martin

[thigle]

Dear Hans,

All I am trying to say (and feel free to disagree) is that intellectual analysis will never resolve this kind of dispute. Which is why the question "what do YOU do?" is so much more important. To loosely quote Kodo Sawaki: "Hey! What are you looking at? Don’t you see that it’s about you?"

I completely agree. One must compare everything with ones own experience. It's not enough just to "thinking about". "Dharma" is a shared endoperspective based on direct experience.

()
Martin

[Ryumon]

No. I'm saying that Shikantaza like Dzogchen mengagde is primordial nonpractice. So it can't be different. Same fruit.

Primordial nonpractice?

Huh?

Gassho,

Kirk

[Hans]

Dear Martin,

since we are practising in a Soto lineage here, the usual Dzogchen terminology is not our terminology. So in order for us Treeleaf Sangha members to comment in any meaningful way, I am afraid you would have to explain to us carefully and step by step, what all those words you are using mean.

The first posting of yours is very "heavy hitting" and dense. So dense that it is very very hard to read. How about you take your time to explore our style here for a few weeks and then you could share your impressions.

Your style is not "wrong" in any way, but to me it reminds me a bit of hardcore philosophy classes. Maybe you can break down those "tasks" in more everyday language?


Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[John Cloud]

Just drink the tea . And leave the argue on the cup

Gassho _/|\_

[thigle]

Hoi kirkmc,

Primordial nonpractice?

Huh?

yes, sounds really academic. But it is primordial .. nonpractice. It's neither practice, nor practiced nonpractice, nor just a thought/idea. It's naturally from itself completely unfabricated. If you follow the task: "Just sit", in the beginning you are practicing "just sitting" .. instead of just sitting. That's meditation. That's grasping. That's an artificial focus. That's an artificial state of mind. And a lot of qualities seems to appear because of your meditation. Clarity, openess, bliss, whatever. And you go trough. Hopefully. But the task: "Just sit", can be primordial nonpractice to, if you recognice the difference between practiced "just sitting" and factual "just sitting" one day. You only can recognice the difference, if you recognice your own process of grasping/fabrication. I think, this approach does not differ from Zazen/Shikantaza. So there is no reason for Tibetan and Zen practitioners to argue. I distinguish here: If you are practicing "just sitting", it's Zazen. The other one is Shikantaza.

[alan.r]

From what I can see here, what you're saying is that for both Soto people and Dzogchen people, there can be a "problem" in which the "goal" of "just sitting" (for Soto) or the "task" of "doing nothing" can be confused for the "actual thing." In other words, in Soto-speak, we can be told to "just sit" but because we've been told this, we conceptualize it, turning it into a "fabricated" "mind state" that is a delusion; in other words, we're not "just sitting" we're just sitting based on our idea of what just sitting is (therefore clinging to an idea/thought/concept/etc). I think what you're saying is that this kind of thing can happen in Dzogchen, too.

If all that is what you're actually saying (and I really am not sure it is), then I would agree: this can definitely take place in Zen sitting and is definitely one the little struggles (non-struggles) that every practitioner goes through (or, to rephrase, that I have and still go through).

So, the difficulty is, I think you're saying: how can we sit with "everything just as it is" when we have some limited concept of what "everything just as it is" is?

And the reply to that (not the answer, just the reply) is: just sit. Drop it. Taigu has said in the past - and a thing that has always stuck with me - when you think you have it, you don't have it; I think that's sort of what you're getting at.

In any case, I could be way off here; please feel free to ignore.

Gassho, Shomon