stirling

Truly demonstrates that Vajrayana, Zen, and Daoism are all deeply intertwined.

Who (or perhaps just where), if you are comfortable sharing? Just finished that one! Yes, I saw that. I guess I am speaking more to how widespread such teachings are. I never encountered them in over 10 years in Zen until last year, and then only anecdotal, and this is in doing retreats at a number of well-known Zen retreat centers. Meido's book is a whole other topic. A surprising amount of Vajrayana cross-over in that book, practice-wise.

I know two people, one a student of Harada lineage, and another of Sasaki (Rinzai Zen) and only one of them ever even heard about hara practice, and that was a casual mention. I have met many many Soto Zen teachers and practiced with them... no hara ever mentioned. I think this practice has largely fallen by the wayside, in the West anyway. It is a practice like any other practice, skillful means for SOME student or another, but not necessarily any kind of imperative for coming to insight. Dedicated (regular, not zealous) practitioners come to realization all of the time without any practice of this kind. _/\_

Well... I have heard Theravada teachers argue that this is the case. As far as I am concerned this has to be "arguing about Buddhism" rather than talking about REAL realization, or enlightenment. I find arguing about Buddhism, or ANY dharma, pointless and distasteful. ?

Not bad! I would make a few corrections. My grade: B- I know how much you love that. Keep in mind, however, that there ARE no "first people". That's interesting... almost medical, or like a rolfing manual or something? Your style feels more precise and logical to me. AI sounds like they are scrounging for some material for a book!

Sorry, I missed your post a few days ago. Thank you for engaging. - Yes I would agree that "emptiness" is absolutely the absence of a permanent unchanging "self", but it begs the question, "Am I the only thing that doesn't have "self" nature? "Emptiness" is the broader understanding that ALL things are similarly "empty" of "self", which I think comes naturally from the first insight into no-self.* Considered in perspective, if all things (including and especially "self") exist without any intrinsic existence of their own (as a thing separate from other things), then ALL things can be realized to be unitive. Dependent Origination is a VERY powerful logical argument, but is also not a "truth". In the Mahayana it is considered a scaffolding or bridge to understanding, that could lead one to the full understanding, e.g. , if everything is Dependently Originated, what exists that is truly separate? - *I have never met anyone with realization that doesn't have BOTH insights.

I'm sorry to hear this one has got you down. It is a terrible curse, no doubt about it Bob. The work is there to do, every day... bringing yourself back to this moment. Current world circumstances make this more of a struggle than I can remember it being in some time for sure. My sympathies. _/\_ Daily meditation practice, especially just allowing the mind to be still, is the only thing I know that softens it, and makes us calmer, less reactive, and able to hold more of it at arms length before engaging the mind. Edit: To add Reminds me of:

To have any kind of discussion or debate in language I really do think you need to agree on the meaning of SOME some terms, otherwise cabbage defenestration jaguar, don't you think? Finis before it begins.

You've passed!

FOC has got the Windex!

I'd be curious about your definitions - real vs. false ego. From my perspective ALL ego is a delusion. Would Self vs. "self" also meet your criteria? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

Taking just that section, I wouldn't discount it at all. Taking in "every part", not just our "physical being", everything, everywhere is an inside-out version of what formlessness is. Taking in everything, is taking in no-thing. He uses this metaphor to explain what he means by the body permeated by "bright awareness". Based on my experience, I take him to mean that the "fabric" of his perception is all-encompassing, bare, clean, awareness, so that all conceptual thought and ideation falls away. This is something one might reasonably expect from deep, formless meditation without a practice or technique. Everything you could need to understand - the entirety of the insight - is present in that moment. This is why Dogen says (in one of your favorite quotes ): He is saying we awaken every time we practice appropriately, actualizing enlightenment. This always happens here/now. It is the full experience of the buddha dharma. It isn't intellectual knowledge, and it may be that, despite your practice-enlightenment, what is happening may not be obvious to you, as it isn't "knowledge" in the conventional sense, and will require you to look BEYOND knowledge and intellect to apprehend it. In my experience the jhanas are about what you drop and let go of, not about a set of causes and conditions. It is about allowing timeless, spaceless, "self-less" awareness to become the entirety of being, by dropping all of the separatenesses, concepts, and doing of a "self". Shikantaza is a particular type of zazen, but not all zazen is Shikantaza. Zazen can include watching the breath or other "practices", but the meditation Dogen is discussing above is not a practice, it is just "being". Zazen IS an important practice - a way in, but all Soto Zen teachers will eventually guide their students into dropping all practices and just sitting in "open awareness". Actually, it just naturally happens that meditators will find they drop their methods and their minds and bodies become still, usually thinking that this is a problem! It is actually what you are looking for - the gateway into sitting formlessly, in Soto Zen terminology, Shikantaza.

Welcome to the board, Louise!

The Buddhas realization of no-self, naturally leads to understanding that ALL appearances have no-self. There is alignment with the Dao... a no-self understanding that puts being in the flow of happening, in this moment. Some Advaita Vedantans talk about doership, where what we are is no longer a person in control of what they do, but a witness to what the body a(nd world in general) as a unity do. There is a unity, the lack of any separateness between, beings, objects, or anything else. There is the Power of Now, but also The Power of Here. It is bliss, love, TRUE compassion that recognizes suffering and is driven to help. It is funny, mischievous, kind, pointing out our attachment and aversion and bringing gentle humor to its absurdity. It lacks a story, cosmology, epistimology. It is centerless, agencyless, timeless, placeless, self-less. It is this moment and the realization there is ONLY this moment. It is being, here, how. All of these are just facets of a prism, the light of emptiness being bent to suit a conceptual structure. It is ALL of these, in a way, but really NONE of these. It is the indelible salient characteristic of all experiencing, once seen and understood. It is beyond traditions, ideas, teachers, practices, and (especially) beliefs. _/\_

Setting aside traditions, my experience is that "emptiness" is present in any moment it is looked for. It isn't hard tor students to learn to recognize it, and rest in it. Bringing it to as many moments are possible is part of the practice. Dependent origination is ultimately a "relative teaching", in my tradition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine Nagarjuna uses it as a bridge to full understanding in his Madhyamaka teachings. Yes, we may come from different practice or tradition perspectives, but the result is ultimately the same, at least in my discussions with the few realized Theravadan monks I have encountered. The insight of "no-self" naturally leads to the recognition that all appearances lack "self". Our shared goal is the welfare and enlightenment of sentient beings.

There certainly could be other reasons. This is what I was told.

Right you are sir! I should spend more time revising my posts. Yes, the jhanas are "states" not the the actual object at hand. Still, it can be advantageous to get a feel for what is being pointed at, so that when there is insight it is recognized for what it is. This is one way of acquainting oneself. It is less complicated than that, even. Shikantaza is not a state, but merely resting in the reality of this moment, as it is. Learning not to contrive your experience and recognize "just being" takes some work. I looked at your link, Mark and what Suzuki actually says there is: I think his qualifier is important - Suzuki is not saying that, he says that OTHERS do. Once understood shikantaza becomes easier... with insight it is actually just how life actually IS. He also says that if you have a good Zazen practice, shikantaza will be comprehensible to you. This is true... it just needs pointing out by a teacher. Zazen IS the process of learning to let go of "doership", which I often think is where your personal investigation is headed.

The reason is "skillful means". It is generally abstract and unnecessary for the Western mind to use those particular concepts as a lens for the dharma. Some of those teachings are meant for a different culture framework and time. Westerners think they are learning the carefully guarded secrets only taught to the select few, but the truly important stuff that actually gets you anywhere is so simple that most can't believe it. Among the actual Tibetan teachers I have encountered or worked with in the West, many teach preliminary teachings alongside Dzogchen... "...swooping down from above while climbing from below". While I have had teachings on a few obscure items, most of it has been the basics, and I am happy to say that they work, in my experience.

While not complete, some insight into this particular point can come with everyday cessation in meditation. It isn't hard to demonstrate what this means to most students who have managed to become somewhat familiar with learning to become a witness to their thoughts instead of being their thoughts. I find most students can come to understand to some degree, with direct pointing, what "emptiness" (or the Dao) is and begin questioning the constructed nature of their worlds. Seeing all things as "buddha nature" is a fairly common Mahayana practice that you don't have to be any kind of expert to do.... again with some ability to find cessation in meditation practice. Yes, agreed, one is trapped in appearances, but any decent teacher is going to be showing the student how to recognize this and "wake up" over and over again in the moment they occupy. Realizing you are "asleep" is big part of waking up, but so is getting some taste of what "awake" IS. Being an immortal enlightened "person" is ultimately an oxymoron, from my perspective. Emptiness/Dao is immortal. I think that is the only "thing" that is.

I worked for 20 years in the Nyingma tradition (Dudjom Rinpoche lineage) and can confirm that some of the old school energy channel stuff isn't taught in the West, for the most part. There is actually a reason for that. Thank you for your practice. _/\_ It isn't though. It becomes immediately clear when insight dawns. There is ultimately no person to enlighten, no practice that does it, and no separation between "Buddha" mind and ours. On a practical level, every time your mind is still you are actualizing this truth. The 4th Noble Truth is cessation - not cessation in the future, but cessation here/now, with no-self. There is no difference between the mind in formless jana and enlightened mind. In Zen, resting in that formless nature... cessation, is "practice". There are no metaphors about daily life that apply to a knowledge that has no time, space or "self". It doesn't make sense because it isn't explicable by our subject/object language convention. There IS no "future" you. What you are is inseparable from Dependent Origination, not a "part" of it, inextricable from a seamless whole. Yes, causes and conditions arise in a relative sense, but that always happens NOW as part of a fictional timeline. The past and future only ever exist as thoughts happening now. Where is your story about your practice history when your mind is still? Where is the "self" you believe you are? Where are the past and the future?

I don't assume anything about you at all. I responded to you based on your words and my understanding. If I have insulted you I apologize. Belief is not interesting to me. I am interested in direct experiential gnosis. As you say, people believe in all sorts of things. ... don't forget the Mahayana, Vajrayana and Zen teachings.... oh, and almost all historical "spiritual" teachings.Was there really a historical Buddha or Jesus? I don't think it matters, and, at this point, it is unlikely that we will ever know. Is it factual or mythological? I think this is the wrong question. In my opinion what one should be concerned about it whether or not those teachings are TRANSFORMATIVE, once put into earnest practice for a few months. My experience is that most non-dual traditions contain enough perspective and simplicity of practice at their core to be transformative, and I have verified that to my personal satisfaction as well.

Nihilism is the belief that life is meaningless. Life as an individual IS ultimately meaningless, but not at all in the way one would imagine, and certainly not in a nihilistic fashion. The Advaita Vedanta system believes in the "Self" - NO-self is Buddhism. Only experiential knowledge is proof, though it is possible to point to emptiness where the student has a few months of decent meditation under their belt. It isn't based in myth my friend, it is based on thousands of years of realization. There are enlightened beings all over the place, if you care and you are paying attention. If you live near a decent sized town there will be a few even there that could point you in the right direction. I know a number in my town. If the teachings were nonsense, why would anyone bother. Why do you bother with Qigong?

I am referring to: Dao, emptiness, Buddha nature, non-duality, "Self", etc. Define it? There are thousands of ways to do that, but today it looks like the simple, still awareness that underlies all experiencing, having no center, "self", time, or space.

My answer is being answered from a Buddhist perspective. That might be the philosophy of cultivation traditions, but it is not shared in Buddhism, generally speaking. In Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Zen Buddhism it is understood that one is always ALREADY enlightened, but lacks the insight to see that it is so. From the perspective of enlightened mind NO practice actually illuminates the student, they merely make one "accident prone".

Such practices don't really feature in Zen Buddhism, aside maybe from Hara practice. The insight that one is looking for in Buddhism is a realization about the nature of reality. I have confidence that qi, kundalini, etc., are better left to do as they are wont, rather than be unskillfully manipulated.