stirling

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.

In Soto Zen the stick is used to "suddenly awaken" a student, but few American temples do so anymore. I suppose it could possibly be effective, but I don't use that technique with my students. The problem with some traditions is that their "skillful means" don't evolve with societal changes. What might have worked in feudal Japan might not be what is best for a student in todays day and age. There are plenty of other opportunities and techniques, and an experienced and intuitive teacher could choose something much more personal and effective in the moment. _/\_ - I haven't found that there is any issue with mixing techniques where the intention is awakening/enlightenment. I have no trouble mixing techniques where it is efficacious. I will do whatever I can to help precipitate awakening in truly committed student.