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.