stirling

The "secret knowledge" is enlightenment itself. Enlightenment can't be shared from an individual to an individual, it would be an oxymoron from the perspective of enlightenment in Buddhism. Enlightened teachers ARE very helpful in learning to deepen and stabilize moment to moment enlightened Mind, but they aren't necessary. There are some that become enlightened without ever encountering teachings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddhayāna

Bob, In the Soto Zen tradition the answers would be: None and None. Enlightenment in the Mahayana schools (includes Zen) is considered to be ALREADY present but unrecognized. No-one can give you what you already have. Though an enlightened teacher might occasionally be successful in pointing it out to a student this, isn't because anything has been given or added to the student. Enlightenment isn't gaining something extra, but rather losing a delusion about how things are.

Slight point of correction: koan curriculum would apply to a Rinzai Zen teacher, not a Soto Zen teacher, as would the requirement for a monastic setting.

Thank you for sharing this story. I've never heard you tell it. I'd say we have Kensho there, so you know the flavor. Nice one! Absolutely! That's what ALWAYS happens when you get up, or do anything really. The mistake is in thinking that there has ever been anyone in charge. See above. The "inconceivable" is just reality actualizing enlightenment in this moment, doing its thing. Definitely Doug Jacobsen, Angie Boussevain, Vanja Palmers, and Ian Forsberg are worth seeking out. Well... sure. We are all already enlightened, it just "may not be apparent". Nothing to gain, just the realization of what is always already true. How about this: the arahant no longer suffers the delusion that they are in charge - not even of their breath, desire, feeling or perceiving. The predominant mode of "mind" is "don't know". I am not going anywhere, there just won't be more dialogue on this particular topic. I've said everything I need to say.

This is nicely put. I would modify it slightly to say: ...and the important question being, who owns the awareness that notices the action taking place? This is definitely an experience I understand well, Mark. In or out of meditation I can notice that there is no volition and no-self to have ever owned volition. In fact, there is no-one anywhere to ever have HAD volition... it is a delusion, merely a byproduct of the belief in a "self". As Daniel Ingram elegantly summarizes "no-self": Agency being something that the person that owns volition would have - a person who believes that they are in charge of their actions. Further: There is no person separate from what happens that could have agency or act with volition. Things naturally happen where they happen. No illusory subject/object duality. This is penetrating to the very deepest level of your interest in volition. Understanding that volition is illusory could easily be the crack that opens up the whole shebang... this is the reason for my interest. I get the feeling that you respect Kobun, so I thought that the students that he actually entrusted to teach might interest you. A number of them are truly an amazing bunch, and they are full of great Kobun stories as a bonus. I agree that LINEAGE isn't everything, but having experiential knowledge of what enlightenment IS ends up being extremely valuable. It is easy to misunderstand the written dharma - a teacher with insight can guide us through our misunderstandings. My motivation IS to be helpful. I think you are actually intellectually close to something important and would love to help you get to it. This is what I live for! I have a feeling that it is possible that your dedication might pay off, but I don't think it will be your intellectual dedication. Either way, I have decided that I will refrain from further commenting on your posts about this topic when you raise it, except at your invitation. Bows.

Think about this: Is watching the breath or resting in emptiness the higher practice. Does the Buddha (or any other enlightened being) sit around all day watching their breath, or are they liberated and able to just "be"? In Zazen while watching the breath there is always losing concentration or dropping the object... what is there to drop in just being? Maybe I don't understand your longing for the dropping of "volition" but it is RIGHT HERE in your post. The practice of shikantaza is THAT... the difference between an illusory person doing a practice and a universe actualizing enlightenment. Doesn't that sound good? You are complicating it. I have training in both Zazen and Shikantaza. My interest (or ANY Soto Zen teacher's interest) is always in seeing if a student can do shikantaza FIRST, in the same way that a Nyingma teacher would see if a student could recognize Rigpa and just rest in it rather than watch thoughts, or one step down, breath. It is a GREAT place to start. Then we deepen practice, dropping doing and self. Do you have a teacher you can talk to about this? If you tell me where you are, I might be able to direct you to one. I personally know a couple of Kobun's students who are teachers if that is enticing. I mean this in kindness and sincerity. This is Shikantaza embodied. What happens when there is no object? Liberation. The practice you are somehow unsure about is precisely the practice that embodies what you seek. It is beyond process, ligaments, doing, etc. Simple, clean, elegant, uncluttered. Fantastic. Right or wrong, you'll end up where you need to be.

Nicely worded post. Extra Credit Question: If the appearance and the Watcher are reflections of each other, is there truly anything different about them?

Ironically also for finishers.

Two different practices from two different traditions. They won't reconcile being that the illusory "path" is is very different. In the Mahamudra traditions "we" are all ALREADY enlightened and possibly only need to suddenly notice or realize that, there is therefore much pointing at our true nature from the beginning of teaching, and an emphasis of resting in that true nature. Where it comes to practices or orientation you really have to pick one or the other. I'm with you here! Letting go of doing, efforting, and surrendering to things as they are is a lifelong practice of massive value. But: ...what you emphasize here sounds like quite a lot of doing. My experience is that there AREN'T any mechanisms or systems here. There is just being with things as they are... which is completely letting go of all dualities. There is ultimately no movement, no breath, no moving of attention, no body, no... anything. I agree. Not an ABSENCE of thoughts (though the mind is very quiet) but an absence of THINKING PROCESS. By this specifically I mean what comes through the sixth sense door (Ayatana) which is the constant, iterative, feedback loop of the thinking mind. This stream of thoughts is NOT what we are. We know this because we can watch them in meditation. We can realize that what WE are is that which WATCHES the thoughts. Resting in this way individual thoughts arise of their own accord, like all other phenomena, but have no exalted status and are not taken to be "self" or "I".

This can be the case where coming directly to Zazen is not yet easy or possible, absolutely. So, you begin with an object and when that object drops out naturally rest in "silent illumination". Eventually this isn't necessary. Note: Some Zen teachers don't give a new student instruction with an object, but merely ask them to begin by watching the mind without attachment with an eye to learning Shikataza immediately. Where a Tibetan teacher that teaches Dzogchen is concerned it is the same - go directly to the direct practice of "actualizing the fundamental point" as Dogen would have it, or "resting in the nature of mind" as the Tibetans would say it. It is often possible for many to skip moving through various impermanent states in a Relative practice and begin directly to sit in a formless, empty Absolute practice (like Shikantaza) instead. The Tibetans exhort you to be the Buddha you are, taking on his/their seated form and attitude. Spine straight "like a stack of coins" but requiring no effort to keep it there (this is why there is a cushion) gaze wide and relaxed, etc. I find you know when you get it right - the mind "clicks" and goes quiet when you get it right, being at attention, but being effortlessly at ease. You could easily make all of this into a "to do" list, but that would be missing the mark. This feeling comes where there is an absence of "self". When the "self" drops out (and this happens in any dedicated meditators practice all the time) there is actualizing the myriad things as well as the "self". It isn't because of any particular intent, or idea or effort, or even of any particular focal point. To sit this way is to be without ANY specific focal point. This interconnectedness is with the undifferentiated everything if you examine it. For the preparatory practice of Zazen, yes.

I'm sorry if you feel I have disregarded your questions. I will admit to reframing the answers in a way that I experientially know makes sense in order to answer them. I'm sorry if you feel I have discouraged any future questions. I am definitely doing that now, at least for questions directed at me. I don't think I am the right source to help you. I can't see them as separate. Still, I truly wish you best of luck in your pursuits.

I am suggesting that you EXPERIENCE that non-duality does not make sense in subject/object language. You are welcome to your opinion. What I think is that there are "pith" instructions in all non-dual teachings. I'm not sure what I said that upset you, but I apologize if I have. You seemed sincerely interested - my comments were intended to be helpful.

I haven't read the entirety of his work, but am specifically interested in the non-dual pointing in this particular section, and more specifically its bearing on the Wu Wei subject. It is direct, clear, and clean, and points specifically If your interest is Wu Wei, my insight would be that all of these meta-questions are just going to get you lost in the woods. A tip: Your conceptual ideas about what will make "sense" or "add up" will not get you any closer to understanding the Dao. Your thinking mind is not the way in to understanding here. This is not intellectual knowledge, it is EXPERIENTIAL. Zuangzi tells you this:

The works of Zhuangzi are available for free all over the internet. Search: Zhuangzi The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu In this case the quote is from Chapter 11, full chapter quoted here: The instruction from "Big Concealment" is the heart of the matter (bolded).

The non-dual principle is at the heart of many "Eastern" philosophical and spiritual traditions. Daoism is one amongst them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonduality_(spirituality) Wu Wei is one of the conceptual lenses on the non-dual perspective commonly discussed in Daoism.

Wu Wei is how action would appear if you had the realization that your separateness as a "self" was a delusion, and you could see things as they really are. The world already flows spontaneously from its empty source, it is only thinking mind creates the imagining of a "self" with its own agency. Only the Dao can ride a bike, play the drums, or even breathe... it would be impossible for the thinking mind to divide up and control the body through all of the discreet and numberless steps necessary. It is possible to notice Wu Wei in meditation, especially with the guidance of a teacher.

Zazen vs. Shikatantaza. Covered it. A male teacher of mine used to say, "Arguments about practices can be done with one hand". Jiryu is Soto. Harada is Rinzai. Soto is emptiness, Rinzai is koans. Different schools with very different practices. The Rinzai don't do Shikantaza. BTW (I taught my friend, a senior Rinzai teacher and student of Sazaki) Shikantaza last week! In Shikantaza the "one point' is ALL points.

? So, "just sitting" really refers to Shikantaza. Zazen is a preliminary practice, often (not always) watching the breath. Often when a student starts noticing that they lose contact with the breath and the mind goes quiet (the muddy jar goes clear) they are moved to Shikantaza practice. What is Shikantaza practice? It is being with all things, objectless meditation, taking in the whole field of the dharmakaya. See below. I actually even found a spot where Suzuki answers your particular question about thinking and the "first stage"! https://suzukiroshi.engagewisdom.com/talks/background-shikantaza It's just a practice, Mark. Try it! See Suzuki above. Pure thinking mind is empty of self. It isn't important to ME, silly, it is important for you. If you have no curiosity or grasp of Anatta (intellectual or experiential) then you aren't really practicing Buddhism, in my opinion. You can get a taste of it in your "first trance". Even if you think it is, the "self" isn't doing jack shit. You are literally making it up moment to moment. It is a mirage. But, WHAT are we saying is a mirage? It can't. Mirage. A matter of presence without "self". My thought was that you were trying to say that the Suzuki quote about "enlightened activity" was from your link. Thanks! I don't trust any of it as being "THE" buddha, but it isn't necessary to retread that discussion. I also don't think it matters. The body of dharma is huge and full of great stuff. Yes, you can have experiences of dropping body and mind (actualizing), butTRULY dropping body and mind, in Zen, refers to insight into no-self. Honest. This is why there is so much talk about actualizing. You CAN, but it isn't permanent understanding or insight. Still, substantially better than carrying thinking mind and "self" around all day.

It is not the same topic. Unfortunately the quote doesn't feature in that article. Oh yes, I've read that. He is challenging a number of ideas in the Theravadan orthodoxy, AND he presumes to wear his "attainment" on his sleeve. Heresy! Mark, do you practice, or have you had instruction in, Shikantaza?

Mark, there are MANY ways in. You may choose one above the others but it doesn't invalidate the rest. Practices do not ultimately enlighten anyone. There are many Buddhas that have taught MANY different dharma doors. I'm sure most of them wouldn't resonate with you at all. That doesn't delegitimize the rest. Just taking in the field of existence with no particular focus seems to do that same thing. I have read them a few times before, perhaps. Why this particular point in the whole canon of the Tripitaka I often wonder. Life is mysterious! My take is that the buddha is saying that thought creates the delusion of "self" and drives action. In first jhana speech ceases. Without any context, I would guess that the second quote is specifically about jhana practice and has nothing to do with Arahants or "attainments". It isn't that speaking is non-volitional, it is that there is no self that owns volition. What does "self" mean to you? What would understanding "no-self" mean, in practical terms? No cheating. It isn't though. This is not at all the same thing. I looked a bit, I couldn't find a source for the quote, but it is correct with or without Suzuki being involved. I agree. Then end of determinate thought come with insight into Anatta, or better, Sunyata. The answer is "without a self". You have definitely gathered up your bits and pieces. I have to tell you, in thinking I would look for the full context of your interests I was surprised to find that half or more of the links I came across were indeed your writings here or on your site. Sure. You do you! A good attitude to have. You may make prefect yet. What does "dropping body and mind" mean to you? Did the Buddha have to be dead to have body and mind drop off?

What he means here is that the fact that he isn't the "doer" is not always at the forefront of attention. You might think that intention arises as part of what you imagine is "your" thought process or desire, but that is a delusion. Thoughts don't belong to "you" When the conceit of "self" is seen through, intention for "doing" something would still arise, BUT with the critical difference that it is obvious that intention arises of its own accord and not from your thinking process, or your volition. It appears in the objectless/personless stream of arising and passing away like all other phenomena. The Dzogchen path is establishing awareness over and over again when it is noticed that it has been dropped. This was my practice for over 20 years. I would be willing to bet that Syd's mind was always aligned and present in empty awareness, even when speaking. Speaking, like all other activities is entirely non-volitional in an Arhat (or further out). This is part of completely seeing through the "self". What does "self" mean to you? What would understanding "no-self" mean, in practical terms? Suzuki is telling us here that enlightenment is the end of personhood... of "self". The enlightened "activity" is the flow of the arising and passing of the dharmakaya in this moment. Enlightenment is when there is no karma being produced by an appearance (like you, or me) and there is alignment with that arising and passing "activity" so that the being we also are at a relative level is no longer in resistance to what is happening by grasping or aversion. As far as aims, no-self, specifically, has never been my aim... I have always been interested in taking apart "reality" and understanding what it was at its deepest layer. As far as claims, I have been given endorsement to teach by both of my teachers in the Soto Zen tradition based on my understanding and insight on the topics of dharma and enlightenment. The Buddha believed in pursuing Anatta. One place to look is the Anattalakkhana Sutta. His kid's wouldn't notice or understand, most likely. You have to have insight to recognize "enlightened activity". Suzuki's behavior would probably appear the same in most respects. He would probably still be angered, or sad, etc., just without the "mind" taking hold of these as they pass through. Even the Buddha (and Jesus) got angry. I leave it to you to evaluate what he has to say. Daniel is interviewed in MANY places. He has deep knowledge of Theravada meditation practices, and even has his own book that is candid in all respects about his experience. The Buddha spoke openly about his understanding. Most historical religious figures did. It has become taboo over time, but I appreciate Daniel's candor, and, while his path is much more Theravada than mine and has different hallmarks, his experience of insight strikes me a correct and relatable. It has the value, in my opinion, of also showing that this is actually possible in this life - not some pipe dream, or the product of thousands of lifetimes. Dropping mind and body permanently isn't something we start with. If you drop mind and body it won't be a wiggly did I/didn't I sort of thing. You will know for certain what has happened, and your life will never be the same. If you DO have that moment, it will be the start of insight, but then it must be stabilized. . 1st stage, or Stream Enterer here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening Complete dropping away of self is 4th stage (see link above), or Arahant. This is now a stable experience of "no-self". Even after this, the insight itself continues to deepen... forever?

Yes. It is insight into "no-self". One way in amongst countless ways. You could email and ask him. He does address both what it is and how it is now and always in points 2 and 3. It is a permanent insight. It doesn't integrate. Self is gone forever. Nothing to integrate. He is saying that the "understanding" has been stable for 9 years (this is years ago now...). Sure! It is just an aspect one can incline the mind toward. Same difference. Not meaningfully different, though I don't particularly care for this version. My bold above- this means someone who has dropped "self" either way.

The goal of Buddhist practice is the relief of "struggle" with life, classically translated by white Christian Westerners as "suffering". Buddhism is the pursuit, initially, of a reduction in suffering through practice AND relationship with a teacher who "gets it", then eventually a complete shift in the understanding of how the world is that ends the "I" that suffers. Something that I am not sure I have said thoroughly enough is that when the "self" drops out (which is an entirely possible event) THAT is when your "automatic movement of the body" in ALL forms happens, amongst myriad other things. It is a byproduct of the larger insight and just isn't going to happen without it because it is the perspective shift that creates understanding of "no-self" that makes the realization of how this ALREADY IS happen. A contemporary teacher, Daniel Ingram (who very obviously (to me) knows what he is talking about in this respect) gives this very simplified accounting of how the completed "no-self" path is: These teachings of agencylessness are all over teachings of enlightenment in many traditions (particularly 20th Century Advaita (or new-Advaita): This IS realizing "no-self" (or "Self"). "No-self", and agencylessness, are eventually permanent shifts.

I agree. Though I do think it is a translation issue, since he essentially contradicts the idea of trying where he says:

In terms of the Dao de Jing, it is absolutely the same thing, yes. It is also just resting in the natural state. Sure. Especially if those practices (IMHO) are quite close to no practice at all. I'll need a little more time to absorb that, but the idea that somehow Qi is magically built by preliminary practices isn't how it is understood by the traditions I have worked it. I was speaking with my teacher this morning on the matter of the energy center at the "hara" (or "fu" in Chinese?) and its importance and she said that it is a relative conceptual teaching, not needed for shikantaza or jhana. This makes complete sense to me, and matches my understanding and practice. The initial seeing (stream entry) coincides with seeing through the reality of the "self". As the fetters drop the insight is available, but comes and goes based on attention (I think of it as an "available perspective"). Eventually the last fetters are cleared and it is permanently how things are seen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening I'd be curious to read that. Almost all of my experiences happened off-cushion, strangely. Yes... and when least expected for sure. I agree. None of the enlightened "beings" I know would do such a thing. Proving you are enlightened to a fabric of reality that is ALREADY enlightened is a silly endeavor. Only an "ego" would need to do that. That's fine. I agree. There are more than you might think. Yes, if you are fortunate to notice. Yes. I would say that we are born and die moment to moment, thousands of times or more a day.