Is 'just sitting' a post-enlightment practice?

[Vajra Fist]

14 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

-here’s a picture of Issho Fujita demonstrating “one-pointedness” at the Sonoma Mountain Zen Center:

 

 

 

 

 

This reminds me of a dharma talk by Mike Luetchford called 'wobbling through life'. He likened shikantaza to riding a bicycle, where at first you tend to 'wobble' between external and internal distraction, until a natural balance arises. 

 

My question I suppose is how do you correct yourself when you notice that an imbalance has occurred - I.e. distracted by thought. Do you note the content of your thought, relax and then let them pass? Or do you just sit and hope that your mind eventually shuts up?

 

I've experimented with shikantaza this past week (three hours today), and I've tried both approaches. The first feels a bit more like a method, or something that involves 'doing'. 

 

The second approach seems to go either of two ways: sometimes the mind becomes like a shiny metallic ball, reflecting everything without any blemish to the surface.

 

Or the mind can just become dull, you stop realising that you're distracted by thought and just go into a spaced out trance. 

 

I've started working through a course by (Dharma Drum inheritor) Guo Gu on silent illumination. His teacher Sheng Yen taught a staged approach to the meditation rather than just throwing students in the deep end with the vague instruction to 'just sit'. It starts with progressive relaxation and then awareness of the body as an initial 'tether' for the mind.

 

Experienced hands - is this the wiser approach?

 

 

Edited April 15 by Vajra Fist

[forestofclarity]

1 hour ago, Vajra Fist said:

Experienced hands - is this the wiser approach?

 

I would say it depends on the person. For some people, the invitation to give up effort and agenda may be just the thing. For some one else, it may not work at all. Imagine you're running and trying to stop, but you forgot how. One person can say, "well, just slow down more and more and you'll eventually stop." Some one can say, "Run even faster. Trust me." At first, these instructions seem to contradict. But if you run fast enough, you'll eventually exhaust yourself and stop naturally. 

 

 

[Mark Foote]

4 hours ago, Vajra Fist said:

 

This reminds me of a dharma talk by Mike Luetchford called 'wobbling through life'. He likened shikantaza to riding a bicycle, where at first you tend to 'wobble' between external and internal distraction, until a natural balance arises. 
 

 

 

I used to enjoy the comments and discussion on Brad Warner's posts, back in the time when he left the discussion open.  Long ago.  Mike also studied with Gudo.  I haven't read their translation of Shobogenzo, but I did appreciate one part of their translation of Genjo Koan, to set up that one part, here's a piece of the translation by Paul Jaffe:

 

When fish swim in the water, no matter how much they swim the water does not come to an end. When birds fly in the sky, no matter how much they fly, the sky does not come to an end. However, though fish and birds have never been apart from the water and the air, when the need is great the function is great; when the need is small the function is small. Likewise, it is not that at every moment they are not acting fully, not that they do not turn and move freely everywhere, but if a bird leaves the air, immediately it dies; if a fish leaves the water, immediately it dies.

 

... So, if there were a bird or fish that wanted to go through the sky or the water only after thoroughly investigating its limits, he would not attain his way nor find his place in the water or in the sky. If one attains this place, these daily activities manifest absolute reality. If one attains this Way, these daily activities are manifest absolute reality. 

 

(“Genjo Koan”, Dogen; tr. Paul Jaffe (1996), in Yasutani, Flowers Fall (Boston: Shambhala), 101-107)

 

 

My comment on that, in my piece about Genjo Koan, was:

I like the phrase “it is not that at every moment they are not acting fully, not that they do not turn and move freely everywhere”; Gudo Nishijima goes so far as to translate this as “each one realizes its limitations at every moment and each one somersaults [in complete freedom] at every place”

 

(“Genjo Koan”, Dogen; tr. Gudo Wafu Nishijima, from “Understanding the Shobogenzo”, Windbell Publications 1992).

 

 

One-pointedness, when attention is placed as a function of the movement of breath and can take place anywhere in the body--"somersaults [in complete freedom] at every place".

 

 

4 hours ago, Vajra Fist said:

 

My question I suppose is how do you correct yourself when you notice that an imbalance has occurred - I.e. distracted by thought. Do you note the content of your thought, relax and then let them pass? Or do you just sit and hope that your mind eventually shuts up?
 

 

 

As (one) abides in body contemplating body, either some bodily object arises, or bodily discomfort or drowsiness of mind scatters (one’s) thoughts abroad to externals. Thereupon… (one’s) attention should be directed to some pleasurable object of thought. As (one) thus directs it to some pleasurable object of thought, delight springs up in (one’s being). In (one), thus delighted, arises zest. Full of zest (one’s) body is calmed down. With body so calmed (one) experiences ease. The mind of one at ease is concentrated. (One) thus reflects: The aim on which I set my mind I have attained. Come, let me withdraw my mind [from pleasurable object of thought]. So (one) withdraws (one’s) mind therefrom, and neither starts nor carries on thought-process. Thus (one) is fully conscious: I am without thought initial or sustained. I am inwardly mindful. I am at ease.

 

(Gautama repeats the above for “As (one) contemplates feelings in feelings…”, “… mind in mind…”, “… mind-states in mind-states, either some mental object arises, or…”)

 

Such is the practice for the direction of mind.

 

And what… is the practice for the non-direction of mind? (First,) by not directing (one’s) mind to externals, (one) is fully aware: My mind is not directed to externals. Then (one) is fully aware: My mind is not concentrated either on what is before or on what is behind, but it is set free, it is undirected. Then (one) is fully aware: In body contemplating body I abide, ardent, composed and mindful. I am at ease.

 

And (one) does the same with regard to feelings… to mind… and mind-states. Thus (one) is fully aware: In mind-states contemplating mind-states I abide, ardent, composed and mindful. I am at ease.

 

This is the practice for the non-direction of mind.

 

(SN V 154-157, Pali Text Society SN V p 135-136)

 

When I wrote about my approach, I was basically writing about my experience of the four arisings of mindfulness, the actionable elements of the thought applied and sustained by Gautama in the first concentration (marked by one-pointedness of mind):

 

I begin with making the surrender of volition in activity related to the movement of breath the object of thought. For me, that necessitates thought applied and sustained with regard to relaxation of the activity of the body, with regard to the exercise of calm in the stretch of ligaments, with regard to the detachment of mind, and with regard to the presence of mind. I find that a presence of mind from one breath to the next can precipitate “one-pointedness of mind”, but laying hold of “one-pointedness of mind” requires a surrender of willful activity in the body much like falling asleep.

 

(Response)

 

The difficulty is in doing nothing, while simultaneously relaxing, calming, detaching, and "presenting".   Gautama spoke of feelings of  zest and ease that are simultaneous with one-pointedness--increasingly I find that I must attend to ease, in order to arrive at a moment when one-pointedness "somersaults [in complete freedom] at every place".

I wrote recently about the "scales" I'm practicing these days, and I touched on how I arrive at a feeling of ease:

 

Gautama spoke of suffusing the body with “zest and ease” in the first concentration:

 

 “… (a person) steeps, drenches, fills, and suffuses this body with zest and ease, born of solitude, so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded by this lone-born zest and ease.” 

 

(AN III 25-28, Pali Text Society Vol. III p 18-19; see also MN III 92-93, PTS p 132-1342)

 

 

Words like “steeps” and “drenches” convey a sense of gravity, while the phrase “not one particle of the body that is not pervaded” speaks to the “one-pointedness” of attention, even as the body is suffused.

 

If I can find a way to experience gravity in the placement of attention as the source of activity in my posture, and particular ligaments as the source of the reciprocity in that activity, then I have an ease.

 

("To Enjoy Our Life")

 

Necessity is the mother of invention, but I find the Gautamid an invaluable resource.  

 

 

4 hours ago, Vajra Fist said:

 

I've started working through a course by (Dharma Drum inheritor) Guo Gu on silent illumination. His teacher Sheng Yen taught a staged approach to the meditation rather than just throwing students in the deep end with the vague instruction to 'just sit'. It starts with progressive relaxation and then awareness of the body as an initial 'tether' for the mind.

 

 

Guo Gu, amazing teacher.  One thing I didn't say about finding ease (in the piece I quote from above) is that the sensation is like the feeling in the body coming out of sleep.  That kind of ease.  But ease gives way as the activity of the body comes out of the location of awareness alone, a one-pointed location that can shift and move--just sitting.

 

 

[stirling]

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

The thing is that it opens space to some of the unconscious objects ( not all, there's a lot it won't ) but bringing them to consciousness is only one of the steps, and for the rest of the steps the approaches are very incomplete. 

 

The lenses we are using are different. I agree that is important not to confuse them. There are some events that aren't likely to generate insight in a novice student, which is why every good dharma teacher has a list of counselors and psychiatrists for referring such cases. 

 

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Cognitive methods like the second arrow may be good in some cases, some people would even say in a lot of cases, in other cases not so much. Cognitive methods also do not solve everything and also they're not the right tool for all people.

 

Agreed. Different people will require different modalities. 

 

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

But even within the scope of self-improvement (forget e.g. trauma) there is important stuff missing there.

 

Buddhism isn't about self-improvement, it is about seeing through the delusion of the self. 

 

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

So it's about distinguishing if some practices are good practices and whether their scope and effectiveness is oversold.

They are good practices, I'd even say for some people they're very good, but they also have a more limited scope than advertised.

 

We will have to agree to disagree here.

[stirling]

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Also for the ones it brings to the surface, then there's no proper toolset on what to do with them.

 

And here.

Edited April 16 by stirling

[doc benway]

On 4/13/2024 at 5:43 PM, Vajra Fist said:

So what I'm asking is, where do you sit on this?

 

Nowhere in particular, I just sit.

🥴

 

On 4/13/2024 at 5:43 PM, Vajra Fist said:

Is shikantaza only something that should be practiced when you're close to kensho, or have already experienced kensho.

 

How does one know when or if they are close? Truth be told you are always close, as close as you are to your self. Nothing can promise success and yet it can occur anytime, anywhere, as a result of anything or nothing at all.

 

So why not just sit?

 

On 4/13/2024 at 5:43 PM, Vajra Fist said:

Or is it a viable path to enlightenment even for beginners?

 

 

Yes, a viable, simple, and accessible path for anyone but it will only be effective if you are fortunate enough to be karmically suited to the approach. The focus on different practices is understandable as we always tend to look outward as opposed to in, but the most important variable is always the practitioner. We all need different things at different times in our lives. Figuring out what that is can be elusive but I feel a quiet mind and open heart can be a more effective guide to what that is than the inner analyst. Anyone can wake up at any time for any or no reason and no one, not even the greatest master, can tell another what is needed in their practice but for that very reason, just sitting is a suitable practice for anyone, even the greenest of beginners. Arguably, the freshness of “beginner’s mind” could be an advantage for many.

 

For me, the moment of kenshō was completely spontaneous and unexpected and did not occur during formal practice. One of the things that came out of the experience was a realization of the contrived and artificial aspect of all practices and an insight into the true meaning and value of “just sitting.” Over time, the value of practice once again became meaningful to me and there has been a waxing and waning with respect to feeling a “need” for practice over time. Practice simply becomes life and life becomes practice.

[idiot_stimpy]

On 16/04/2024 at 5:59 AM, forestofemptiness said:

 

I would say it depends on the person. For some people, the invitation to give up effort and agenda may be just the thing. For some one else, it may not work at all. Imagine you're running and trying to stop, but you forgot how. One person can say, "well, just slow down more and more and you'll eventually stop." Some one can say, "Run even faster. Trust me." At first, these instructions seem to contradict. But if you run fast enough, you'll eventually exhaust yourself and stop naturally. 

 

This is a really good description thank you.

[idiot_stimpy]

On 16/04/2024 at 4:23 AM, Vajra Fist said:

Or the mind can just become dull, you stop realising that you're distracted by thought and just go into a spaced out trance. 

 

I've seen teachings when one falls into the dullness described, to take a large breath of air and when exhaling to project a loud thought form of the sound of 'PHAT', intently looking at the PHAT arise and then seeing it disappearing into the space of the mind.

[wstein]

Before enlightenment chop wood, carry water

After enlightenment chop wood, carry water

 

After enlightenment there is no 'practice', there is only being.

It's true that activities still occur but this is incidental to being enlightened.

[Neirong]

People get obsessed with actions and practices, but it is who is doing the practice that matters the most.

 

If you just sit and have a strong energy flow/accumulation and deep mental attainments, it won't be the same as a newcomer who has nothing doing the very same practice. That is also why some of the practices have to be adjusted to the level of a practitioner and not be blindly taken.

There are proper paths of development which unlock internal potential and train your abilities, and you won't get it all with "just sitting."

I tend to think some people procrastinate for hours sitting still and believe they are cultivating. I have seen people who measure meditation attainments by hours spent in meditation, and it is far from an adequate measurement.

[silent thunder]

Our essential nature is awakened.

 

This is clouded over by the conditioned mind which is why sitting and allowing the mind to quiet is as basic and advanced a practice as I've encountered.

 

We are buddha nature.

Tao expresses through our beingness.

 

A muddy glass of water, perpetually stirred will remain cloudy.  But allow it to settle...

 

Muddiest water

Undisturbed by meddling

Rests in clarity.

 

We need not do nor achieve any thing.

 

To encounter our true nature allow that which is not true nature to fall away.

 

Release everything. Absolutely every thing... that which remains is awake.

 

 

Edited April 18 by silent thunder

[stirling]

2 hours ago, Neirong said:

People get obsessed with actions and practices, but it is who is doing the practice that matters the most.

 

If you just sit and have a strong energy flow/accumulation and deep mental attainments, it won't be the same as a newcomer who has nothing doing the very same practice. That is also why some of the practices have to be adjusted to the level of a practitioner and not be blindly taken.

There are proper paths of development which unlock internal potential and train your abilities, and you won't get it all with "just sitting."

I tend to think some people procrastinate for hours sitting still and believe they are cultivating. I have seen people who measure meditation attainments by hours spent in meditation, and it is far from an adequate measurement.

 

People who sit for hours are training their minds to recognize and rest in enlightened mind. This, and perhaps bodhicitta (loving kindness/compassion) are what we are generally cultivating. 

 

Most important factors for reduction of suffering and true insight can be found in "just sitting". Just sitting isn't actually any different than resting in enlightened mind, though you need insight to see it. Of the "Four Noble Truths" the third, cessation of suffering (Nirodha), is no different than the still mind when "just sitting".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

 

The "Noble Eightfold Path" is aspirational, and in't something that can be accomplished without enlightenment EXCEPT to some degree by a mind well-trained in resting in it's own "nature". That training in Zen is called "just sitting".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

 

It took about 25 years to gain permanent non-dual insight. The only adequate measurements I know of are if there is complete insight, and kindness. 

 

[silent thunder]

Incredibly well stated @stirling.

Thank you for finding those words and sharing them!

 

 

[snowymountains]

On 16/04/2024 at 3:19 AM, stirling said:

Buddhism isn't about self-improvement, it is about seeing through the delusion of the self. 

 

 I think that's the most fundamental difference, that self is not a delusion.

 

Having automatic reactions, automatic chains of thoughts etc, doesn't imply we don't have a self.

[Neirong]

2 hours ago, stirling said:

Most important factors for reduction of suffering and true insight can be found in "just sitting". Just sitting isn't actually any different than resting in enlightened mind, though you need insight to see it. Of the "Four Noble Truths" the third, cessation of suffering (Nirodha), is no different than the still mind when "just sitting".

If you have already attained it all, why would you bother sitting? If you have not attained it and have kept sitting still for decades, maybe the practice is not working.
 

The idea of oversimplifying the cultivation path to a single attainment and a single easily understood practice that anyone can do is extremely appealing, but how is it really different from procrastination?
 

You found yourself or your "True Self," what next?

If that is all you seek from meditation practice, are not your goal posts too low?

[stirling]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

 I think that's the most fundamental difference, that self is not a delusion.

 

Having automatic reactions, automatic chains of thoughts etc, doesn't imply we don't have a self.

 

Where do thoughts come from then? Science hasn't figured it out, though they have managed to find correlative brain function. I'm guessing you'll say, "the unconscious", which seems to me to be merely a convenient MacGuffin that stands in for "I don't know". The question: "Where is the "unconscious" travels down a path just a mystical as any attempt to triangulate the location of "self". You might as well try to point to your "human rights". 

 

The origin of thoughts is just one thing to look at, but a powerful one. The insight you are looking for, however, isn't some satisfying logical conclusion, but an experiential insight. 

[stirling]

25 minutes ago, Neirong said:

If you have already attained it all, why would you bother sitting? If you have not attained it and have kept sitting still for decades, maybe the practice is not working.

 

It's NICE to sit! You won't get far in most spirituality without sitting. Meditation is even a feature of magick practice. Getting all of your fixed ideas about yourself and the world out of the way opens up the space for shifts in understanding to occur.

 

Sitting in meditation after insight into the nature of mind deepens the experience of it and helps the continual further dissolution of dualities and ancient twisted karma. 

 

No practice "works". A person who thinks that they can "enlighten" themselves is deluded. There are no enlightened "selves". 

 

Quote

“Gaining enlightenment is an accident. Spiritual practice simply makes us accident-prone.” - Shuryu Suzuki Roshi

 

25 minutes ago, Neirong said:

The idea of oversimplifying the cultivation path to a single attainment and a single easily understood practice that anyone can do is extremely appealing, but how is it really different from procrastination?

 

We are in the Buddhism subforum, so I'm speaking specifically of Buddhism, here. 

 

The Zen path and Dzogchen path, which have been my primary vehicles, can be expressed this way. Most Buddhism eschews striving, as well as clinging or aversion, leaving "enlightenment projects" to other disciplines in recognition that it really isn't UP to "you". 

 

Procrastination? What is it that you think needs to be done?

 

25 minutes ago, Neirong said:

You found yourself or your "True Self," what next?

 

Deepening insight. Enjoying being-ness. Flying to other planets and visiting space beings. The siddhis are interesting. 

(just kidding about the space beings)

 

25 minutes ago, Neirong said:

If that is all you seek from meditation practice, are not your goal posts too low?

 

I used to meditate because I was a happier, calmer, less reactive person when I did. I initially became a dedicated meditator after 2 weeks of practice changed my life.

 

At this point I'm fresh out of goals or posts, or anyone to have any. 

 

 

[snowymountains]

9 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Where do thoughts come from then? Science hasn't figured it out, though they have managed to find correlative brain function. I'm guessing you'll say, "the unconscious", which seems to me to be merely a convenient MacGuffin that stands in for "I don't know". The question: "Where is the "unconscious" travels down a path just a mystical as any attempt to triangulate the location of "self". You might as well try to point to your "human rights". 

 

The origin of thoughts is just one thing to look at, but a powerful one. The insight you are looking for, however, isn't some satisfying logical conclusion, but an experiential insight. 

 

Buddhism hasn't figured it out either, it just makes claims on an axiomatic basis. It's a religion.

 

Re the unconscious, never said it's the source of thoughts, can't understand it either tbh.

 

There is much more experiental insight in psychological methods than Buddhist ones btw.

[stirling]

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Buddhism hasn't figured it out either, it just makes claims on an axiomatic basis. It's a religion.

 

Which Buddhism do you mean? Some branches are religious and some aren't. Is resting in nirodha/cessation where the mind is still and quiescent religious?

 

It isn't Buddhism that understands or explains thoughts, or mind, or the world, it is enlightenment. Buddhism is simply a vehicle to a destination. Once there is arriving, it doesn't retain the same importance. It is direct experience that is valued, not axioms. The knowledge we are looking for is never merely conceptual.  

 

It is ultimately unimportant if a conceptual construct around where thoughts come from exists. Complete understanding of the nature of reality makes such a questions nonsense, where the time, space, and self are seen through as illusions. This is the reason that Buddhism doesn't generally attempt to answer questions of cosmology. It is an experiential understanding, not some kind of denial or reformation of ones views that precipitates this. 

 

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Re the unconscious, never said it's the source of thoughts, can't understand it either tbh.

 

Definitely agreed. It is mysterious. Thoughts seem to come out of nowhere, and disappear. This is the true of all phenomena, including self, moment to moment. The world is a pulsing fountain of things arising and disappearing, moment to moment. 

 

Reminds me of:

 

Quote

 

Happiness cannot be found
through great effort and willpower,
but is already here, perfect and complete,
in relaxation and letting go.

 

Don’t worry, there is nothing to do.
Whatever arises in the mind has no importance,
because it has no reality.


Do not hold on to it. Do not judge.

Let the play happen by itself,
arising and passing,
without changing anything –
everything dissolves and begins anew, without end.

 

Only your search for happiness
prevents you from seeing it,
like a rainbow that you chase
without ever catching it.

 

Although happiness does not exist,
it has always been there
and accompanies you
in every moment.

 

Do not believe that good
or bad experiences have reality.
They are like rainbows.
Wanting to grasp the ungraspable,
you exhaust yourself in vain.

 

As soon as you relax this grasping,
there is space – open, inviting and joyful.
Make use of it.
Everything is already yours.

 

Do not search further.
Do not enter the impenetrable jungle
to search for the elephant
that is already quietly at home.

 

Nothing to do,
nothing to force,
nothing to want,
and everything happens by itself.

 

– Lama Gendun Rinpoche

 

 

 

8 hours ago, snowymountains said:

There is much more experiental insight in psychological methods than Buddhist ones btw.

 

Which Buddhism? There is abundantly more insight in resting the mind in it's own nature than in either Buddhism OR psychology.

[Nintendao]

For schools that emphasize just sitting, do they generally practice in groups, or is sitting in solitude considered equally effective? What about sitting out amongst nature? The power of koan to knock the mind offline might be intended as an anesthetic. Less useful in and of itself unless the doctor is there and ready to operate. This thought occurred to me when listening to the following video. While Damo will be the first to deny he is any kind of enlightened, he do be emitting some light.

 

 

[snowymountains]

8 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Which Buddhism do you mean? Some branches are religious and some aren't. Is resting in nirodha/cessation where the mind is still and quiescent religious?

 

It isn't Buddhism that understands or explains thoughts, or mind, or the world, it is enlightenment. Buddhism is simply a vehicle to a destination. Once there is arriving, it doesn't retain the same importance. It is direct experience that is valued, not axioms. The knowledge we are looking for is never merely conceptual.  

 

It is ultimately unimportant if a conceptual construct around where thoughts come from exists. Complete understanding of the nature of reality makes such a questions nonsense, where the time, space, and self are seen through as illusions. This is the reason that Buddhism doesn't generally attempt to answer questions of cosmology. It is an experiential understanding, not some kind of denial or reformation of ones views that precipitates this. 

 

 

Definitely agreed. It is mysterious. Thoughts seem to come out of nowhere, and disappear. This is the true of all phenomena, including self, moment to moment. The world is a pulsing fountain of things arising and disappearing, moment to moment. 

 

Reminds me of:

 

 

 

 

Which Buddhism? There is abundantly more insight in resting the mind in it's own nature than in either Buddhism OR psychology.

 

All branches are religious, some ( most ) branches advocate a non- theistic religion, but it is a religion.

 

It does deal with cosmology, how the universe is created, destroyed and then created again , the 6 planes or more granularly 31 planes etc. There's a lot of cosmology in the Pali Suttas.

In Zen too references to the 6 realms are common ( hell, hungry ghosts, animals, us, demigods, devas).

 

The whole notion of rebirth is a religious notion as well, and so is Nirvana, it's cessation of thought in order to stop the cycle of rebirths and suffering.

 

The meditative practice is excellent, that's a different discussion. Still other tools are also needed for removing conditioning or at least as much of it as can possibly be removed.

[stirling]

20 minutes ago, Nintendao said:

For schools that emphasize just sitting, do they generally practice in groups, or is sitting in solitude considered equally effective?

 

My group sits for 15 minutes at the beginning of our sangha meetings, but it isn't terribly relevant in the scheme of things. I encourage students to sit for at least 20 minutes a day, but hopefully more like 40 minutes at least once, or even twice a day. Sitting at least 40 minutes a day, with regular teacher check-ins is optimal, in my opinion. 

 

20 minutes ago, Nintendao said:

What about sitting out amongst nature?

 

Sitting in nature, or walking when one is able to have a fairly quiet mind is VERY beneficial. I walk for an hour most days, and it is very productive.

 

20 minutes ago, Nintendao said:

The power of koan to knock the mind offline might be intended as an anesthetic. Less useful in and of itself unless the doctor is there and ready to operate.

 

The Rinzai Zen school like to use koan study, but I have never bonded with it. The idea of backing the mind into a corner is in many traditions, including Advaita and Sufism, so I think must work for some percentage of practitioners. 

 

20 minutes ago, Nintendao said:

This thought occurred to me when listening to the following video. While Damo will be the first to deny he is any kind of enlightened, he do be emitting some light.

 

I don't know anything about Mr. Mitchell.

 

[stirling]

29 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

All branches are religious, some ( most ) branches advocate a non- theistic religion, but it is a religion.

 

It does deal with cosmology, how the universe is created, destroyed and then created again , the 6 planes or more granularly 31 planes etc. There's a lot of cosmology in the Pali Suttas.

In Zen too references to the 6 realms are common ( hell, hungry ghosts, animals, us, demigods, devas).

 

The whole notion of rebirth is a religious notion as well, and so is Nirvana, it's cessation of thought in order to stop the cycle of rebirths and suffering.

 

Are you familiar with the Two Truths Doctrine?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine#:~:text=The Buddhist doctrine of the,ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.

[snowymountains]

42 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Are you familiar with the Two Truths Doctrine?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine#:~:text=The Buddhist doctrine of the,ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.

 

Yes, but I don't agree with it, it takes a very maximalistic point of view.

[stirling]

17 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Yes, but I don't agree with it, it takes a very maximalistic point of view.

 

The teachings on the absolute are "maximalist" because the nature of reality is uncompromising. It can't be bent to encompass conceptual frameworks that we cherish.

 

Intellectually, I completely get how the absolute can create cognitive dissonance, but it truly is the reality of things. Once seen and understood, there is no way understand the world in the way it was before... not that this is a burden... it is a great joy. 

 

The relative teachings, which include the realms, rebirth, etc. are not ultimately real, though as real as anything else you think is "real". Nirvana IS real, but is not some other place or thing other than what is happening in this moment. It is always right here. 

 

The relative teachings are where "religious" ideas live in the Buddhist teachings. The relative teachings are skillful means, where ability to work with the absolute teachings is still in development. The teachings on impermanence, and especially dependent origination are the bridge to the absolute teachings. The relative actually is ALWAYS pointing at the absolute. 

 

The absolute teachings (and the relative teachings couching absolute teachings) are not at all religious, once fully understood.

Coming full circle: The meditation practice (in Zen/Mahamudra/Dgozchen) is, from the beginning, an absolute practice that cultivates insight into the non-dual nature of reality. The absolute isn't going to resonate with ANYONE'S ideas about how reality is.