Talk:Shikantaza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Shikantaza, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 to do 2 different translation of shikantaza? 3 What do people think of this (potential) addition? 3.1 Empirical explanation of central buddhist concepts 4 Is Shikantaza simple? 5 stuff 6 Question 7 Useful info

[edit] to do

• Maybe there should be something about the subject-object dualism. This "disappears" while meditating.
• Also something about stages of meditation would be nice, maybe a short explanation of the ten oxherding pictures?

((Ten Oxherding Pictures is more prevalent in Rinzai, shikantaza is more Soto.))

I heartily second the inclusion of the ten oxherding pictures. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

yeah, it would make the theory a lot more accessible Hippocrates

• explanation of emptiness

Does emptiness make an important appearance in the theory of Shikantaza? If so, I should incorporate a reference on the sunyata page. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

I don't know exactly. It is a mahayana idea and zen is also mahayana. But this answer isn't very precise. If you think it's essential to be clear about it i can ask a zen-monk (I had an e-mail conversation and paid him a visit a little while ago). I thought it could be illustrative, since this is experienced by advanced practitioners. Hippocrates

(There are some (David Kalupahana) who would dispute sunyata as a Mahayana concept, but the bulk of scholarship is on your side. :) ) I'm pretty sure I don't recall seeing a lot about sunyata in the Waddell/Abe Shobogenzo anthology, though of course there's considerable conceptual overlap. (Sunyata is, as logically argued by its primary exponents, identical with pratitya-samutpada, and thus can be said to appear throughout Buddhism.) I know that Keiji Nishitani, whose lineage goes back to Soto (I think; I could be wrong here) as well as to western Existentialism places heavy emphasis on sunyata, but I'm not sure whether that's an inheritance from Soto or something he picked up studying Buddhist history... -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 19:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Western existentialism talking about sunyata..? (do you know which philosopher?) Hippocrates

• practice is enlightenment (see below for some info)

[edit] different translation of shikantaza?

Nat, check this website: [[1]] It says the following: 'The za in shikantaza is the same as in ‘zazen’, and means ‘sitting’. But the ideograph that is before ‘za’, that which is written ta, is very interesting. ‘Ta’ means ‘hitting the centre’ or ‘touching the centre’, in the same way as when we practise archery, and you shoot the arrow; you touch the centre. This is the meaning of ‘ta’ here, in shikantaza.' I must admit I've no knowledge of Japanese, yet I've never saw it translated as "nothing but doing sitting". Hippocrates

I don't know anything about Japanese either, but these are Chinese characters, and I do know a little about that, although not a great deal. 打 (da) literally means to hit something (as in "don't hit me") but it is commonly paired with a noun or verb describing an activity to mean "to do". I.e., "打 (da) ball" means to play a ballgame, etc. 打座 (da zuo) is a standard phrase in Chinese that means to do sitting meditation. I suspect that when the guy you cited above says "hitting the centre", he is being poetic, and, in that sense, I don't doubt that he's right. - Nat Krause 09:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then, maybe we should discuss whether the reader is best served by a strict literal, or a somewhat poetical explanation. Hippocrates

[edit] What do people think of this (potential) addition?

I'm not sure if this is just my opinion or if most Buddhists would agree with this Hippocrates

[edit] Empirical explanation of central buddhist concepts

Meditative practice stands in close relationship with central buddhist concepts. Some people actually "see" them work. The [marks of conditioned existence], a central Buddhist doctrine, will be explained from the viewpoint of the meditator.

• Anicca: "impermanence"

This first aspect points at the continuous flux of life. Everything is always in motion. Nothing is stable and permanent. Shikantaza is practiced from this point of view. The meditator doesn't discriminate between experiences. Everything is accepted exactly as it is, because ultimately nothing lasts. Knowing there's no real foundation one could hold onto, the actual practice also is of this nature. There's no focussing on any specific experience or thought (as is usual in most meditative practices, for example anapana sati). Because of this the meditation is experienced as a mental state of openness and acceptation.

• Dukkha: "sorrow"

This is perhaps on of the most difficult concepts to understand from the perspective of practice. Gautama Buddha says the fundamental problem of life are our desire's (see Four Noble Truths). These create attachments. This implicates that we like some, but dislike other experiences. The meditator learns to be fully aware of the experience as it is. It isn't possible to add or substract anything any more. In this way no new attachment is created and older ones slowly fade away. Over a period of time (some teachers say it takes approximately four years of intensive practice) it is held to be possible to transcend all attachments. Thereby aquiring the original and natural state of mind - see enlightenment (Buddhism). In which all experiences reveil themselves as emptiness (sunyata).

• Anatta: "no self" (better translation would be 'not-self, otherwise one may inadvertently lead others to nihilistic ideas. Whatever arises is seen to be 'not a permanent self'.Guoshow 11:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC) /\)
  

Buddhism teaches the concept of Anatta. Although every human has the idea of a soul, or a deep feeling of "me" or "self", Buddhism claims there's no stable essence in a human. This can be explained as follows. When incorporating shikantaza in one's life, gradually experiences are welcomed more and more. A great awareness develops itself, which makes it possible to look very carefully at every experience. Which reveils itself as emptiness - as explained before. Then it turns out that even the idea, or this deep "feeling" of a soul every human has, is merely an idea. A thought. Even this idea reveils itself as empty. Which means that the complete identification with this idea no longer holds. Then at once all boundaries break, suddenly there's no difference between the thought of "me" and the sound of a singing bird.

[edit] Is Shikantaza simple?

I think there needs to be something about the lenght of training sessions, people getting beated with sticks, the master-student relationship. Yet, maybe most of this belongs to the soto article. The "people getting beated with sticks" is a part of the meditation, it's a sort of correcting method - making the practioner sit more just.(I inserted the japanese signs already, and corrected some small errors.) Kukkurovaca: I agree with most of your alterations, yet I do think there should be something about the "formal" or as I called it "scientific" character of Soto-zen and shikantaza. Hippocrates 17:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) ((I've been sitting for a few years and have yet to be hit with a stick. The practice has been mainly abandoned in the US))

I deleted the following: 只管打座 not quite knowing what it was. Are these some japanese signs my computer doesn't recognize? Hippocrates 21:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In no special order: It's entirely probable that those are japanese characters (I'm hoping that's the case); generally speaking if you see characters your computer can't interpret it's because someone's using obscure unicode characters from a native character set. Cf. my signature. Now, I don't know anything about Japanese, the computer I'm using right now can't understand anything obscure (including my signature), and in short I can't testify to the accuracy of those characters.

Now, I'm not sure what you mean by the "formal" or "scientific" but I can assure you that the word "scientific" in association with a religious practice is (a) almost always a bad idea and (b) certainly not going to be Wikipedia-kosher. We can find ways to talk about how shikantaza is special without appealing to scientificity. For now, tell me more about what you mean by "formal."

You're right that we need something about practices supporting shikantaza, including the beating with sticks. I only removed the comment earlier because it broke the fourth wall, as it were. I would elaborate on this myself, but it's not a part of the tradition that I know well. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

((Nothing supports shikantaza- that is why it is called shikantaza. But we are often assigned counting the breath in Soto practice as beginners, graduating to simply following the breath in and out and then hopefully the student can let go into just sitting.))

Shikantaza is often presented as down to earth, very empirical and not mysterious. Like one would be doing some surgical operation. It's also cleared of all sorts of esoteric tendencies, anyone could be doing this - you don't urgently need special tools/ statues/ pictures/etc except for a quiet room and a zafu. (by the way, to me this is a very paradoxal aspect, because the "method" isn't easy to grasp - It's difficult to learn, even with a teacher...which makes it quite esoteric!) Hippocrates

((But it is not that intersting things do not occur along the path to shikantaza. All sorts of bizarre things pop up while we are on the cushion. We simply try not to grasp and cling to them. Thoughts come and go, we let them pass like clouds))

I'm familiar with some of the theoretical arguments and have read some of the core Shobogenzo fascicles, so I know a little about what you're talking about. I should point out that empiricality is no barrier to mysticism--in fact, all mysticism is empirical, because it is a form of religion that rests upon personal experience as a means of practice. Of course, not everyone agrees with William James on this point, but it's pretty solid. Certainly Shikantaza is one of the most methodologically simple (though, as you point out, not therefore easy) forms of meditation. But I don't see what simplicity has to do with scientificity or formality, or why calling it "simple" isn't sufficiently clear. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this paradoxal aspect of Shikantaza should be explained. You write for example: "While the practical method of shikantaza is almost as simple as can be imagined...". This is true and at the same time not true. For an experienced practitioner the method is straightforward and simple. Yet, for a beginner this "practical" method is almost impossible to understand. It demands literature study (and/or teaching) and actual practice to understand it thoroughly.

((I would tend to disagree with the part about needing to read Dogen, literature etc. In Japan, a newcomer is simply thrust on the pillow with no instruction. The student squirms, literally and figuratively, for a while, and as they query the Sensei in sanzen, they are gradually instructed. We are often told not to seek in words and phrases, but to simply sit and see what happens.))

Secondly, what I call "scientific" (but still, a better word is needed) is the down-to-earth way of speaking about the practice by zen-masters. As well as the search for very good explanations of the whole idea of meditation and this specific practice. Here also, it would be too short to just say "simple". That doesn't cover everything (and could be interpreted wrongly, like it's something children can do easily) Hippocrates

Well, I don't see difficulty and obscurity as contradicting simplicity--it seems to me that as long as we make clear that simplicity doesn't correlate to ease of implementation, it should be adequate. And of course I agree it's important to highlight the complex theoretical and suplementary apparatus surrounding the practice. I think perhaps, as to the expression of what you refer to as scientific or down-to-earth, we might do better by saying what it is not--for example, I think shikantaza might be characterized as a non-esoteric mystical experience. (I.e., a special kind of transformative religious experience which is not characterized by specialized, complex practices--tantra being the characteristically esoteric mode of practice in the Buddhist context.) -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

[edit] stuff

Hippocrates: Hello Kukkurovaca. I made an account on your suggestion. Thanks for the tips. I'm new here, you probably already recognized.... :). bye.

Excellent. By the way, I may have sounded curt before, as is my wont, but your edits were quite useful, and appreciated. Happy stuff. (BTW, if you don't want to have to bother to sign your name, stick three tildes ("~") at the end of your message, or four if you also want a timestamp.) -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:51, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm in the process of cleaning up a whole mess of edits by an anon. I'm putting some material here that doesn't belong in the body of the article but may do well in another article. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

I'm sticking the "history" section in the Soto article for now. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

[edit] Question

Do people think the bit about a blank mind not being the point would profit from a cross-reference to the Samatha-Vipassana distinction? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

yes, maybe. Yet there's a chance things only get more complicated. Or become theoretically unclear, because Vipassana is not the same as Shikantaza. The differences are subtle and hard to describe (it's all such introspective stuff). Hippocrates

Actually, it's important to distinguish between Vipassana as a sort of school of meditation as opposed to the actual concept of discernment/insight/whatever as a phase of the meditative experience, because the samatha-vipassana distinction persists throughout Buddhism, not merely in Theravada. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 19:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, in this sence it could be helpful. Maybe link it to the distinction koan-shikantaza..? Hippocrates

[edit] Useful info

• practice is enlightenment

In Zen terms we say honsho myoshu. Honsho means intrinsic enlightenment; myoshu, subtle practice. We say practice and enlightenment, or realization, are one. How is it one thing? When you sit, your zazen is the zazen of the Buddhas. Your zazen is sitting Buddha, or Buddha's zazen. So your practice is realization itself, enlightenment itself. Your zazen becomes anuttara samyak sambodhi itself. Have this kind of faith. Usually when you do zazen, zazen becomes a cause to create some kind of effect, such as enlightenment, frustration, anger, or whatever arises. That is the wrong way to do zazen. Your practice is not something by which you attain some place else or something else. Your practice itself is a fulfillment of honsho myoshu, the originally enlightened life.

((Svaha! Our enlightened activity is the same as the Buddha's! Mahakasyapa wiggles his toes in our shoes! Another point, Shikantaza is NOT meditation, according to Dogen. There is no object on which to meditate. Thank you for your fine page!))

Response:

Yes I think this is probably the most vital point about Shikantaza. Everything else that is said or written about Shiakantaza is just a result of practice, and therefore if you add extra information about Shikantaza you may confuse people and they might start trying to do things that they read. This defeats the purpose of practice and may cause more problems. Yes you are right Dogen did say practice and realization are the same thing and this is what makes Zen so different from other Buddhist sects which lack the self sufficient that zen practice emphasises. This should be included as a vital root to Shikantaza and realaization!

Vishal 25 Feb 2007