Sometimes on this blog I write things very quickly without going over them with the kind of rigor I would when preparing something for a book or a magazine article. This is one of those times. It’s something I want to get off my chest right away without fussing over it too much and thus losing the spirit of it. As such there are bound to be mistakes and things that I’ll later realize I could have said a lot better. But here goes anyway…
I was just reading a thing by Sam Harris that says, “For beginners, I always recommend a technique called vipassana (Pali, “insight”), which comes from the oldest tradition of Buddhism, the Theravada. The advantage of vipassana is that it can be taught in an entirely secular way. Experts in this practice generally acquire their training in a Buddhist context, of course–and most retreat centers in the U.S. and Europe still teach its associated Buddhist philosophy. Nevertheless, this method of introspection can be brought within any secular or scientific context without embarrassment. The same cannot be said for most other forms of ‘spiritual’ instruction.”
Sam Harris is just one of many people in these here United States in these here modern times who hope to find that unicorn of unicorns, a form of meditation that “can be taught in an entirely secular way,” that is completely devoid of any taint of that most dreaded and feared of dreaded and feared things, the one thing above all others that is the cause of absolutely every problem in the world from the beginning of time – cue scary music here – religion!
I have been just as highly critical of religion as Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins or anybody else. I am not a religious person. I know very well the evils of religion. One of the very first things I ever posted on the Interwebs in my capacity as a Zen writer was a piece about how the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York were caused by religion and that religion was a festering source of evil and badness.
So I get it. I completely and totally get it. I understand why Sam Harris and so many others long for a completely de-religious-ized version of meditation.
The problem is that our definitions about what constitutes religion are so broad that, if we’re gonna be scared of religion, we’re going to be scared of a lot of the very things that make meditation work.
For example, now that I’ve introduced traditional Zen Buddhist chanting services into some of the events I host, lots of people have been put off by the supposed religiousity of chanting ancient sutras together. It’s too much like singing hymns at church. And all that bowing! Its horrifying! The next thing you know we’re going to be attacking the Muslims next door for being infidels. Something that atheists like Mr. Harris would never do…
So. OK. Chanting services. I get it. They are kinda religious. So maybe if we don’t have chanting services we won’t be considered so scarily religious.
Afraid not. Even the mere acknowledgement that we are teaching a meditation technique derived from the teachings of Buddha and from the tradition that grew up and was refined for 2500 years around that original spark is enough the make people turn away. When we insist that the posture one takes in meditation is important, there are folks who find that offensive and terrifyingly religious.
But what happens when we attempt to sterilize meditation practice of anything anyone could in any way, shape or form accuse of being religious? What do we get?
I suppose we get science. And science is nice, right? It involves no reliance at all on any sort of a belief system. Everything is testable, repeatable and contains no hint at all of superstition or anything supernatural. Phew! What a relief! Everything is OK then. Gosh. And that was so easy!
But is it?
Look. I like science. I like the scientific method. I agree that the rational, non-superstitious non-supernatural approach is best. In fact I agree with that old horrible religious Buddhist Dogen who said that nothing – nothing at all in the whole universe throughout all of time – is outside of the laws of cause and effect. Which, to me, is the scientific method in a nutshell and echoes very similar statements made by the Buddha himself.
But Dogen and the Buddha and all the rest of this tradition never abandoned all that religious poppycock completely. They still performed rituals and ceremonies, they bowed to icons, they even said things that could be defined as (gasp!) prayers.
Why? Why? Why? Why did you let us down Dogen and Buddha and Lin Chi and Nagarjuna and all the rest? Why didn’t you dump all that stuff in the fire where it belongs? If only you’d done that we wouldn’t have to make the whole thing up ourselves anew.
Yet what happens when we try to re-invent that which has already been invented? What does a totally sterilized version of meditation look like?
For one thing, you get a lot of people involved who don’t really grasp the fullness of what it is they’re working with. They ignore the tradition and teach meditation as stress reduction, only to find that for a certain portion of beginning practitioners, meditation actually seems to trigger an increase in stress and anxiety. Because they refuse to look into a tradition that sometimes talks in spooky terms of things like Storehouse Consciousness or even (oh save us!) demons, they don’t know how to deal with it when meditation gets a little hairy scary.
What will we do about that? We’ll have to invent new words and new methods to deal with that stuff. We’ll have to codify it… again.
Nor can we avail ourselves of the kinds of spaces that have been developed by centuries of people dedicated to coming up with the very best places most conducive to meditative practice. Because those spaces are (horrors!) temples! They have all those ghastly statues in them! There are weird rules about entering the space. You have to bow to it! You have to (say it isn’t so!) bow in supplication to something greater than yourself!
And there’s nothing greater than yourself.
And what about science? I mean, I love it. I honestly do. But I can’t do all that math. I don’t understand all those complex calculations. I don’t really grasp why the moon stays up in the sky except to know it’s not magic. But because I don’t understand the science behind it, I have to rely on a certain amount of (please don’t make me use this word) faith.
I’m not one of those weirdos who likes to shout, “Science is a religion!” whenever somebody suggests that dinosaurs didn’t all die in the Great Flood. But can’t we at least admit that even though our scientist friends say that anybody could do the same calculations and come up with the same results, most of us don’t really know that for sure? Is that too much to say?
That is, the general outlines of something like the Theory of Evolution are obvious and sensible. But once we get into the details of how evolution works we’re dealing with something very akin to accepting what the priest says because he’s a priest and therefore possesses knowledge unavailable to us. Notice, please (oh please notice!) that I’m not saying that therefore evolution is just a theory and we ought to give equal time in our classrooms to the ancient Buddhist cosmological theories because they’re theories too.
EVOLUTION IS REAL. Just so you know that’s what I believe. But I am asking, in all sincerity, can we at least admit that most of us who believe in evolution are pretty much as clueless about how it works in the details (not in the overarching theoretical structure) as we are about how Noah got all those animals in the Ark? And that this goes for a whole lot of what we call science? And that a lot of what gets called “science” is often kind of flaky? And that science can and in fact has been just as horribly abused as religion? Science gave us gas chambers and the atomic bomb and twisted proofs that certain races were superior to others for gosh-sakes!
Please (oh I beg you puh-leeeeeeaaaase) understand I’m not saying that scientific theory is therefore on an equal footing with religious dogma when it comes to things like how the Earth was formed. However, when it comes to explaining how meditation works, I would say that science is ages behind Buddhism and some of the other (oh my flying spaghetti monster~!) “religions” that have been working on the matter for centuries.
I like the fact that people want to pursue meditation in a rational way devoid of superstition and the supernatural. I totally support that. But I also think there’s a reason the Buddhist tradition has not thrown away every single thing that seems the least bit religious.
The Buddhist tradition has been corrupted and misused and there is misogyny and racism and all the rest of that bad stuff included within institutions and practices that fall under the broad heading of “Buddhism.” But at it’s core, it is highly rational and anti-supernatural, anti-superstitious. When we try to completely sterilize the tradition of all things that it seems to have in common with superstitious supernatural-based religions, we are in danger of losing something very important.
Uh. I’ll go back and fix this one of these days.
Good Saturday to you!
* * *
I’m on my way to Europe soon. I’ll get paid for most of the events I’m doing, but often it’s just barely enough to get to the next place. Your kind donations help out a lot. Thank you!
* * *
Here’s my upcoming events schedule:
Oct. 1 Turku Panimoravintola Koulu, Finland– Movie screening
Oct. 2 Helsinki, Finland — Lecture Event
Oct. 3-5 Helsinki, Finland Zen retreat at Helsinki Zen Center
Oct. 6 Movie Screening in Espoo, Finland
Oct. 8 Lecture in Munich, Germany
Oct. 10-11 Retreat in Munich, Germany
Oct. 12-17 Retreat at Benediktushof near Würzburg, Germany
Oct 18-19 Retreat in Bonn, Germany
Oct 20 Hamburg, Germany
Oct 24: Lecture in Groningen, Netherlands
Oct 25: Day-long zazen in Groningen, Netherlands
Oct 26: Movie screening in Eindhoven, Netherlands at Natlab
Oct 27: Evening zazen in Eindhoven, Netherlands
Oct 28: Evening zazen in Nijmegen, Netherlands
Oct 29: Lecture in Amsterdam, Netherlands at “De Roos” bookstore from 19.00-21.00 (P Cornelisz Hooftstr 183)
Oct 30: Lecture in Utrecht, Netherlands at “De wijze kater” bookstore from 19.00-21.00 ( Mariaplaats 1, Utrecht)
Nov 1-2: Retreat in Utrecht, Netherlands
Nov. 2: Movie screening in Utrecht, Netherlands at ACU
Nov 6-8: Retreat in Hebden Bridge, UK
Nov 9: Noon — 5pm Manchester, UK
Sam Harris:
Mindfulness is Powerful, But Keep Religion Out of It
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwac6Uk-zyk
Another great talk by Sam Harris. All be happy he’s there now and is finally doing what Zen failed to do. Get that golden meditation nugget and let it shine without Religion/Buddhism shitting on it and making it all muddy and unclear. No more spooky metaphysics necessary…no more need to bullshit ourselves with weird religious claims like that you have to sit like a Brezel and that then is enlightenment.
Shodo: “what Brad teaches about lotus is “his truth”… it’s not supported anywhere in the teachings of Buddhism or Zen.”
You’re wrong about that.
“DÅgen’s own comments here focus especially on the practice of sitting with legs crossed (kekkafu za çµè·è¶ºå; Sanskrit paryaá¹…ka), the posture sometimes known as the “lotus position” (Sanskrit padmÄsana). This practice, he associates with a famous teaching he attributes to his Chinese master, Rujing 如淨, that the study of Zen is “just sitting,” (shikan taza 祗管打å) with “body and mind sloughed off” (shinjin datsuraku 身心脱è½). Through this association, DÅgen is able to claim that sitting with legs crossed is itself the king of samÄdhis, is itself the complete practice and teaching of the Buddha, is itself the spiritual lineage of the first Zen ancestor, Bodhidharma. The emphasis on such claims makes this short text one of the more important sources for understanding DÅgen’s approach to zazen practice.”
from here: http://scbs.stanford.edu/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/zanmai_o_zanmai/intro.html
– which is the introduction to this translation of Dogen’s ‘The King of Samadhi’s Samadhi’ (Zanmai Å zanmai):
http://scbs.stanford.edu/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/zanmai_o_zanmai/translation.html
Dogen Zenji is generally regarded as the founder of the Soto sect of Japanese Zen Buddhism.
Shodo: “what Brad teaches about lotus is “his truth”… it’s not supported anywhere in the teachings of Buddhism or Zen.”
You’re wrong about that.
“DÅgen’s own comments here focus especially on the practice of sitting with legs crossed (kekkafu za çµè·è¶ºå; Sanskrit paryaá¹…ka), the posture sometimes known as the “lotus position” (Sanskrit padmÄsana). This practice, he associates with a famous teaching he attributes to his Chinese master, Rujing 如淨, that the study of Zen is “just sitting,” (shikan taza 祗管打å) with “body and mind sloughed off” (shinjin datsuraku 身心脱è½). Through this association, DÅgen is able to claim that sitting with legs crossed is itself the king of samÄdhis, is itself the complete practice and teaching of the Buddha, is itself the spiritual lineage of the first Zen ancestor, Bodhidharma. The emphasis on such claims makes this short text one of the more important sources for understanding DÅgen’s approach to zazen practice.”
from here: http://scbs.stanford.edu/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/zanmai_o_zanmai/intro.html
– which is the introduction to this translation of Dogen’s ‘The King of Samadhi’s Samadhi’ (Zanmai Å zanmai):
http://scbs.stanford.edu/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/zanmai_o_zanmai/translation.html
Dogen Zenji is generally regarded as the founder of the Soto sect of Japanese Zen Buddhism.
All that says is that Dogen viewed sitting in the Lotus Pose as “best”.
It doesn’t mean he thought sitting seiza or in a chair as worthless, or “not zazen”.
Shodo, I don’t doubt that you sincerely disagree with (what I understand to be) Brad’s view that ‘Zazen’ is a cross-legged activity and that sitting/meditating in a chair is a different activity.
But at this point I think enough views on this have been explored and we’re now just trying to win an argument, to prove we’re right. Not always a bad thing. But I don’t think this is a winnable argument – because what ‘Zazen’ is and what it’s ‘for’ is – the evidence would suggest – a matter of opinion and personal experience. Brad has offered his opinion and described his experience many times.
It’s been interesting. I’m happy to leave you with the last word, if you’d like it.
As much as I’d like to join you in a throwing up of hands and a cry of “That’s like, your OPINION man!” I’m going to end this with a question.
It’s the question that I have asked and Brad has never answered.
“once the posture is perfected, Lotus is good, mudra is excellent, back is straight and chin is tucked in… the 3 bells to start the period has rung….
*BAM*
What is done with the mind?”
Is there anything specific to be done with the mind to practice zazen?
Can you sit down with the intention of being lost in thought? Fantasies? And as long as you’re doing it in Lotus, can you still call it zazen?
Judging by Dogen Sangha International’s zazen instruction page, all zazen IS is the proper form for getting into Lotus, and then the proper form for getting out of Lotus, there are no instructions for what should be done with the mind.
If there IS something to be done with the mind during those 30 minutes that is intregal to doing zazen, then it seems to me the exlusivity Brad claims about sitting in Lotus is wrong, because what is done with the mind could be done in a chair…
But if there is NOTHING to be done with the mind… if zazen is ONLY sitting still in Lotus for 30 minutes, and it doesn’t matter if you are aware of the flow of thought or replaying scenes from your favorite movies, then that seems to me that Brad would have to believe this in order to think what he thinks about Lotus.
I would like him to answer…
Hell, I’d love to hear what you think anon 108. 😉
Is fantasizing for 30 minutes in Lotus zazen? Or is it not?
“What is done with the mind?”
What mind?
Playing with language is fun Fred, but it doesn’t answer the question… 😉
Is intentionally fantasizing for 30 minutes in the Lotus posture zazen? Or is it not?
“Is intentionally fantasizing for 30 minutes in the Lotus posture zazen? Or is it not?”
No. It’s not. Any intention other than to maintain the balanced (lotus) posture is not zazen as taught by Dogen, as understood and taught by many (not all) Soto Zen teachers and practitioners throughout the ages.
To sit without intention (including, of course, the intention to fantasize or not to fantasize) is not easy to do. Arguably, it’s impossible – to try not to try. Some people are attracted to this seemingly easy, arguably impossible practice and have found it profoundly valuable. Others imagine it to be, or find it to be, pointless. A waste of time. For those people other forms of zazen or meditation, with and without prescribed postures and intentions, are available. I don’t doubt that some of those people find those other practices to be profoundly valuable, too.
“Is fantasizing for 30 minutes in Lotus zazen? Or is it not?”
If such a thing were possible (and in my experience, it’s not) then yes, that’s 30 minutes of zazen during which I fantasized.
…during which I did NOTHING BUT fantasize. Like I said, not possible, IME.
anon 108:
You’ve answered both yes and no anon 108…
Is fantasizing for 30 minutes in Lotus zazen? Or is it not?
“NO. It’s not. Any intention other than to maintain the balanced (lotus) posture is not zazen as taught by Dogen, as understood and taught by many (not all) Soto Zen teachers and practitioners throughout the ages. ”
“If such a thing were possible (and in my experience, it’s not) then YES, that’s 30 minutes of zazen during which I fantasized.”
There is nothing about Lotus that prevents fantasizing… 😉
“To sit without intention (including, of course, the intention to fantasize or not to fantasize) is not easy to do. Arguably, it’s impossible — to try not to try. Some people are attracted to this seemingly easy, arguably impossible practice and have found it profoundly valuable.”
…and there is nothing about sitting in a chair that makes it any MORE or LESS possible. 😉
at any rate, thank you for taking the time to talk to me about it.
Shodo,
You question is unanswerable. Not because people don’t want to answer it, but because it can’t be answered.
I’ve spent about eight years sitting every day. And sometimes I spend 30 minutes in the Lotus posture fantasizing. And I still wonder if what I spent 30 minutes doing was zazen. Or a complete waste of time.
You question is what everyone I know who does this practice is asking themselves. Am I doing this right? Can I do it better? What should I be thinking about?
It’s a central question of practice. Trying to answer it is really important.
Good luck.
“You’ve answered both yes and no anon 108…”
Perhaps you didn’t mean to, but – as I read what you wrote – you asked two different questions, Shodo:
1) “Is fantasizing for 30 minutes in Lotus zazen? Or is it not?” (see my second two replies)
2) “Is intentionally fantasizing for 30 minutes in the Lotus posture zazen? Or is it not?” (see my first reply)
Shodo: “There is nothing about Lotus that prevents fantasizing…and there is nothing about sitting in a chair that makes it any MORE or LESS possible.”
Whether you’re fantasizing or not fantasizing – intentionally or otherwise – is not the sole criterion of (Dogen’s) zazen. Dogen/Soto zazen is as much a physical activity as a mental activity. Some report that the state of mind is affected by the posture. Others find it’s beneficial to sit in the Lotus posture, regardlless of the state of mind.
______________
I’d like to endorse what Alan wrote:
“You question is what everyone I know who does this practice is asking themselves. Am I doing this right? Can I do it better? What should I be thinking about?
It’s a central question of practice. Trying to answer it is really important.
Good luck.”
I’d like to disagree, kinda with this statement:
“You question is what everyone I know who does this practice is asking themselves. Am I doing this right? Can I do it better? What should I be thinking about?”
These are the preoccupations of self-interest that possibly are indeed what everyone works with at some point in their practice, usually early on. The idea of “perfection” or should I say the “stink” of the idea permeates it.
At some point this all relaxes into the realization that these questions are not only unanswerable, their very arising is understood to be indicative of the illusion of a self that desires to become “perfected,” “enlightened” and so on.
Mumbles,
I agree with what you say.
I’d only note that when I wrote “everyone I know who does this practice” I was literally talking about the people I know, who are all pretty new to practice.
We are all struggling with this question.
“The idea of “perfection” or should I say the “stink” of the idea permeates it.”
Other people may have stinky ideas but mine are fragrant 🙂
Cheers.
a rose is a rose is a rose…
If you are struggling with this question, you have essentially made it your koan. If you stay with it, it will break your mind.
And that’s exactly what needs to happen so that you will no longer grasp at trying to grasp it and let it go, along with the baby, the bathwater…
&Cheers was a good show!
I love looking at that picture of the priest. Brad picks the best pictures.
Stumbling along with Fuxi’s cane, I wrote this (I am getting to the mind, Shodo):
“The ligaments and fascia of the body can generate nerve messages to cause muscles to contract, without any conscious involvement. A normal upright posture is actually the result of a back and forth between the stretch of ligaments and fascia on one side of the body and muscular contraction triggered by the ligaments and fascia to relieve that stretch, and the stretch of ligaments and fascia on the other side of the body and muscular contraction triggered to relieve that stretch. The contraction and relaxation of muscles in a back and forth triggered by the stretch and resile of ligaments is referred to as reciprocal activity.”
And this:
“The relaxed distinction of sense can cause the placement and weight of any given part of the body to generate activity of posture and carriage. As the proprioception of a part enters into the location of awareness (and therefore into the equilibrium of the body), the placement and weight of the part registers in the stretch and resile of the fascia and ligaments of the body, and the fascia and liagments can in turn generate activity (without the exercise of volition).
Cheng Man-Ch’ing described a lightness and a freedom of movement in the practice of T’ai-Chi, such that:
“…the addition of a feather will be felt for its weight, and… a fly cannot alight on (the body) without setting it in motion.”
(“Cheng Man-Ch’ing’s T’ai-Chi Ch’uan”, Cheng Man-Ch’ing, © Juliana T. Cheng, North Atlantic Books pg 14)
The relinquishment of volitive activity in relaxation is familiar to everyone as a part of falling asleep; such a relinquishment of volitive activity can also takes place as a part of waking up. With a relinquishment of volitive activity in waking up, an ability to feel can enter into the location of awareness such that the weight of a fly generates activity of posture and carriage.
One of the difficulties many people have in falling asleep is the notion that they must somehow turn off the activity of their senses in order to do so; although sensory overload can definitely serve to keep a person awake (at least for awhile), calm acceptance of the activity of the senses is actually a necessary part of falling sleep.
The sharpening of the senses that occurs with a relinquishment of volition is a part of falling asleep and waking up. The distinction of the senses, including the sense of mind, frees the location of awareness to shift and move with proprioception.”
Alright, I left out a little bit of what I wrote for the sake of clarity– someday soon I hope I can put the whole thing up for people’s opinions– but hopefully the gist is there.
I would guess that the reason zazen is identified with the lotus is because of some mechanics connected with the lower back; you could also identify zazen with drawing water and chopping wood, same mechanics. Has to do with the alignment of the tailbone, sacrum, and spine and support for the structure of the spine that is realized when pressure in the fluid ball of the abdomen displaces the fascia of the lower back. Is drawing water natural- is chopping wood natural- is sitting in the lotus natural? Uh- sort of. Is a butterfly getting up out of the lotus and walking around natural?
“Arguably, it’s impossible.”
Yes, Cheers was a good show. I caught an episode a few months ago. Now it watches like show that once had a good time being a good show hiding it’s inner Bergman in a miasma of stale beer. As a gentle, warm word at arm’s reach, I still love expressing it, though.
[ ]
I’ve a question for any readers/scholars of the Pali canon.
Brad wrote:
“But Dogen and the Buddha and all the rest of this tradition never abandoned all that religious poppycock completely. They still performed rituals and ceremonies, they bowed to icons, they even said things that could be defined as (gasp!) prayers.”
I know Buddhists of all hues have performed rituals and ceremonies that can be described as, and are usually thought of as, religious – but did Gotama Buddha?
When he awakened, Shakyamuni Buddha felt he had to express his gratitude in some concrete way. His two gurus were not the source of his enlightenment, so he didn’t feel that was appropriate, and anyway they were dead. He thought of the Dharma, and he prostrated to it.
His male and female monastics lived by the rule he created. It’s reasonable to think he abided by the same rules, such as observing the uposatha days and their rituals.
We all do rituals, you know. They become “religious” whenever we become aware of deeper significance to them.
I get what you say about rituals. Yes, we all do them. People have ways of showing respect/gratitude which often become ritualised. All co-habiting communities develop rules – sooner or later. But to call these things religious, or to say: “They become “religious” whenever we become aware of deeper significance to them” is….arguable.
_______________________
“The word “uposatha” is derived from the Sanskrit word “upavasatha,” which refers to the pre-Buddhistic fast day that preceded Vedic sacrifices.
In the Buddha’s time, some ascetics used the new and full moon as opportunities to present their teachings. The Uposatha Day was instituted by the Buddha at the request of King Bimbisara, and the Buddha instructed the monks to give teachings to the laypeople on this day, and told the monks to recite the Patimokkha every second Uposatha day.”
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uposatha
One of many example of the Buddha taking a vedic rite or religous (sacrificial/worship-related) teaching and giving it a secular (as in ‘temporal/of the age’), non-religious spin, in my opinion.
“They become “religious” whenever we become aware of deeper significance to them” is….arguable.
Mais oui!
anon 108 said:
“Perhaps you didn’t mean to, but — as I read what you wrote — you asked two different questions, Shodo.”
That was not my intention, I was asking the same question. I don’t however, understand how the addition of the words “intentionally” and “posture” could change your answer
anon 108 said:
“Whether you’re fantasizing or not fantasizing — intentionally or otherwise — is not the sole criterion of (Dogen’s) zazen. Dogen/Soto zazen is as much a physical activity as a mental activity. Some report that the state of mind is affected by the posture. Others find it’s beneficial to sit in the Lotus posture, regardlless of the state of mind.”
I don’t think there is a Zen teacher in America that would disagree with you. Every one of them teaches that sitting meditation in the lotus pose is “best” for a myriad physical reasons. But they don’t say that if you happen to be unable to twist your legs into the posture that you are not able to do zazen. They don’t teach your ability to do zazen is contingent upon being able to sit in a certain position. There are other positions like seiza or a chair, or even lying down.
Only Brad teaches that.
There is nothing about sitting in a chair that prevents someone from sitting with the intention of:
“Give the myriad things a rest. Do not think of good and bad. Do not consider right and wrong. Stop the driving movement of mind, will, consciousness. Cease intellectual consideration through images, thoughts, and reflections. Do not aim to become a buddha.”
Sitting with *this* intention is what defines zazen, not the flexibility of ones knees and hips…
Shodo: “I don’t however, understand how the addition of the words “intentionally” and “posture” could change your answer.”
“Intentionally” is the word that made a big difference to the way I heard and answered your question(s).
To sit having decided to do your damndest to fantasize until the bell rings (and then, presumably, judging your sitting on how well you did that) is one thing. Sitting with the intention of ‘just sitting’ and then, while you’re sitting, noticing, perhaps many times, that you were lost in thought/fantasy and now find yourself suddenly ‘back’ is a very different thing. To me.
anon 108 said:
““Intentionally” is the word that made a big difference to the way I heard and answered your question(s).
To sit having decided to do your damndest to fantasize until the bell rings (and then, presumably, judging your sitting on how well you did that) is one thing. Sitting with the intention of ‘just sitting’ and then, while you’re sitting, noticing, perhaps many times, that you were lost in thought/fantasy and now find yourself suddenly ‘back’ is a very different thing. To me.”
Then it sounds like you then think as I do.
The posture is not what defines zazen, but what is done with the mind.
Too much shifting sand, Shodo.
I’m out : )
Aw come on now…
You laid the if/then out nice and clear, all you need to do now is go the extra 2 cm and agree with me! 😉
In other words, you precisely just made my point.
What is it that is preventing you from agreeing with me?
Shodo – mate! This point? :
“The posture is not what defines zazen, but what is done with the mind.”
I did NOT make that point.
In response to one specific post of yours, containing what I read as two questions, I explained my view of the difference between sitting zazen with an INTENTION to fantasize, and unwittingly fantasizing during zazen sat without intention (other than to ‘just sit’). I said the latter IS Dogen’s (shikantaza) zazen. The former isn’t.
I made a distinction between one form of intention and another, Ilm saying that the difference between those particular intentions is ONE of the factors that determines what I would be prepared to call ‘zazen’. In saying that, all I’ve done is concede that there is a mental aspect to the practice. Of course there is. But no way does that makes your point that “what is done with the mind,” is what solely and completely defines zazen – which, apparently, is the point you seek to make.
As far as you question to Brad goes: “Is sitting (without the intention just to sit) in a chair zazen?” I’ve said all I have to say a while back:
“Zazen is as much a physical pracice as a mental one…there is this idea in Buddhism — some would say a discovery of the reality — that what we call ‘body’ and ‘mind’ are not two separate things. If that’s true, then the idea that the way the body is arranged is not incidental to what we call our ‘state of mind’ is far from unreasonable. Understand that idea and you’re not a million miles from understanding why someone would identify a physical body posture with what others see as primarily a(n unrelated) mental state. I think that’s why sitting in the lotus asana — preferably full lotus — has come to be regarded by some, in some traditions, as not merely the physical aspect of the practice, but as the practice itself. For those people, ‘sitting in a chair is not zazen’ is not an empty dogmatic point, but an expression of their experience.”
EDIT: “As far as you question to Brad goes: “Is sitting (without intention, other than to sit) in a chair zazen?” I’ve said all I have to say a while back:”
Sorry, was away for a few days…
anon 108 said:
“In response to one specific post of yours, containing what I read as two questions, I explained my view of the difference between sitting zazen with an INTENTION to fantasize, and unwittingly fantasizing during zazen sat without intention (other than to ‘just sit’). I said the latter IS Dogen’s (shikantaza) zazen. The former isn’t.”
Right.
Out of the two choices, what defined zazen was a mental component, not a physical one. Out of the two examples, both were sitting in lotus.
If there were a physical component to zazen, then both examples would have been zazen.
anon 108 said:
“…all I’ve done is concede that there is a mental aspect to the practice. Of course there is. But no way does that makes your point that “what is done with the mind,” is what solely and completely defines zazen — which, apparently, is the point you seek to make.”
That is exactly the point I made!. 😉
anon 108 said:
“Zazen is as much a physical practice as a mental one…there is this idea in Buddhism — some would say a discovery of the reality — that what we call ‘body’ and ‘mind’ are not two separate things. If that’s true, then the idea that the way the body is arranged is not incidental to what we call our ‘state of mind’ is far from unreasonable.”
What IS the qualitative difference of zazen in the Lotus Posture exactly? I’ve sat in each of the zazen postures not a small amount of times over the years, and other than being more stable, (and not even by a lot,) there is no difference in the zazen that I can tell.
What is the difference between the zazen of a person in a chair and a person in lotus other than body position? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that there isn’t any difference.
You are correct, the body and the mind are not two separate things. When the body is stable the mind is stable. That is all that the zazen postures are for – stability.
Is it maybe that “Dogen said that’s the way you gotta do it”…? Is it simple as that?
If it is, that’s cool… I mean, Dogen is wrong… but that’s cool.
anon 108 said:
“For those people, ‘sitting in a chair is not zazen’ is not an empty dogmatic point, but an expression of their experience.”
Judging the quality of another person’s zazen based on zazen position seems silly to me.
Judging the quality of MY zazen based of what zazen position i’m in seems silly to me.
Hell… Judging my zazen seems silly to me. Just keep coming back.
Hi Shodo,
Brad and commenters have kicked this around a few times over the years. http://hardcorezen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/zazen-is-balance-pose.html is a good one.
Heh…
The anonymous poster Brad is arguing with in the comments is me. 😉
and note what I got him to say, in regards to my paraplegic friend who will *NEVER* sit in lotus, sit with spine erect, or sit on the floor:
“Of course he’s doing zazen.
“The anonymous poster Brad is arguing with in the comments is me.”
Thought it might be. You’ve had your answer for two years and more.
Also note – if you fancy – what others said about Brad’s response. Tom Swiss, for example, made an interesting point (10.34am).
Laters!
anon 108 said:
“You’ve had your answer for two years and more.”
Maaaaybe… but I think I cant tell the difference between a changed mind, and someone who merely acquiesces… 😉
Hi, Shodo
Brad wrote, “Of course he’s doing zazen,” but not “sitting in a chair *IS* zazen”.
Brad’s quote is a response to your description of a particular someone (‘he’) who is/was doing his very best, sitting wholeheartedly etc.
This is very different from Brad standing by a decontextualized, generic statement, such as, ‘sitting in a chair is zazen,’ because that removes the pivotal and easily misconstrued dimension of an individual’s own efforts. The ‘burn’ will differ from person to person.
If your friend wasn’t doing his best to sit zazen (in a tradition such as Brad’s) and was going easy on himself, then that might be very much like a stiff, able-bodied individual choosing not to put the effort in, over time, to get into whatever the best posture is for them – be it, say, Burmese, a quarter, half or full lotus – because they’ve got a load of excuses for not doing so.
I certainly misconstrued practice to myself for a good while, having no teacher I could see in person, and ended up hurting my knees, even though I thought I’d done enough research for me to think what I was doing was the right way. Now I’m able to misconstrue practice to myself without it leading to silly and unnecessary self-harm – the research continues.
It seems to me that all sincere teachers need to balance effective instruction with the pitfalls of saying things about practice that can be misconstrued, especially from a public platform.
Heck, even ‘balanced’ is unbalanced!
Andy said:
“Brad wrote, “Of course he’s doing zazen,” but not “sitting in a chair *IS* zazen”. ”
Then why say sitting in a chair is not zazen, when people sitting in chairs are doing zazen?
That’s just dumb. Why bother even drawing the distinction?
Because not all people sitting in chairs are doing zazen.
mtto said:
“Because not all people sitting in chairs are doing zazen.”
Neither are people who are sitting in Lotus – because body position has nothing to do with it.
Shodo,
Andy answered your question very well.
mtto answered your question very well.
Brad has answered your question very well.
It’s obvious you don’t like any of these answers. In addition you appear to be willfully ignoring nuance in pursuit of your own goal. Which as far as I can tell is to get everyone here to agree with you.
It’s your call, obviously, but from my point of view you are tilting at windmills.
Cheers.
“It’s obvious you don’t like any of these answers. In addition you appear to be willfully ignoring nuance in pursuit of your own goal. Which as far as I can tell is to get everyone here to agree with you. ”
I would just like the position that they take defended in a way that brings resolution… which they cant, because the more it’s talked about, the more it is getting picked apart… the position “sitting in chairs is not zazen” is dumb, and when looked at critically, undefendable.
it’s probably just leftovers from the balancing the autonomous nervous system that Nishijima taught.
“Then why say sitting in a chair is not zazen, when people sitting in chairs are doing zazen?
That’s just dumb. Why bother even drawing the distinction?”
Hi Shodo,
As indicated in my third para (above), a statement like ‘sitting in chairs is zazen’ is decontextualized and generic. I don’t recall ever reading Brad state that ‘sitting in chairs is not zazen’ without it being qualified by the context.
In other words, I’ve never read Brad stand by “sitting in chairs is not zazen” as though it were a rule for everyone in all circumstances.
However, he may have, somewhere, given the impression that ‘sitting in chairs is not zazen’ is a hard and fast rule for everyone in all circumstances. If so he has since gone as far as he feels is necessary to qualify such an impression.
To extend mtto’s answer, not all people sitting in chairs or on cushions are doing zazen.
“To extend mtto’s answer, not all people sitting in chairs or on cushions are doing zazen.”
AND neither are all people who are sitting in lotus doing zazen – because what defines zazen is NOT body position, but what you are doing with your mind.
Body and mind are not separate. What you do with your mind does not define zazen, at least not shikantaza.
You are right that not all people sitting lotus are sitting zazen.
Mtto said:
“Body and mind are not separate. What you do with your mind does not define zazen, at least not shikantaza.”
What is it about shikantaza that makes it unable to be done in a chair, in your opinion mtto?
Hi Shodo,
Most, if not all, of what follows has already been said – more than once. But in case no one’s checked beyond the first few comments in that thread from 2012 I linked, here is Tom Swiss’s comment. It starts with the point you believed Brad had conceded:
“[Shodo wrote:] “Sitting in a chair *IS* zazen.”
[Tom Swiss wrote:] For that guy, yes.
In the legends of my karate school, there is a tale of a guy who broke his leg shortly before his black belt promotion. Rather than postponing the test, for the sparring portion they put him in a wheeled office chair, with someone behind to push him around, and had him fight from there.
(Since he couldn’t back up, this was perhaps a harder test than people who could stand.)
Is sitting in a chair karate? For that guy, at that moment, it was. For some people in wheelchairs, it will always be. Does that imply any random person sitting in a chair is doing karate? No.”
This is all about what we call something, right? As I understand you, you see ‘Zazen’ as essentially mental, so any conscious person can do it, or try to do it, regardless of the capabilities or arrangement of their body parts. But for some other people who see zazen as an activity done by/with body and mind ‘Zazen’ is as much a physical activity – like karate – as it is a mental activity.
But what we call something is a world away from what we do. The realm of thought/thinking and the realm of action/doing are different. Dimensionally different, I’d say: “A gap as wide as between Heaven and Earth.” I think that’s the most important thing I discovered from learning and practising Zen with a dharma heir of Gudo Nishijima.
So you can call whatever you like by whatever name you like. Other than in the realm of everyday worldly affairs it doesn’t matter very much(!). What matters is what you’re doing – and what you think of it. Or what I’m doing, and what I think of it. Or what the guy in the wheelchair is doing, and what he thinks of it.
If your concern is that people who are incapable of sitting in lotus will be made to feel inferior, forever denied the fruits of practice, by hearing a definition of zazen that doesn’t include sitting in chairs, then I understand your concern. But such people only have to hear what Brad Warner (for example) has written* about a such a person; a person who is physically incapable of ever sitting cross-legged and has found his own way: “Of course he’s doing zazen.”
*Yes, in response to your incessant nagging – for which again I thank you.
Nice response Anon 108. I do feel a little uneasy about how this ‘incessant nagging’ is being framed, though. There were many anonymous voices being critical and one message in particular (the one about the friend in a wheelchair) contained a question substantial enough for people to respond to.
Some questions are just ways of reinforcing pre-existing prejudices/biases and the ‘incessant’ aspect in these cases indicative of the willfulness of the individual’s attempts to maintain these biases/prejudices – a mode which more than not finds a scapegoat to fixate on eventually.
Of course, this can result in exchanges that can produce some helpful insights that might otherwise not have come to the surface in that way at that time, where I can benefit, and I can be grateful for that. And I can value someone’s own struggle to get to that place for themselves.
However, if what drives and maintains the ‘incessant nagging’ distracts a person from answers that could be sufficient, and then answers that should be sufficient, and said person is attempting (during or after – with or without help) to valorise that ‘incessant nagging’, then my concern would be that our wise gratitude might be appropriated as a dogmatic reinforcement for intentions that such an individual might not be so grateful for having bolstered, somewhere down the line. It might just help to encourage more of the same.
Brad’s “Sheesh. I’ve already made that abundantly clear,” and other such responses by him since, isn’t merely the defensive reaction of a blogger attempting to cover his own lack of communication skills or his inability to admit he is, was or has been wrong, as has been implied (not by you, by the way).
In everyday parlance, sometimes someone else is ‘problem’ and wants it to be you and/or what (they want to think) you stand for. Sometimes, when I am the ‘problem’ it comes from deep-seated habits that will take me a good while to come to terms with, and which I keep on aggravating in order not to experience the brokenness, the foolishness, which can usher in wiser and more fruitful times.
Fair point well made, Andy.
Anon108 said:
“If your concern is that people who are incapable of sitting in lotus will be made to feel inferior, forever denied the fruits of practice, by hearing a definition of zazen that doesn’t include sitting in chairs, then I understand your concern. But such people only have to hear what Brad Warner (for example) has written* about a such a person; a person who is physically incapable of ever sitting cross-legged and has found his own way: “Of course he’s doing zazen.”
Yes, this is why I argue about this…
Brad Warner invalidates his own position, when pressed.
I don’t know why anyone maintains it, if they cannot be bothered to defend it.
Sitting in a vat of potato salad is NOT zazen.
Cheers.
Sure it is, if your legs are crossed and your spine is straight.
What is different about air and potato salad other than density of molecules?
Nice rant Brad!
I admit not having read Sam Harris, however, from the secular point of view: this is a tempest in a teapot, because the secular idea that there is no supernatural having influence on us, and the Buddhist idea that there are no exceptions to the law of cause and effect, seem to me essentially the same idea.
so with that out of the way:
The secular idea that ritual is necessarily the same as reverence for the supernatural, is wrong.
Consider that in Canada, we have rituals in our parliament that show respect for the mace, which is the symbol of the authority of each house. It reminds us of our collective agreement on how we will govern ourselves, and in reminding us cause individuals to act differently and protects the democracy. Taking the time to show respect, to what is essentially a hunk of wood and metal, is useful and important.
But your rant touches on the idea of understanding tradition before you throw it out. could it be that the ritual is consistent with the “strict cause and effect” insight, then does the form itself have a useful purpose? you have to do it to figure this out.
The secular fear of chanting, and I do not use the term “fear” lightly or to be dismissive, is I think a fear of being somehow pulled into reverence for the supernatural through the back door. After all, cathedrals are designed to evoke awe and through a slight of hand, suggest that the thing causing the awe is presence of the supernatural.
Chanting, as an experience, is emotionally powerful. Like the feeling of awe while standing before a prairie storm. If you believe in strict cause and effect, then these experiences must be something other than supernatural. In the case of storms, seeing how small we are compared to the forces of the planet, is part of understanding reality. isn’t this about exploring the relationship between emotions and reality?