Dharma Wheel

I am not sure how is uncontrived in Zen but mirrors' reflections are free.

Beatzen wrote:A misconception about zazen is that zazen is meditation. In meditation, such as in the theravadin and Tibetan tradition, one contemplates shapes, and visualizations ect.

But in zazen, we aren't doing such things. Steadying the mind on the breath in the tanden region, we empty our mind of it's contents and relax into glimpsing our original face.

Now that sounds like a far cry from all these fantastical meditative techniques marketed by other traditions. Surely zazen is the most expedient path to self realization.

I think you have a wee misconception here. In Tibetan Buddhism as I know it, there are two parallel streams of meditation used. One method does involve detailed visualizations and programmed contemplations on concrete subjects. The other is practically indistinguishable from zazen. About equal amounts of time are spent on each.

Beatzen wrote:A misconception about zazen is that zazen is meditation. In meditation, such as in the theravadin and Tibetan tradition, one contemplates shapes, and visualizations ect.

But in zazen, we aren't doing such things. Steadying the mind on the breath in the tanden region, we empty our mind of it's contents and relax into glimpsing our original face.

Now that sounds like a far cry from all these fantastical meditative techniques marketed by other traditions. Surely zazen is the most expedient path to self realization.

"Zen" is the Japanese pronunciation of "Dhyana" or "Jhana" which refers to a profoundly calm state of mind. So, Zen is meditation. "Za" just means sitting on your butt. And "meditation" is just a label.

While it is true that among Vajrayaya practices are included a variety of visualizations, ultimately, it is the mind itself that is the object of one's attention. One simply lets the mind rest in it's natural state and realization of emptiness. Some teachings even refer to watching a still mind, as well as simply watching a moving mind, without adding any discursive effort at all. Surely Vajrayana is the most expedient path to self realization.

In Pure Land Buddhism, one drops discursive thought completely, not even being concerned with seeing "original face", abandons all notions of calm mind or moving mind, or any dualism between empty mind or full mind, or where the breath is or what it is doing. One empties everything and merely chants "Namo Amitabha". Surely Pure Land is the most expedient path to self realization.

In Theravada, one abandons all actions of body, speech and mind that result in clinging to any notion of "me' or "mine", carefully analyzing every action to see, ultimately that there is no self to begin with, no mind to empty, no watcher of the breath, and no breath. Surely Threravada is the most expedient path to self realization.

With so many streams emptying into the same "ocean of wisdom", Surely, one might say that the Buddha Dharma is the most expedient path to self realization.

No, it is the most expedient path to no-self realization.


.
.
.

Zazen can be dangerous for people who've endured serious trauma

This is from an article by Brad Warner:

"It’s a fact that zazen brings stuff up. No matter what kind of stuff you have locked away in your mind and body it’s going to come out during sitting. It’s also true that zazen is different from other forms of meditation (if zazen is even a form of meditation) in that it is not directed at any ideal condition. In zazen you allow whatever comes up to just come up as it will, rather than attempting to move the mind toward a specific desired state as most forms of meditation do. This means that trauma survivors may be more likely to face repressed memories and suchlike while doing zazen than while doing other forms of meditation."

http://cultivatinggrace.wordpress.com/category/trauma/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You'll need to scroll down the page to read the rest of the article.

I've started doing zazen again. I quit for awhile because zazen was bringing my traumas to the surface. So far it hasn't disturbed me this time. When it was disturbinig me I stuck with vipassana.

I just thought I should mention it in case someone else has traumatic memories brought to the forefront when they practice zazen.


Namaste

I watched a video yesterday that explained to me Zen is one mind if you sit, eat, or walk without being distracted then that is Zen. Zen is meditation in this sense. Meditation is to abandon grasping.

LastLegend wrote:I watched a video yesterday that explained to me Zen is one mind if you sit, eat, or walk without being distracted then that is Zen. Zen is meditation in this sense. Meditation is to abandon grasping.

Must have been a good video.

Astus wrote:

LastLegend wrote:I watched a video yesterday that explained to me Zen is one mind if you sit, eat, or walk without being distracted then that is Zen. Zen is meditation in this sense. Meditation is to abandon grasping.

Must have been a good video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdBnssUt ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beatzen wrote:A misconception about zazen is that zazen is meditation. In meditation, such as in the theravadin and Tibetan tradition, one contemplates shapes, and visualizations ect.

But in zazen, we aren't doing such things. Steadying the mind on the breath in the tanden region, we empty our mind of it's contents and relax into glimpsing our original face.

Now that sounds like a far cry from all these fantastical meditative techniques marketed by other traditions. Surely zazen is the most expedient path to self realization.

The Original Face is always there. We neither relax nor glimpse at images during Zazen. Zazen is imageless because it is situated in the present moment. There is no Original Face to escape to.

In Shikantaza, all that is done is sitting with proper posture with complete awareness without dwelling on thoughts. Thoughts flow freely without grasping at them. There is no "you" that even sits, for that is another assemblage of thoughts with no defining factor. It is empty and merely passes on too. The stillness of Zazen is inexplicable, which is why descriptive analyses tend to be avoided.

Zazen is a form of meditation and many traditions have similar meditation techniques. Comparing such techniques is a waste of time, since different things work for different people and so forth.

Zazen is nothing special or holy, but it is just a direct expression of our nature. To say "we are doing Zazen" or to say you have made progress in it is to get caught up in delusion. There is in a sense no doing in Zazen, for the doer and the doing are not separate in the act.

You give Zazen a bad name by saying "zazen is the most expedient path to self realization". By believing this, you are not practicing Zazen. Zazen is a selfless activity, one in which we do not reflect upon. It is just done. "Just do." Please, do not compare and profane this tradition by comparing it to others and claiming yours to be superior. Dogen directly says this is wrong.

Beatzen wrote:A misconception about zazen is that zazen is meditation. In meditation, such as in the theravadin and Tibetan tradition, one contemplates shapes, and visualizations ect.

But in zazen, we aren't doing such things. Steadying the mind on the breath in the tanden region, we empty our mind of it's contents and relax into glimpsing our original face.

Now that sounds like a far cry from all these fantastical meditative techniques marketed by other traditions. Surely zazen is the most expedient path to self realization.

What makes you assume that contemplating the breath (anapanasati) is any more "enlightening" than contemplating shapes, visualizations, yidams, etc...? In fact Zazen may be said to be a form of samatha, or meditation focused on a particular "object", in that anapanasati is employed. Mindfulness of breathing qualifies, at least in some sense, as focusing on a particular "object" -- that is the breath.

Samsaric_Spiral wrote:

Beatzen wrote:A misconception about zazen is that zazen is meditation. In meditation, such as in the theravadin and Tibetan tradition, one contemplates shapes, and visualizations ect.

But in zazen, we aren't doing such things. Steadying the mind on the breath in the tanden region, we empty our mind of it's contents and relax into glimpsing our original face.

Now that sounds like a far cry from all these fantastical meditative techniques marketed by other traditions. Surely zazen is the most expedient path to self realization.

The Original Face is always there. We neither relax nor glimpse at images during Zazen. Zazen is imageless because it is situated in the present moment. There is no Original Face to escape to.

In Shikantaza, all that is done is sitting with proper posture with complete awareness without dwelling on thoughts. Thoughts flow freely without grasping at them. There is no "you" that even sits, for that is another assemblage of thoughts with no defining factor. It is empty and merely passes on too. The stillness of Zazen is inexplicable, which is why descriptive analyses tend to be avoided.

Zazen is a form of meditation and many traditions have similar meditation techniques. Comparing such techniques is a waste of time, since different things work for different people and so forth.

Zazen is nothing special or holy, but it is just a direct expression of our nature. To say "we are doing Zazen" or to say you have made progress in it is to get caught up in delusion. There is in a sense no doing in Zazen, for the doer and the doing are not separate in the act.

You give Zazen a bad name by saying "zazen is the most expedient path to self realization". By believing this, you are not practicing Zazen. Zazen is a selfless activity, one in which we do not reflect upon. It is just done. "Just do." Please, do not compare and profane this tradition by comparing it to others and claiming yours to be superior. Dogen directly says this is wrong.

“Samsara is the mind turned outwardly, lost in its projections. Nirvana is the mind turned inwardly, recognizing its true nature.”

Jesus said : "Why do you wash the outside of the cup? Don't you understand that the one who made the inside is also the one who made the outside?"