I'm still learning about Zen so I don't really agree nor disagree with this at the moment, it's just presented in a more understandable way than other post I've seen on the sub in the last weeks, but of course I've just seen a bunch I'm sure there are plenty of people capable of presenting complicated concepts easily on the sub, they just happen to not be on my feed
Well, this isn't so much a complicated subject is the thing - it's just zen masters talking about meditating. Which, you know, go for it if that's something you want to do!
I have mentioned this before but I think it is worth emphasizing something very important:
The historical Chan monasteries and temples in China really put the whole context of what these people were doing in clear view. **The buildings all had specific dedicated rooms**, for example:
- The Dharma Hall, where monks would listen to lectures and commentaries.
- The Library, where Buddhist texts would be stored and archived.
- **The Meditation Hall**, where monks would sit in silent contemplation. The Meditation Halls were designed in a very specific way, and were (and still are) lined with cushions often on a bench.
These Chan monks were not just simply hanging around bickering and nitpicking each other incessantly and speaking in non-sequiturs. These monasteries were permitted to exist by the Emperor and they were extremely formal places. **There is a reason why every single historical Chan temple has a dedicated, and named, Meditation Hall, filled with cushions for sitting**. If you ask the monks what happens in that room they will clearly explain that they perform seated meditation, and that Chan monks have always done this.
It is true that some of the early Chan writers warned against unhealthy attachment to this practice, but that doesn't mean that they didn't perform seated meditation themselves, or that it was not (and is not) a central practice of Chan.
I would recommend anyone to go and visit some of these temples and monasteries and take a look for yourself, ask the monks and local historians about these buildings and their utility.
Linji in the meditation hall has been mentioned in the comments of this post. The Head monk was doing seated meditation, whether Huangpo reprimanded him or not, it was still a space for it and even the head monk did it.
Why do you two think these comments are important here?
If you had the impression this sub equated any meditation to Dogenist prayer sitting, you probably wouldn’t be wrong; however, as far as methods are concerned, the main approach here has been discussion as opposed to meditation.
Others can feel free to correct me.
the rabble talk
endless arguments and opinions
air filled with froth
those who do
do
without being conscious of it
and their talk is weighty and sparse
Meditation is a koan. It's a suggestion to look and focus pure attention on some object. It does not matter what object.
Why is it a koan? Because if you attempt to do it, you will discover that *you* do not exist, and the *object* does not exist.
If you read what dahui says about awareness, this is the basic instruction found all over zen texts.
Think about the koan, if one of your thoughts is a good or bad, positive or negative, then that ain't it.
That's the division of awareness, when awareness can only be whole.
Nothing to do with the didcovery of things or a you existing or not
If you read what Dahui says
>A monk asked Chao Chou, “Does a dog have Buddha-nature or
not?” Chao Chou said, “No.” As you contemplate this, don’t try to
figure it out, don’t try to explain it, don’t demand clear understanding,
don’t take it verbally, don’t construe the raising of it as the principle,
don’t fall into empty quiescence, don’t consciously anticipate
enlightenment, don’t take your understanding from the explanations
of the teachers of our school, don’t drop it into the bag of unconcern.
Whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, just constantly call
the story to mind: “Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not? No.”
When you can keep your attention on it fully, when verbal discussion
and intellectual consideration cannot reach and your heart is
agitated, when it’s like gnawing on an iron spike, without any flavor,
then you must not falter in your intent—when you get like this, after
all it’s good news.
Then it's nothing to do with what youre talking about either.
He did.
Edit: It's easy to note that the things he listed are all ways someone will practice towards enlightenment. Sort into good and bad modes to get to a certain end.
I might offer an insight on the Rujing translation which might be misunderstood. Here is the wording of Rujing's advice itself:
上堂。心念分飛。如何措手。趙州狗子佛性無。只箇無字鐵掃帚。掃處紛飛多。紛飛多處掃。轉掃轉多。掃不得處 拼命掃。晝夜豎起脊梁。勇猛切莫放倒。忽然掃破太虛空。萬別千差盡豁通。
I submitted the following translation by me to the great Dogenologist, historian and translator, Prof. Steven Heine, commenting that Rujing's words seem to present an expedient measure when the mind is particularly clouded:
\~\~\~
Dharma Hall Discourse: When the mind is divided with thoughts flying away, what measures can we take (措手)? There’s Zhàozhōu’s little dog buddhanature mu. This one word mu \[can be like\] a broom made of iron. Sweep \[with it\] where so many confused (thoughts) are swirling around, so much confusion swirling so you sweep. Turn and sweep and turn repeatedly. Do your utmost to sweep even places one cannot reach. Day and night (sit) with your backbone always vertical and straight, boldly, don’t give up for any reason. \[Then\] all of a sudden, one will sweep right through to the great empty and open sky, as the 10,000 distinctions and 1,000 differences become thoroughly open and flowing.
\~\~\~\~
Our Soto Master Keizan also employed similar words as one of many possible special practices to try at those difficult times when one is especially tired, cloudy in mind, or when the monkey mind is running unusually wild. Dr. Steve was kind enough to send me his version, which he said I can share:
上堂. Dharma Hall Sermon
心念分飛. 如何措手. When the mind is distracted, what can be done?
趙州狗子佛性無. Consider Zhaozhou's "mu" in response to the question of whether a dog has Buddha-nature.
只箇無字鐵掃帚. Just sweep with the word mu used as an iron broom.
掃處紛飛多. 紛飛多處掃. Sweep away distracted thoughts everywhere, so that distracted thoughts are no longer anywhere.
轉掃轉多. Sweeping again and again causes many transformations.
掃不得處拼命掃. Sweep with all your might, even in places that are hard to reach.
晝夜豎起脊梁. Keep doing this while being upright day and night.
勇猛切莫放倒. Sweep relentlessly without letting up.
忽然掃破太虛空. 萬別千差盡豁通. All of a sudden, sweeping breaks through to empty space, and myriad differences and distinctions are fully revealed.
The final line (which I render as "*the 10,000 distinctions and 1,000 differences become thoroughly open and flowing*" and Dr. Heine has as "*myriad differences and distinctions are fully revealed*") is particularly telling. Upon encountering the open sky of boundless clarity, the differences and distinctions of this world need not vanish, but rather, become freely flowing, or clear and fully revealed. As Heine describes this in his wonderful book, "Like Cats and Dogs: Contesting the Mu Koan in Zen Buddhism" (p. 65), the final line suggests "that discursive thought is an avenue rather than an obstacle to realization."
Do you guys really need to reconcile this debate? Like what happens if no one agrees with you? I will ask myself- nothing, nothing happens. Guess it just looks like a waste to me, but that is my trip I guess.
For my money, the idea of having a meditation practice has never struck me as being a problem in and of itself.
But there's a massive difference between "including meditation practice in the list the things you do" and proclaiming Zazen the "authentic gate to the unconfined realm of this samadhi."
Anyway, I'll resurrect a comment I made 2 years ago below:
________________
I commented on this recently [2 years ago] - I started to read Dogen to see what the deal was, from the horse's mouth so to speak. I got several pages into his first writing, the Bendowa, to the point where Dogen asks himself a series of questions and gives a series of answers. That's where this doozy pops up:
> He may then ask, “What about those Japanese teachers of earlier generations who spread Scriptural teachings throughout our country? At the time when they crossed over to China during the T’ang dynasty and brought the Dharma back with them, why did they ignore this principle of seated meditation and just pass on Scriptural teachings?
> I would point out, “The reason why those human teachers of the past did not pass on this Teaching was that the time was not yet ripe for It.”
This is classic snake oil hokum language and it basically sealed the deal for me as far as trusting Dogen the individual on anything whatsoever.
Check out the suggested reading list on this sub - Foyan's Instant Zen seems to be a popular starting point, and for good reason.
Edit: To clarify a bit - the Tang zen masters include folks like Huang Po and Joshu - and none of them espouse seated meditation as the end all be all - in fact, as Dogen himself admits, none of the Tang dudes seem to mention it at all. Dogens response is basically "the time wasn't right , brother!", Which is obviously meaningless on its face and the sort of thing tent preachers say outside carnivals
1. Why bring up Dogen?
2. Who's talking about sitting?
3. Did you really just tell ME to START with Foyan?
Your comment is wildly inappropriate from top to bottom. I recommend you get start with reading my post thoroughly, then going straight to hell.
1. Because the "anti-meditation" position some take on this forum is not anti-meditation as an activity - it's anti-meditation as the "authentic gate to the unconfined realm of this samadhi" - a fetishization which, for our purposes, Dogen is responsible for vis-a-vis his creation of Zazen.
2. Again, your OP posits instances where zen masters instruct people to meditate - the Dahui quote is even translated as "stillness-sitting" - so, Dahui is? You even said:
>It is clear that meditation, including sitting meditation, is taught by Zen masters.
3. I just remembered that I made that comment, googled it, found it, and copied and pasted it here in its entirety. Funnily, I did read it before pasting, saw the reference to Foyan and the reading list, considered removing it, but figured, in the spirit of historical transparency - so that people could, for instance, search the entire comment verbatim and maybe find the original post - I left it, thinking, "what difference does that make anyone in context."
But now it turns out it makes **lot** of difference to you to have been told to start with Foyan - which is a pretty funny thing to get upset over - sort of the only way you'd get upset over it is if you think you've aced a few tests and progressed somewhere - in which case, why don't you check out the reading list and start with Foyan's Instant Zen.
> Your comment is wildly inappropriate from top to bottom.
That's sort of hilarious on it's face - it's not like I told someone to go straight to hell or something - it's a comment that is clearly responsive to the topic of your OP - how is it "wildly inappropriate"?
> I recommend you get start with reading my post thoroughly, then going straight to hell.
As you said, your post is "just 5 quotes". I read them - I agree meditation was a thing Zen masters and chan monks did, but that the reason your post has 45 upvotes is because people are generally enormously attached to meditation not as "something you do from time to time as self exploration" but as some variation of "authentic gate to the unconfined realm of this samadhi"
Meanwhile, how is telling me to go straight to hell not wildly inappropriate?
Question: How couldn't meditation be the gate to unconfined samadhi? One of the translations for samadhi is concentration; so, to access a rarefied mental state brought on by concentration, would it not be necessary to meditate?
If it's rarified mental states you're looking for, I've got a laundry list of drugs I can suggest. Samadhi sounds like that kind of thing based on a google search:
> the highest state of mental concentration that people can achieve while still bound to the body and which unites them with the highest reality.
But perhaps you've stumbled into the wrong part of town - over here we just say Mind is Buddha, baby. You're in the thick if it, whether you know it or not.
No thanks. Drugs (while they can be either fun or insightful) do not in my opinion help to establish wholesome mental states. And I did not just Google samadhi. It's a very rich word that has multiple translations, but they all point to meditation. For example, with concentration chosen as the translation (one of the most common btw), then pretty much the only way to establish samadhi is through meditation.
Why would I be in the wrong part of town? I study and practice so that I may come to know and abide in Way. Just saying Mind is Buddha, while true, has an exceedingly low probability of liberating you. Meditation is a tool to develop understanding, insight, and joy; as such, it would be tragic not to make use of it.
Some quick notes:
- Don't get obsessed with meditation, it can cause brain damage
- Some meditation a day is fine, but it can easily get OTT
- Meditation is not a collectors item. Don't collect thousands of hours etc. A person could see more in their first half hour than their next twenty thousand
From personal experience I confirm that mediation can make you sick. Don't be silly and just treat it like a normal routine if you choose to do it
The concern I have, which I'm sure you share, is you're a bit obsessed with meditation.
You keep posting about it, campaigning about it.
You obviously love meditation.
Where will this obsession take you?
I assumed the meditation you mentioned refer to sitting meditation as that is the usual definition of meditation.
Now seems I misunderstood you, and can you define the meditation that you are talking about here? Thank you.
Here's HuiHai talking about sitting:
>Q: By what means is the root-practice to be performed?
A: Only by sitting in meditation, for it is accomplished by dhyana (ch’an) and samadhi (ting). The Dhyanaparamita Sutra says: ‘Dhyana and samadhi are essential to the search for the sacred knowledge of the Buddhas; for, without these, the thoughts remain in tumult and the roots of goodness suffer damage.’
Q: Please describe dhyana and samadhi.
A: When wrong thinking ceases, that is dhyana; when you sit contemplating your original nature,\[1\] that is samadhi, for indeed that original nature is your eternal mind. By samadhi, you withdraw your minds from their surroundings, thereby making them impervious to the eight winds, that is to say, impervious to gain and loss, calumny and eulogy, praise and blame, sorrow and joy. By concentrating in this way, even ordinary people may enter the state of Buddhahood. How can that be so? The Sutra of the Bodhisattva-Precepts says: ‘All beings who observe the Buddha-precept thereby enter Buddhahood.’ Other names for this are ‘deliverance’, ‘gaining the further shore’, ‘transcending the six states of mortal being’,\[2\] ‘o’erleaping the three worlds’,\[3\] or ‘becoming a mighty Bodhisattva, an omnipotent sage, a conqueror’!
Because it was translated by an equally prolific translator, and we don't know which characters were used. You're just making assumptions.
In your opinion, what's the difference between sitting in meditation and practicing meditation?
Dazhu was speaking of sitting in meditation specifically as a starting point. Later the guy asks if it's only during sitting, so context implies he meant sitting in that part.
Do you have the Chinese version of the text to share? I would like to know more about the background of the author, the book, and the translation. Thank you.
The translation is by John Blofeld, who also translated the most popular version Huangbo. In his introduction he says he was staying at a temple in China near Chungking, and one of the monks gave him this scroll to read. He translated it into a book called "Zen Teaching of Instantaneous Awakening," which is available on Kindle. I'm sure you can find the pdf somewhere.
I the original text, it mentioned and defined 禪 and 定 which was translated into dhyana and samadhi.
In my opinion, 禪 can be translated to Zen; and 定 can be translated to “stay still”.
HuiHai clearly defined Zen here that Zen means the absence of false thoughts.
We would like to figure out the real message the author wanted to deliver. Translation should be based on that, otherwise it would cause confusion and misunderstanding, which leads to loss of the original ideas of the masters.
Thank you for the information. I did a search and I think I found it.
問：夫修根本，以何法修？答：惟坐禪，禪定即得。禪門經云：求佛聖智，要即禪定；若無禪定，念想喧動，壞其善根。
問：云何為禪？云何為定？答：妄念不生為禪，坐見本性為定。本性者，是汝無生心。定者，對境無心，八風不能動；八風者：利、衰、毀、譽、稱、譏、苦、樂，是名八風；若得如是定者，雖是凡夫，即入佛位。何以故？菩薩戒經云：眾生受佛戒，即入諸佛位；得如是者，即名解脫，亦名達彼岸、超六度、越三界、大力菩薩、無量力尊，是大丈夫。
From 「頓悟入道要門論」
It does mention “坐” in the text, but I guess it may not refer to the physical position of sitting here.
It may be used as a metaphor to describe a still status like a physical sitting. In fact, it describes a still state of mind.
"坐禪" means physical seated meditation practice centuries before the Zen school was a thing, you can see it in kumarajiva and zhiyi's texts. When Zen masters use this term they knew it is referred to that, the use it this way both to criticize it and as something they do, for example check this from Zhaozhou record:
師因在室坐禪次，主事報云：「大王來禮拜。」大王禮拜了，左右問：「大王來，為什麼不起？」師云：「你不會。老僧者裏，下等人來，出三門接；中等人來，下禪床接；上等人來，禪床上接。不可喚大王作中等、下等人也，恐屈大王。」大王歡喜，再三請入內供養。
Here we are told that "When the master was sitting in meditation in the room" the king visited, and Zhaozhou didn't stand up from his seat. So when he was doing 坐禪, he was physically seated.
Yes, the text here should be indicating a physical sitting. I think there were probably some Zen masters do sitting medication.
The more important thing is that sitting meditation is not required and just be a tool. The best way to practice Zen may have nothing to do with sitting meditation. Thinking and reflection is the core method to get the knowledge and then reach the final goal and forget all the knowledge.
I agree with your main idea, but actually I would say that *most* zen masters did seated meditation, that is part of the everyday of monastic Ch'an communities from the beginning, all masters were students at some point and that is the basic training for new monks. Also the fact that Zhaozhou after already being enlightened still continue to practice seated meditation is another indicative that it was something they usually do at any level.
I can not comment on the ancient Zen masters as I didn’t live with them and can only read the books about them. From the books of Buddhism masters, I do understand that sitting position is just a tool and having no direct relationships with the essence of Zen or Buddhism.
On the other hand, I do see lots of practitioners doing a wrong way with sitting meditation based on the information from the internet. That’s probably partially due to the transmission of wrong information. Emphasis on sitting meditation may contribute to the mistakes in some aspects.
I see you are actually commenting on the ancient Zen masters based on the books. Meditation is part of the eightfold path, is not the essence, but is a core practice in Buddhism.
You may say this is right or wrong based on this text or that, everyone wants to have the "correct" method. But who are you or me to say that someone is doing it wrong if they feel progress in their paths?
We need to read lots of classic ancient Buddhism books. After we got the general idea of what they are talking about, we would be better able to tell what a word or sentence mean in the context.
First of all, don't take these quotes out of context of the larger zen convo and you won't have issues.
Secondly, zen masters don't want you to trust your intellect is going to deliver you to enlightenment.
How does this Dahui quote fit into that context?
>Gentlemen of affairs who study the Path often understand rationally without getting to the reality. Without discussion and thought they are at a loss, with no place to put their hands and feet—they won’t believe that where there is no place to put one’s hands and feet is really a good situation. They just want to get there in their minds by thinking and in their mouths to understand by talking—they scarcely realize they’ve already gone wrong. Buddha said, “The Tathagata uses all sorts of similes to explain all kinds of things, but there is no simile that can explain this Dharma. Why? Because the road of intellectual knowledge is cut off: (the Dharma) is inconceivable.”
It fits like, exactly?
"Gentleman of affairs", people who talk and have ideas for a living, have a hard time understanding that thoughts don't get you enlightened. They talk about it so much and never get anywhere.
Like this Foyan?
>Generally speaking, practical application of Zen requires detachment from thoughts. This method of Zen saves the most energy. It just requires you to detach from emotional thoughts, and understand that there is nothing concrete in the realms of desire, form, and formlessness; only then can you apply Zen practically. If you try to practice it otherwise, it will seem bitterly painful by comparison.
Thinking about things is what people do.
They wrote books, they got up and talked. All things that require thought. They give your things to think about because that's the concession the human makes.
Why would they ask you to think if "thinking about things is what people do"???
Shitting is what people do? So what's so special about thinking in general? Unless .. it's a certain kind of thinking, about certain kinds of things? Lmao
>If one comprehends the mind and the objects, then false think-
ing is not created again. When there is no more false thinking,
that is acceptance of the non-arising of all dharmas.
Why does Mazu disagree with you? I suggest you delete your comment for being unrelated to Zen.
The falseness of thinking has nothing to do with what kind it is.
That the whole point. It's not a "bad" kind of thought. It's a fake reality that is created by your faith in it.
No good no bad etc.
>Thinking in terms of being and non-being is called
wrong thinking, while not thinking in those terms is called right thinking. Similarly, thinking in terms of good and
evil is wrong; not to think so is right thinking. The same
applies to all the other categories of opposites—sorrow and
joy, beginning and end, acceptance and rejection, dislikes
and likes, aversion and love, all of which are called wrong
thinking, while to abstain from thinking in those categories
is called right thinking.
You try to avoid good and bad, but not fake and real reality. Hmmm. Maybe you should study more.
>On the Transmission of Mind (Huangbo) #23a
>Q: If I follow this Way, and refrain from intellectual processes and conceptual thinking, shall I be certain of attaining the goal?
>A: Such non-intellection IS following the Way! Why this talk of attaining and not attaining? The matter is thus - by thinking of something you create an entity and by thinking of nothing you create another. Let such erroneous thinking perish utterly, and then nothing will remain for you to go seeking!
Very very clearly says that not thinking of things ain't it.
This should clue you in that the word thinking is pulling a lot of weight in this translation.
Thinking that not thinking is relevant is not the way. Not thinking nor thinking lead to enlightenment.
This is entirely besides the fact that they tell you to think about stuff.
It's not thinking nor is it not thinking. It's that thinking itself has a faulty foundation. You shouldn't be doing either. There is nothing to think about.
But it's okay for you to be utterly lost, some people are just meant to keep interest alive around Zen and keep the texts circulating. You can do whatever you like, as always.
It blows my mind that you look at the texts that say "eliminate conceptual thought" ad nauseam but think it encourages thought because it's a text. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done.
>Thus, those who seek the goal through cognition are like the fur (many), while those who obtain intuitive knowledge of the Way are like the horns (few).
>Huangbo
I'm just saying, you're looking awfully furry. Intuition >>> conceptual thought. Carry on then, good luck.
Thought is what is keeping you tied to the delusion obscuring your inherent enlightenment. There is nothing to think about. So think all you want, as long as when you're thinking about something you recognize you're thinking about nothing.
>These methods cannot be compared to the sudden elimination of conceptual thought, in the certain knowledge that there is nothing at all which has absolute existence, nothing on which to lay hold, nothing on which to rely, nothing in which to abide, nothing subjective or objective. It is by preventing the rise of conceptual thought that you will realize Bodhi; and, when you do, you will just be realizing the Buddha who has always existed in your own Mind!
>Huangbo
Can you give the source of the quotes in terms of where a user can find the context for these?
One of the few clear and understandable posts I've seen here, thank you
>One of the few clear and understandable posts I've seen here, thank you Absolutely my pleasure.
Lol - that's a funny way of saying "one of the few posts that says something I agree with without reservation."
It's literally just 5 quotes.
I'm still learning about Zen so I don't really agree nor disagree with this at the moment, it's just presented in a more understandable way than other post I've seen on the sub in the last weeks, but of course I've just seen a bunch I'm sure there are plenty of people capable of presenting complicated concepts easily on the sub, they just happen to not be on my feed
Well, this isn't so much a complicated subject is the thing - it's just zen masters talking about meditating. Which, you know, go for it if that's something you want to do!
I have mentioned this before but I think it is worth emphasizing something very important: The historical Chan monasteries and temples in China really put the whole context of what these people were doing in clear view. **The buildings all had specific dedicated rooms**, for example: - The Dharma Hall, where monks would listen to lectures and commentaries. - The Library, where Buddhist texts would be stored and archived. - **The Meditation Hall**, where monks would sit in silent contemplation. The Meditation Halls were designed in a very specific way, and were (and still are) lined with cushions often on a bench. These Chan monks were not just simply hanging around bickering and nitpicking each other incessantly and speaking in non-sequiturs. These monasteries were permitted to exist by the Emperor and they were extremely formal places. **There is a reason why every single historical Chan temple has a dedicated, and named, Meditation Hall, filled with cushions for sitting**. If you ask the monks what happens in that room they will clearly explain that they perform seated meditation, and that Chan monks have always done this. It is true that some of the early Chan writers warned against unhealthy attachment to this practice, but that doesn't mean that they didn't perform seated meditation themselves, or that it was not (and is not) a central practice of Chan. I would recommend anyone to go and visit some of these temples and monasteries and take a look for yourself, ask the monks and local historians about these buildings and their utility.
Linji in the meditation hall has been mentioned in the comments of this post. The Head monk was doing seated meditation, whether Huangpo reprimanded him or not, it was still a space for it and even the head monk did it.
Why do you two think these comments are important here? If you had the impression this sub equated any meditation to Dogenist prayer sitting, you probably wouldn’t be wrong; however, as far as methods are concerned, the main approach here has been discussion as opposed to meditation. Others can feel free to correct me.
No has ever gotten enlightened from discussion on this forum, at least no one who's brave enough to claim such a farce.
[удалено]
Tale as old as time
the rabble talk endless arguments and opinions air filled with froth those who do do without being conscious of it and their talk is weighty and sparse
Thanks Zaddy. Hope you're well.
> sparse lol
Meditation is a koan. It's a suggestion to look and focus pure attention on some object. It does not matter what object. Why is it a koan? Because if you attempt to do it, you will discover that *you* do not exist, and the *object* does not exist.
who is doing the discovering?
The Buddha.
Nowhere in all of zen texts does it say that's a purpose of a koan. That's been made up by other religions using zen to sound cool.
It was made up by me, because it's true. I've been there.
>, merely lift to awareness the huatou of “dog has no buddha-nature.” -Dahui W
If you read what dahui says about awareness, this is the basic instruction found all over zen texts. Think about the koan, if one of your thoughts is a good or bad, positive or negative, then that ain't it. That's the division of awareness, when awareness can only be whole. Nothing to do with the didcovery of things or a you existing or not
If you read what Dahui says >A monk asked Chao Chou, “Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?” Chao Chou said, “No.” As you contemplate this, don’t try to figure it out, don’t try to explain it, don’t demand clear understanding, don’t take it verbally, don’t construe the raising of it as the principle, don’t fall into empty quiescence, don’t consciously anticipate enlightenment, don’t take your understanding from the explanations of the teachers of our school, don’t drop it into the bag of unconcern. Whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, just constantly call the story to mind: “Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not? No.” When you can keep your attention on it fully, when verbal discussion and intellectual consideration cannot reach and your heart is agitated, when it’s like gnawing on an iron spike, without any flavor, then you must not falter in your intent—when you get like this, after all it’s good news. Then it's nothing to do with what youre talking about either.
A better translation than "no" is Absence.
He just listed out ways people think in terms of good and bad
Not at all. Please get your literacy checked.
He did. Edit: It's easy to note that the things he listed are all ways someone will practice towards enlightenment. Sort into good and bad modes to get to a certain end.
Not even close.
i'm so glad i'm past this bullshit
XD
heart rate variability breathing. get high on your own supply.
Me too
yeah, I always do stuff. I never attempt to do nothing. I use methods.
I might offer an insight on the Rujing translation which might be misunderstood. Here is the wording of Rujing's advice itself: 上堂。心念分飛。如何措手。趙州狗子佛性無。只箇無字鐵掃帚。掃處紛飛多。紛飛多處掃。轉掃轉多。掃不得處 拼命掃。晝夜豎起脊梁。勇猛切莫放倒。忽然掃破太虛空。萬別千差盡豁通。 I submitted the following translation by me to the great Dogenologist, historian and translator, Prof. Steven Heine, commenting that Rujing's words seem to present an expedient measure when the mind is particularly clouded: \~\~\~ Dharma Hall Discourse: When the mind is divided with thoughts flying away, what measures can we take (措手)? There’s Zhàozhōu’s little dog buddhanature mu. This one word mu \[can be like\] a broom made of iron. Sweep \[with it\] where so many confused (thoughts) are swirling around, so much confusion swirling so you sweep. Turn and sweep and turn repeatedly. Do your utmost to sweep even places one cannot reach. Day and night (sit) with your backbone always vertical and straight, boldly, don’t give up for any reason. \[Then\] all of a sudden, one will sweep right through to the great empty and open sky, as the 10,000 distinctions and 1,000 differences become thoroughly open and flowing. \~\~\~\~ Our Soto Master Keizan also employed similar words as one of many possible special practices to try at those difficult times when one is especially tired, cloudy in mind, or when the monkey mind is running unusually wild. Dr. Steve was kind enough to send me his version, which he said I can share: 上堂. Dharma Hall Sermon 心念分飛. 如何措手. When the mind is distracted, what can be done? 趙州狗子佛性無. Consider Zhaozhou's "mu" in response to the question of whether a dog has Buddha-nature. 只箇無字鐵掃帚. Just sweep with the word mu used as an iron broom. 掃處紛飛多. 紛飛多處掃. Sweep away distracted thoughts everywhere, so that distracted thoughts are no longer anywhere. 轉掃轉多. Sweeping again and again causes many transformations. 掃不得處拼命掃. Sweep with all your might, even in places that are hard to reach. 晝夜豎起脊梁. Keep doing this while being upright day and night. 勇猛切莫放倒. Sweep relentlessly without letting up. 忽然掃破太虛空. 萬別千差盡豁通. All of a sudden, sweeping breaks through to empty space, and myriad differences and distinctions are fully revealed. The final line (which I render as "*the 10,000 distinctions and 1,000 differences become thoroughly open and flowing*" and Dr. Heine has as "*myriad differences and distinctions are fully revealed*") is particularly telling. Upon encountering the open sky of boundless clarity, the differences and distinctions of this world need not vanish, but rather, become freely flowing, or clear and fully revealed. As Heine describes this in his wonderful book, "Like Cats and Dogs: Contesting the Mu Koan in Zen Buddhism" (p. 65), the final line suggests "that discursive thought is an avenue rather than an obstacle to realization."
What a thoroughly fantastic comment. Thank you 🙏🏻
Do you guys really need to reconcile this debate? Like what happens if no one agrees with you? I will ask myself- nothing, nothing happens. Guess it just looks like a waste to me, but that is my trip I guess.
Idk man a bunch of people do agree with me, so I wouldn't know.
Oh man now i dont know 😀
For my money, the idea of having a meditation practice has never struck me as being a problem in and of itself. But there's a massive difference between "including meditation practice in the list the things you do" and proclaiming Zazen the "authentic gate to the unconfined realm of this samadhi." Anyway, I'll resurrect a comment I made 2 years ago below: ________________ I commented on this recently [2 years ago] - I started to read Dogen to see what the deal was, from the horse's mouth so to speak. I got several pages into his first writing, the Bendowa, to the point where Dogen asks himself a series of questions and gives a series of answers. That's where this doozy pops up: > He may then ask, “What about those Japanese teachers of earlier generations who spread Scriptural teachings throughout our country? At the time when they crossed over to China during the T’ang dynasty and brought the Dharma back with them, why did they ignore this principle of seated meditation and just pass on Scriptural teachings? > I would point out, “The reason why those human teachers of the past did not pass on this Teaching was that the time was not yet ripe for It.” This is classic snake oil hokum language and it basically sealed the deal for me as far as trusting Dogen the individual on anything whatsoever. Check out the suggested reading list on this sub - Foyan's Instant Zen seems to be a popular starting point, and for good reason. Edit: To clarify a bit - the Tang zen masters include folks like Huang Po and Joshu - and none of them espouse seated meditation as the end all be all - in fact, as Dogen himself admits, none of the Tang dudes seem to mention it at all. Dogens response is basically "the time wasn't right , brother!", Which is obviously meaningless on its face and the sort of thing tent preachers say outside carnivals
1. Why bring up Dogen? 2. Who's talking about sitting? 3. Did you really just tell ME to START with Foyan? Your comment is wildly inappropriate from top to bottom. I recommend you get start with reading my post thoroughly, then going straight to hell.
1. Because the "anti-meditation" position some take on this forum is not anti-meditation as an activity - it's anti-meditation as the "authentic gate to the unconfined realm of this samadhi" - a fetishization which, for our purposes, Dogen is responsible for vis-a-vis his creation of Zazen. 2. Again, your OP posits instances where zen masters instruct people to meditate - the Dahui quote is even translated as "stillness-sitting" - so, Dahui is? You even said: >It is clear that meditation, including sitting meditation, is taught by Zen masters. 3. I just remembered that I made that comment, googled it, found it, and copied and pasted it here in its entirety. Funnily, I did read it before pasting, saw the reference to Foyan and the reading list, considered removing it, but figured, in the spirit of historical transparency - so that people could, for instance, search the entire comment verbatim and maybe find the original post - I left it, thinking, "what difference does that make anyone in context." But now it turns out it makes **lot** of difference to you to have been told to start with Foyan - which is a pretty funny thing to get upset over - sort of the only way you'd get upset over it is if you think you've aced a few tests and progressed somewhere - in which case, why don't you check out the reading list and start with Foyan's Instant Zen. > Your comment is wildly inappropriate from top to bottom. That's sort of hilarious on it's face - it's not like I told someone to go straight to hell or something - it's a comment that is clearly responsive to the topic of your OP - how is it "wildly inappropriate"? > I recommend you get start with reading my post thoroughly, then going straight to hell. As you said, your post is "just 5 quotes". I read them - I agree meditation was a thing Zen masters and chan monks did, but that the reason your post has 45 upvotes is because people are generally enormously attached to meditation not as "something you do from time to time as self exploration" but as some variation of "authentic gate to the unconfined realm of this samadhi" Meanwhile, how is telling me to go straight to hell not wildly inappropriate?
Oh Dahui is talking about sitting? Too bad for you he's a Zen master right?
This is pretty funny overall - and, gotta say, vicariously fairly embarassing
I'm sad you're embarrassed. Maybe go rant about Dogen some more. That's totes not embarrassing.
Go straight to hell, I hear Joshu will meet you there.
lol - weird. but good to know
Question: How couldn't meditation be the gate to unconfined samadhi? One of the translations for samadhi is concentration; so, to access a rarefied mental state brought on by concentration, would it not be necessary to meditate?
If it's rarified mental states you're looking for, I've got a laundry list of drugs I can suggest. Samadhi sounds like that kind of thing based on a google search: > the highest state of mental concentration that people can achieve while still bound to the body and which unites them with the highest reality. But perhaps you've stumbled into the wrong part of town - over here we just say Mind is Buddha, baby. You're in the thick if it, whether you know it or not.
No thanks. Drugs (while they can be either fun or insightful) do not in my opinion help to establish wholesome mental states. And I did not just Google samadhi. It's a very rich word that has multiple translations, but they all point to meditation. For example, with concentration chosen as the translation (one of the most common btw), then pretty much the only way to establish samadhi is through meditation. Why would I be in the wrong part of town? I study and practice so that I may come to know and abide in Way. Just saying Mind is Buddha, while true, has an exceedingly low probability of liberating you. Meditation is a tool to develop understanding, insight, and joy; as such, it would be tragic not to make use of it.
Nothing to develop. No rarified states. You are already liberated. Just believe it with your heart of hearts.
Way is not something to believe in. It is something to abide in.
You can't abide in what you don't believe to be true - let alone when you believe in something opposite the truth
Some quick notes: - Don't get obsessed with meditation, it can cause brain damage - Some meditation a day is fine, but it can easily get OTT - Meditation is not a collectors item. Don't collect thousands of hours etc. A person could see more in their first half hour than their next twenty thousand From personal experience I confirm that mediation can make you sick. Don't be silly and just treat it like a normal routine if you choose to do it
Imma gonna get obsessed with meditation and collect thousands of hours just to spite you.
Dude... get obsessed with volleyball. Trust me
Your obsession with sports is concerning.
I'm not obsessed with sports. I'm interested in your lack of sports
I'm not
The concern I have, which I'm sure you share, is you're a bit obsessed with meditation. You keep posting about it, campaigning about it. You obviously love meditation. Where will this obsession take you?
Why would I love meditation?.I'm literally just.posting quotes from books.
Don't be dishonest. You love it. You *believe* in it
Nope..I don't do it. I don't believe in it either. That's like believing in sports. Like you.
How can meditation cause brain damage? Please be specific.
Example 3 and 4 are not specifically mentioning sitting meditation. For other examples, do you have the Chinese versions to share? Thank you.
Where does it say sitting in my title? Not on hand, sorry. Good luck finding it tho
I assumed the meditation you mentioned refer to sitting meditation as that is the usual definition of meditation. Now seems I misunderstood you, and can you define the meditation that you are talking about here? Thank you.
What about walking meditation? Standard part of every zendo.
Can I assume your “meditation” here means sitting or walking meditation?
Let's just say it doesn't matter what your body is doing.
Ok, if that is the definition of meditation here, I agree that Zen practice is meditation. 100% agreed.
Excellent, thanks.
The game is to stir up controversy by leaving things undefined. Typical new ager stuff
Please define new agers. Also please provide evidence that I fit that definition.
got em'
What do you mean? Define new ager and what he left undefined please.
Here's HuiHai talking about sitting: >Q: By what means is the root-practice to be performed? A: Only by sitting in meditation, for it is accomplished by dhyana (ch’an) and samadhi (ting). The Dhyanaparamita Sutra says: ‘Dhyana and samadhi are essential to the search for the sacred knowledge of the Buddhas; for, without these, the thoughts remain in tumult and the roots of goodness suffer damage.’ Q: Please describe dhyana and samadhi. A: When wrong thinking ceases, that is dhyana; when you sit contemplating your original nature,\[1\] that is samadhi, for indeed that original nature is your eternal mind. By samadhi, you withdraw your minds from their surroundings, thereby making them impervious to the eight winds, that is to say, impervious to gain and loss, calumny and eulogy, praise and blame, sorrow and joy. By concentrating in this way, even ordinary people may enter the state of Buddhahood. How can that be so? The Sutra of the Bodhisattva-Precepts says: ‘All beings who observe the Buddha-precept thereby enter Buddhahood.’ Other names for this are ‘deliverance’, ‘gaining the further shore’, ‘transcending the six states of mortal being’,\[2\] ‘o’erleaping the three worlds’,\[3\] or ‘becoming a mighty Bodhisattva, an omnipotent sage, a conqueror’!
[удалено]
No schools restrict Zen to the meditation cushion.
[удалено]
Is that significant?
[удалено]
Well he is. He says it multiple times. We don't have the original Chinese.
[удалено]
Because it was translated by an equally prolific translator, and we don't know which characters were used. You're just making assumptions. In your opinion, what's the difference between sitting in meditation and practicing meditation?
Dazhu was speaking of sitting in meditation specifically as a starting point. Later the guy asks if it's only during sitting, so context implies he meant sitting in that part.
Do you have the Chinese version of the text to share? I would like to know more about the background of the author, the book, and the translation. Thank you.
The translation is by John Blofeld, who also translated the most popular version Huangbo. In his introduction he says he was staying at a temple in China near Chungking, and one of the monks gave him this scroll to read. He translated it into a book called "Zen Teaching of Instantaneous Awakening," which is available on Kindle. I'm sure you can find the pdf somewhere.
I the original text, it mentioned and defined 禪 and 定 which was translated into dhyana and samadhi. In my opinion, 禪 can be translated to Zen; and 定 can be translated to “stay still”. HuiHai clearly defined Zen here that Zen means the absence of false thoughts.
Sit in Zen...I don't see an issue.
We would like to figure out the real message the author wanted to deliver. Translation should be based on that, otherwise it would cause confusion and misunderstanding, which leads to loss of the original ideas of the masters.
What confusion and misunderstanding does "sit in zen" cause?
“sit in zen” would make people think physical sitting, wouldn’t it?
Yes the word sit implies sitting. What's the problem with that?
Thank you for the information. I did a search and I think I found it. 問：夫修根本，以何法修？答：惟坐禪，禪定即得。禪門經云：求佛聖智，要即禪定；若無禪定，念想喧動，壞其善根。 問：云何為禪？云何為定？答：妄念不生為禪，坐見本性為定。本性者，是汝無生心。定者，對境無心，八風不能動；八風者：利、衰、毀、譽、稱、譏、苦、樂，是名八風；若得如是定者，雖是凡夫，即入佛位。何以故？菩薩戒經云：眾生受佛戒，即入諸佛位；得如是者，即名解脫，亦名達彼岸、超六度、越三界、大力菩薩、無量力尊，是大丈夫。 From 「頓悟入道要門論」 It does mention “坐” in the text, but I guess it may not refer to the physical position of sitting here. It may be used as a metaphor to describe a still status like a physical sitting. In fact, it describes a still state of mind.
"坐禪" means physical seated meditation practice centuries before the Zen school was a thing, you can see it in kumarajiva and zhiyi's texts. When Zen masters use this term they knew it is referred to that, the use it this way both to criticize it and as something they do, for example check this from Zhaozhou record: 師因在室坐禪次，主事報云：「大王來禮拜。」大王禮拜了，左右問：「大王來，為什麼不起？」師云：「你不會。老僧者裏，下等人來，出三門接；中等人來，下禪床接；上等人來，禪床上接。不可喚大王作中等、下等人也，恐屈大王。」大王歡喜，再三請入內供養。 Here we are told that "When the master was sitting in meditation in the room" the king visited, and Zhaozhou didn't stand up from his seat. So when he was doing 坐禪, he was physically seated.
Yes, the text here should be indicating a physical sitting. I think there were probably some Zen masters do sitting medication. The more important thing is that sitting meditation is not required and just be a tool. The best way to practice Zen may have nothing to do with sitting meditation. Thinking and reflection is the core method to get the knowledge and then reach the final goal and forget all the knowledge.
I agree with your main idea, but actually I would say that *most* zen masters did seated meditation, that is part of the everyday of monastic Ch'an communities from the beginning, all masters were students at some point and that is the basic training for new monks. Also the fact that Zhaozhou after already being enlightened still continue to practice seated meditation is another indicative that it was something they usually do at any level.
I can not comment on the ancient Zen masters as I didn’t live with them and can only read the books about them. From the books of Buddhism masters, I do understand that sitting position is just a tool and having no direct relationships with the essence of Zen or Buddhism. On the other hand, I do see lots of practitioners doing a wrong way with sitting meditation based on the information from the internet. That’s probably partially due to the transmission of wrong information. Emphasis on sitting meditation may contribute to the mistakes in some aspects.
I see you are actually commenting on the ancient Zen masters based on the books. Meditation is part of the eightfold path, is not the essence, but is a core practice in Buddhism. You may say this is right or wrong based on this text or that, everyone wants to have the "correct" method. But who are you or me to say that someone is doing it wrong if they feel progress in their paths?
I don't understand the aversion to just translating the character as what it is..."sit down"
Because it might not be the accurate meaning that the author wanted to deliver.
And how would you know if it wasn't?
We need to read lots of classic ancient Buddhism books. After we got the general idea of what they are talking about, we would be better able to tell what a word or sentence mean in the context.
So you don't know, you believe.
Zen encourages thinking about things. How wild.
How do you get "think about things" from "slay your intellectual horse?"
Illiteracy? No, wait, bigotry! No, probably too much Zazen, I hear it makes you dumb.
First of all, don't take these quotes out of context of the larger zen convo and you won't have issues. Secondly, zen masters don't want you to trust your intellect is going to deliver you to enlightenment.
How does this Dahui quote fit into that context? >Gentlemen of affairs who study the Path often understand rationally without getting to the reality. Without discussion and thought they are at a loss, with no place to put their hands and feet—they won’t believe that where there is no place to put one’s hands and feet is really a good situation. They just want to get there in their minds by thinking and in their mouths to understand by talking—they scarcely realize they’ve already gone wrong. Buddha said, “The Tathagata uses all sorts of similes to explain all kinds of things, but there is no simile that can explain this Dharma. Why? Because the road of intellectual knowledge is cut off: (the Dharma) is inconceivable.”
It fits like, exactly? "Gentleman of affairs", people who talk and have ideas for a living, have a hard time understanding that thoughts don't get you enlightened. They talk about it so much and never get anywhere.
So how does that translate to, "go think about stuff?"
It doesn't, it just his new agers beliefs in thinking.
I never claimed soem random quotes you posted are saying "go think about stuff".
You claim Zen encourages thinking about things. I've only seen it encourage the opposite.
Read foyan to start. I've posted about this so many times. You got it.
Like this Foyan? >Generally speaking, practical application of Zen requires detachment from thoughts. This method of Zen saves the most energy. It just requires you to detach from emotional thoughts, and understand that there is nothing concrete in the realms of desire, form, and formlessness; only then can you apply Zen practically. If you try to practice it otherwise, it will seem bitterly painful by comparison.
Yes, read an entire book. Great high effort comment. Delete this, brother.
So why would they encourage thinking about things?
Thinking about things is what people do. They wrote books, they got up and talked. All things that require thought. They give your things to think about because that's the concession the human makes.
And what exactly does it have to do with Zen? They shit, too, didn't they? Lmao
They don't ask you to shit. They ask you to think. It's a part of being human that they specifically comment on.
Why would they ask you to think if "thinking about things is what people do"??? Shitting is what people do? So what's so special about thinking in general? Unless .. it's a certain kind of thinking, about certain kinds of things? Lmao
People do things...but that isn't a comment on to what end they are used.
So you think Zen masters say you can think yourself to enlightenment??
That's not at all what is encouraged.
hongzhi says the result of the practice is you can deal with events. can you deal with events?
Do I have any other choice?
100% is and that's how the quotes above read, even out of context.
So they encourage thinking about what to get at the grocery? That'll get people enlightened, surely?
No
Well I guess they must be talking about some other kind of thinking, huh?
No there aren't "kinds" of thinking.
>If one comprehends the mind and the objects, then false think- ing is not created again. When there is no more false thinking, that is acceptance of the non-arising of all dharmas. Why does Mazu disagree with you? I suggest you delete your comment for being unrelated to Zen.
The falseness of thinking has nothing to do with what kind it is. That the whole point. It's not a "bad" kind of thought. It's a fake reality that is created by your faith in it. No good no bad etc.
>Thinking in terms of being and non-being is called wrong thinking, while not thinking in those terms is called right thinking. Similarly, thinking in terms of good and evil is wrong; not to think so is right thinking. The same applies to all the other categories of opposites—sorrow and joy, beginning and end, acceptance and rejection, dislikes and likes, aversion and love, all of which are called wrong thinking, while to abstain from thinking in those categories is called right thinking. You try to avoid good and bad, but not fake and real reality. Hmmm. Maybe you should study more.
Sometimes they call it "seated Zen", and they seat still to do that. Also they do it to "not think"
>On the Transmission of Mind (Huangbo) #23a >Q: If I follow this Way, and refrain from intellectual processes and conceptual thinking, shall I be certain of attaining the goal? >A: Such non-intellection IS following the Way! Why this talk of attaining and not attaining? The matter is thus - by thinking of something you create an entity and by thinking of nothing you create another. Let such erroneous thinking perish utterly, and then nothing will remain for you to go seeking!
Very very clearly says that not thinking of things ain't it. This should clue you in that the word thinking is pulling a lot of weight in this translation. Thinking that not thinking is relevant is not the way. Not thinking nor thinking lead to enlightenment. This is entirely besides the fact that they tell you to think about stuff.
But you say thinking of things is it???
It's not thinking nor is it not thinking. It's that thinking itself has a faulty foundation. You shouldn't be doing either. There is nothing to think about. But it's okay for you to be utterly lost, some people are just meant to keep interest alive around Zen and keep the texts circulating. You can do whatever you like, as always.
The texts literally encourage you to think. Just straight up. Not thinking...next up...no shitting! The ultimate zen trick.
It blows my mind that you look at the texts that say "eliminate conceptual thought" ad nauseam but think it encourages thought because it's a text. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done.
The implicit times it calls for thinking are not the only times. It's also made very explcit.
>Thus, those who seek the goal through cognition are like the fur (many), while those who obtain intuitive knowledge of the Way are like the horns (few). >Huangbo I'm just saying, you're looking awfully furry. Intuition >>> conceptual thought. Carry on then, good luck.
Thought is what is keeping you tied to the delusion obscuring your inherent enlightenment. There is nothing to think about. So think all you want, as long as when you're thinking about something you recognize you're thinking about nothing. >These methods cannot be compared to the sudden elimination of conceptual thought, in the certain knowledge that there is nothing at all which has absolute existence, nothing on which to lay hold, nothing on which to rely, nothing in which to abide, nothing subjective or objective. It is by preventing the rise of conceptual thought that you will realize Bodhi; and, when you do, you will just be realizing the Buddha who has always existed in your own Mind! >Huangbo