Talk:Shikantaza

message: I'm not sure if this is just my opinion or if most Buddhists would agree with this Hippocrates
===Empirical explanation of central buddhist concepts===
Meditative practice stands in close relationship with central buddhist concepts. Some people actually "see" them work. The [marks of conditioned existence], a central Buddhist doctrine, will be explained from the viewpoint of the meditator. 
* Anicca: "impermanence"
This first aspect points at the continuous flux of life. Everything is always in motion. Nothing is stable and permanent. Shikantaza is practiced from this point of view. The meditator doesn't discriminate between experiences. Everything is accepted exactly as it is, because ultimately nothing lasts. Knowing there's no real foundation one could hold onto, the actual practice also is of this nature. There's no focussing on any specific experience or thought (as is usual in most meditative practices, for example anapana sati). Because of this the meditation is experienced as a mental state of openness and acceptation.
* Dukkha: "sorrow"
This is perhaps on of the most difficult concepts to understand from the perspective of practice. Gautama Buddha says the fundamental problem of life are our desire's (see Four Noble Truths). These create attachments. This implicates that we like some, but dislike other experiences. The meditator learns to be fully aware of the experience as it is. It isn't possible to add or substract anything any more. In this way no new attachment is created and older ones slowly fade away. Over a period of time (some teachers say it takes approximately four years of intensive practice) it is held to be possible to transcend all attachments. Thereby aquiring the original and natural state of mind - see enlightenment (Buddhism). In which all experiences reveil themselves as emptiness (sunyata).
* Anatta: "no self" (better translation would be 'not-self, otherwise one may inadvertently lead others to nihilistic ideas. Whatever arises is seen to be 'not a permanent self'.Guoshow 11:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''What do people think of this (potential) addition?''

message: Meditative practice stands in close relationship with central buddhist concepts. Some people actually "see" them work. The [marks of conditioned existence], a central Buddhist doctrine, will be explained from the viewpoint of the meditator. 
* Anicca: "impermanence"
This first aspect points at the continuous flux of life. Everything is always in motion. Nothing is stable and permanent. Shikantaza is practiced from this point of view. The meditator doesn't discriminate between experiences. Everything is accepted exactly as it is, because ultimately nothing lasts. Knowing there's no real foundation one could hold onto, the actual practice also is of this nature. There's no focussing on any specific experience or thought (as is usual in most meditative practices, for example anapana sati). Because of this the meditation is experienced as a mental state of openness and acceptation.
* Dukkha: "sorrow"
This is perhaps on of the most difficult concepts to understand from the perspective of practice. Gautama Buddha says the fundamental problem of life are our desire's (see Four Noble Truths). These create attachments. This implicates that we like some, but dislike other experiences. The meditator learns to be fully aware of the experience as it is. It isn't possible to add or substract anything any more. In this way no new attachment is created and older ones slowly fade away. Over a period of time (some teachers say it takes approximately four years of intensive practice) it is held to be possible to transcend all attachments. Thereby aquiring the original and natural state of mind - see enlightenment (Buddhism). In which all experiences reveil themselves as emptiness (sunyata).
* Anatta: "no self" (better translation would be 'not-self, otherwise one may inadvertently lead others to nihilistic ideas. Whatever arises is seen to be 'not a permanent self'.Guoshow 11:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Empirical explanation of central buddhist concepts

message: Hippocrates: Hello Kukkurovaca. I made an account on your suggestion. Thanks for the tips. I'm new here, you probably already recognized.... :). bye.
:Excellent. By the way, I may have sounded curt before, as is my wont, but your edits were quite useful, and appreciated. Happy stuff. (BTW, if you don't want to have to bother to sign your name, stick three tildes ("~") at the end of your message, or four if you also want a timestamp.) -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:51, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: stuff

message: * practice is enlightenment
In Zen terms we say honsho myoshu. Honsho means intrinsic enlightenment; myoshu, subtle practice. We say practice and enlightenment, or realization, are one. How is it one thing? When you sit, your zazen is the zazen of the Buddhas. Your zazen is sitting Buddha, or Buddha's zazen. So your practice is realization itself, enlightenment itself. Your zazen becomes anuttara samyak sambodhi itself. Have this kind of faith. 
Usually when you do zazen, zazen becomes a cause to create some kind of effect, such as enlightenment, frustration, anger, or whatever arises. That is the wrong way to do zazen. Your practice is not something by which you attain some place else or something else. Your practice itself is a fulfillment of honsho myoshu, the originally enlightened life.
((Svaha!  Our enlightened activity is the same as the Buddha's!  Mahakasyapa wiggles his toes in our shoes!  Another point, Shikantaza is NOT meditation, according to Dogen.  There is no object on which to meditate.  Thank you for your fine page!))
Response:
Yes I think this is probably the most vital point about Shikantaza. Everything else that is said or written about Shiakantaza is just a result of practice, and therefore if you add extra information about Shikantaza you may confuse people and they might start trying to do things that they read. This defeats the purpose of practice and may cause more problems. Yes you are right Dogen did say practice and realization are the same thing and this is what makes Zen so different from other Buddhist sects which lack the self sufficient that zen practice emphasises. This should be included as a vital root to Shikantaza and realaization! 
Vishal       25 Feb 2007
People seem to have lost interest in this very good article.  Because they think it can't be improved?  I think it can.  The differences of opinion between various authorities cited (as well as others not cited) are massive.  Highlighting these differences by starting  citations with phrases like "In contrast," or "On the other hand" might help readers recognize that the authorities are not dealing with facts, but only with their own opinions.
The note above mine on "people...might start trying to do things that they read.  This defeats the purpose of practice...etc."  Vishal, do you think there's any possible way of stopping them from doing that?  You seem to have a singular "purpose of practice" in mind.  What is it?  <ARRust (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful info

message: Hi, ARRust- can't help you on the cite error 'cause I've only done it once and it worked- if I add something more I'll keep my eyes open and let you know if anything strikes me as connected to your error.  
Rereading the four points on the to-do list, I wouldn't address any of those under the topic of shikantaza, myself.  The stages of meditation I think are more of a Theravadin tradition concern, even though they were one of the most frequently repeated aspects of the Gautamid's teaching.  The ox-herding pictures are profound, as is Fuxi's poem: 
“An empty hand grasps the hoe handle
Walking along, I ride the ox
The ox crosses the wooden bridge
The bridge is flowing, the water is still.”
(“Zen’s Chinese Heritage”, Andy Ferguson, pg 2, ©2000 Andrew Ferguson)
Nevertheless, I think we run aground if our explanation of shikantaza doesn't return to ordinary experience, to a natural well-being that requires no special states or training.  Likewise, why point to duality, why bring in the subject of emptiness; I prefer a simple hands-on statement like Kobun Chino Otogawa's:
Sitting shikan taza is the place itself, and things. (from the Jikoji site, here:  http://www.jikoji.org/Kobun/shikantaza.html)
The discussion about "practice is enlightenment" might be more appropriate in a biography of Dogen, which I'm sure they have somewhere on Wikipedia.  I'm not sure that anyone else in the history of Ch'an and Zen has made such a statement, which is why I think it belongs to a biography of Dogen.  Sounds like a description of shikantaza for sure, but unless someone can put that into laymen's terms in a way that relates the kind of practice and enlightenment described to ordinary life, I think we would mislead people.  
Mark A. Foote (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another 2 cents on the four points in the "To-Do" list 

message: The article says, "some of the Zen masters in Loori's book The Art of Just Sitting deride Yasutani's description." I find this unlikely - zen masters in my experience don't waste time "deriding" each others' teachings. Deride: To harshly mock; ridicule. The reference is to a whole 256-page book. Writers I have found who mention Yasutani's description of shikantaza do so without comment in amongst the other descriptions. I was taught shikantaza with a story similar to Yasutani's and I can see that the end product is the same however the teacher introduces the practice. Unless someone can give me a quote from the book that is about these other zen teachers' "derision" of Yasutani's description, I think I shall delete that sentence soon. --Nigelj (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zen masters deride Yasutani's description