How is zazen different from vipassana or other meditation techniques

I understand that this particular group may not have an answer to this question, but I'm asking because it is on my mind lately, especially today.
Many times in the last 20 years I've focused on zazen either just from books and on my own or at zen centers at daily sittings or one day retreats.
The last three years or so I've focused on vipassana.
Lately though, I've been going to both vipassana and zen groups to sit locally.
When I go to vipassan groups, I do vipassana, when I go to the zen group, I do zazen.

They aren't the same.

While, like vipassana, there are many contradictory instructions and diffferent variations in how zazen is explained or done -- here is what I do:

Sit on the floor on a black zabuton and black zafu in the half lotus. Put my hands in the cosmic mudra with the circle surrounding my navel, back straight, ears even with shoulders, nose even with naval, chin in basically, eyes open. Breathe through the hara (which to me is that abdomen area just below the naval) and try to keep the consciouness at that hara. From there constantly adjust the posture to keep it as described. Keep a loose focus on the in breaths, in between breaths, out breaths at the hara.If/when thoughts arise do NOT chase after them or add to them or indulge them, just let them be and return to maintaining the posture and attention to each breath -- live in the hara.

Now, I've found that if all these things are done in combination with a flow and the posture is dialed in just right -- then zazen becomes almost like a physical activity with the brain barely involved -- an exercise in emptiness, which can be calmly energetic, joyous, and after 20 minutes or so can feel like the organic brain has been massaged.
It is JUST sitting and breath. Literarly. Nothing else is going on. Maintain the posture and notice the breath -- there should be NO other activities.

Now, vipassana (or even samatha) is different, right? There is a directed activity, an investigation, an inquiry, some kind of systematic process. A strategy. At least, for me, they are similar certainly, but different activities.

So, assuming all that, does each lead somewhere different? Is there 'awakening' with both, but with a different quality?

With the proviso than this is just one person's opinion-- though I can claim to have been very interested in, and informally researching, this question for a little over a decade-- I'm willing to say how it seems to me.

There are two elements to consider: the qualities of the one who is awake, and the qualities of 'awakeness' per se. I haven't seen anyone become 'someone else' as a result of awakening, so much as become an exponentially clarified version of themselves-- that is a quality of awakeness. The paramitas seem to me to be qualities of awakeness that have wound up seeming like lists of virtues to try to emulate. Maybe because the translations we have are a bit fusty and Victorian, they get conflated with more Christian ideas than truly fit. My first-hand present-day list would be a lot like the one Chris posted on another thread, with the addition of 'a heightened sensitivity and responsiveness to all the beings and phenomena of life,' or some such.

Included in the category of the personality, which would be the individual, relative, aspect of awakeness would be an affinity to modes of practice, which prefer or ignore some qualities of experience over others: Theravada seems to emphasize certain codified states of mind; Zen and Dzogchen seem to encourage a more free-form call 'em how you see 'em approach to all the states of mind that appear in daily life.

"Is there 'awakening' with both, but with a different quality?"
You certainly pose fascinating, difficult questions, Mike. I think Mike "Gozen" would be a great person to ask this question of as I think he would have a very cogent answer.
My opinion is that awakening is awakening is awakening. It has various components (Jackson uses the term "facets," that appear at different times, all at once, sometimes not at all). Sometimes I think these facets are related to the nature of practice but most often I think they aren't. I think that awakening is most likely independent of any particular practice, especially in regard to experiences of non-dual awareness. Some folks will disagree and clearly there are practices that are aimed specifically at obtaining non-dual awareness, like Kenneth Folk's Third Gear.
I do vipassana, zazen (Shikantaza, actually), jhana practices and other things on a certain practice cycle and that's just because I like the variation.



-cmarti

" I think that awakening is most likely independent of any particular practice..."

I think it must be, given that awakening is part of a wide variety of traditions, including Christian Mysticism, Hinduism (in its many forms), Buddhism (in its many forms), Alchemy, Western Magick, Sufism... and in a few rare cases you hear about it there may be awakening seemingly "out of the blue" due to some kind of trauma or something.

As I understand it in the traditions I am familiar with, one practices things that help point towards awakening, but awakening itself is never the direct result of a specific effort or technique - the techniques and efforts simply prepare the soil, so to speak, and the seed sprouts when it is ready. With no or poor preparation of the soil, the seed is unlikely to sprout. With good preparation it is more likely. But in its own time and way, not by some trick of effort. Which may be why so many stories of awakening never take place during meditation, but instead while the person is walking, working, cooking, or doing some other mundane activity. My view at the moment anyway.

Eyes glued to this thread, as Nick would say. But my take is the following:
Vipassana is a much more "active" technique, where you are observing/noting/letting-go. Zazen, as practiced by Soto Zen, is very passive (aside from the physical element of keeping the posture "just so"). That seems to be what you are describing. But of course there is the Rinzai zazen, which involves mentally chewing on koans, so that also seems to have a strategy to use your terminology.
I would also classify shamatha practice as very (Soto) zazen-like.
Obviously I cannot answer the really meaty part of your question, but I hope that all paths lead to the top of the same mountain, with different vistas along the way.

-tomo

Okay, I can see how what I said would make Zazen (soto style) seem "passive," but I'm not sure if that is accurate -- though I bet that is how it is done by a lot of people.
I think it is intended to be active -- very active -- it's just that, unlike vipassana, there is no set agenda, or specific techique or map or guideposts. But, still, I think they are both using very detailed, open awareness to get to insight into the three characteristics and eventual fruition(s). Maybe.
This is why I am getting into practicing with some real people and some real teachers, so I can find out the answers to some of these questions.
Another angle I'm seeing is this:
With such a strong emphasis placed on sitting with "no gaining idea," and on just sitting with no agenda, no drive to change or do anything special, just an awareness of the activity going on with each in breath and each out breath -- maybe for some people a sort of non-dual awarenss slowly creeps into one's daily life? I don't know.

I went to my local zen sangha's sitting and service last night. The priest gave a dharma talk on "zazen" and it was interesting and pretty good. One thing that just struck me on a non-conceptual level -- "Now, when we are here together sitting zazen, what is happening? Really, all it is is some people sitting and breathing in a room, right? But, with our thinking, our imaginations, our ambitions, etc., we make it into much much more than that, don't we? But, really, all that is actually happening is some people sitting here in this room."

" I think that awakening is most likely independent of any particular practice..."
I think it must be, given that awakening is part of a wide variety of traditions, including Christian Mysticism, Hinduism (in its many forms), Buddhism (in its many forms), Alchemy, Western Magick, Sufism... and in a few rare cases you hear about it there may be awakening seemingly "out of the blue" due to some kind of trauma or something.
As I understand it in the traditions I am familiar with, one practices things that help point towards awakening, but awakening itself is never the direct result of a specific effort or technique - the techniques and efforts simply prepare the soil, so to speak, and the seed sprouts when it is ready. With no or poor preparation of the soil, the seed is unlikely to sprout. With good preparation it is more likely. But in its own time and way, not by some trick of effort. Which may be why so many stories of awakening never take place during meditation, but instead while the person is walking, working, cooking, or doing some other mundane activity. My view at the moment anyway.


-ona

Ona said it quite well. There's many techniques, but they are all just a means to practice, and in one way or another it's just training one to watch the mind, and strip away all the attachments that we hold to and identify as self.
Meditation is simply "practice." Awakening is Awakening no matter what the practice method. There is no difference between the Hindu Awakening, the Buddhist, the Western Mystic, Daoist, whatever. When we strip away the delusion (the idea of separateness and differences), then what else is there?

Okay, I can see how what I said would make Zazen (soto style) seem "passive," but I'm not sure if that is accurate -- though I bet that is how it is done by a lot of people.
I think it is intended to be active -- very active -- it's just that, unlike vipassana, there is no set agenda, or specific techique or map or guideposts. But, still, I think they are both using very detailed, open awareness to get to insight into the three characteristics and eventual fruition(s). Maybe.
This is why I am getting into practicing with some real people and some real teachers, so I can find out the answers to some of these questions.
Another angle I'm seeing is this:
With such a strong emphasis placed on sitting with "no gaining idea," and on just sitting with no agenda, no drive to change or do anything special, just an awareness of the activity going on with each in breath and each out breath -- maybe for some people a sort of non-dual awarenss slowly creeps into one's daily life? I don't know.



-michaelmonson

Hi Mike,
Just sitting (whether it be Zazen, Calm Abiding, or Zuowang -in Daoism) it is indeed not passive per se. Passiveness implies some sort of dullness. Rather, in "just sitting" it's the practice of being present in awareness. There is a looking, watching the mind, watching the arising and passing, being present in resting in the spaciousness of emptiness. In "just sitting," one is alert and watching... and practicing to "let go." When we watch the mind, we see that all the thoughts, stories, sensations, etc. arise from what we identify as "self." Watching the arising and passing of thoughts, resting in the spaces of emptiness... resting and letting go. -- This IS the "agenda." Personally, I think it's also helpful to practice the Four Noble Truths, and The Noble Eightfold path (or whatever is similar to this in other traditions). This brings in the compassion element and further assists in striping away the delusion of separateness.
I think such practice in our daily living goes hand in hand with our sitting practice.

Through all this practice we will finally come to realize that there is nothing to gain. It's already right here, now.
If we could instantly just let go of all our striving, concepts, expectations, attachments, etc. - we would directly experience Awakening.

PS) I just noticed you don't know who I am based on my profile name, lol. I don't know how to change that at the moment. -- Tina (aka - Khara)

IDK

While I'm still convinced that "zazen" is probably taught and peformed in a large variety of ways by different teachers and students in different settings and results in a wide variety of states of mind, experiences, effect, insights, etc. -- I'm starting to hear some relatively consistent things about zazen as practiced in Soto Zen.

The instructions to just get into the proper posture and be aware of one's breath do seem to be the beginning and ending of the technique. And, I've even read some instructions lately that think that getting caught up in the breath is a bit much, that just taking up the posture is zazen. No goals, no further techniques -- just get the posture right and keep it right, or get the posture right and be aware of each breath.

I like this. I like doing it. There's nothing to it.

Doing a lot of rereading of Zen Mind, Beginners Mind.
I'm beginning to understand a lot better why zen, especially Suzuki and Dogen inspired Soto Zen can seem like such a part of the mushroom culture.

As I'm getting it right now (this will change several times of course) in this practice "enlightenment" is already there, and one is to take up the proper posture of zazen with complete confidence that one has "buddha nature" through and through. And that is it.

Now, within this context then, entertaining any ideas or goals of what one should think, feel, experience, understand, and then practicing with the attention of matching one's experience with those ideas or goals is -- essentially -- heresey. It's just wrong, not to be done.

But, of course, it's dharma, so it's also not wrong and IS done. All the time.

"Now, within this context then, entertaining any ideas or goals of what
one should think, feel, experience, understand, and then practicing with
the attention of matching one's experience with those ideas or goals is
-- essentially -- heresey. It's just wrong, not to be done."

I think that's true of most meditation practice (as opposed, for example, to some yoga practices where one deliberately sits to cultivate a specific bliss state, or an esoteric Buddhist practice where you do a deity visualization or something like that). You sit, and "watch what happens" without trying to *make* anything happen.

However, I do not think that therefore means there's no such thing as enlightenment or enlightenment only happens to a few rare monks in caves in far away places or a long time ago (mushroom culture).

The fact is, enlightenment/awakening can't be *made* to happen by some force of will or specific trick of practice, but practice cultivates the conditions for enlightenment/awakening to arise by itself.

Maybe it's time to question just how useful that dismissive notion: 'mushroom culture'-- is/ has been, if it causes us to overlook things that are difficult, obscure, subtle, practiced and recognized for centuries. But are dismissed by some present day practitioners because they don't fit neatly into a contemporary value system/understanding. 'Mushroom culture' implicitly assumes that anything that can't be explained or practiced by the average Joe with some interest in self-improvement is some kind of con or being kept unnecessarily hidden, and that the bearers of such teachings should just spit it out in plain English.

... 'Mushroom culture' implicitly assumes that anything that can't be explained or practiced by the average Joe with some interest in self-improvement is some kind of con or being kept unnecessarily hidden, and that the bearers of such teachings should just spit it out in plain English.


-kategowen

There are some things that just fundamentally don't make sense until you are trained to a certain level or have experienced certain things. It's all lovely to try to spit it out in plain English, and there will be people for whom that is life-changing information, or who read it and say "I don't get this now, but I'll come back to it later."

But there will be many others who will seize on what they vaguely understand, misapply it, obsess about it, misunderstand it and so on. And then throw the whole system out in disgust or claim it's stupid and fake.

I spent years in a tradition where you learn things only after months or years of tough training, and only through oral tradition, and everything's a "secret" until the student gets to the right place to learn about it. It solves some problems, but it brings all its own problems, too, like power trips and cultish dogma. And what info does leak out (pretty freely nowadays) is, just like any teachings, misapplied, misunderstood, etc by outsiders who want to learn by dabbling without going through the tough system.

I don't think either approach really solves anything.

I think it's just good to be aware of these dynamics and try to be wise about how you learn, who you study with and what you dedicate yourself to doing.

I still can't shake my fundamental agreement with the "mushroom culture" criticism.
I think that maps, techniques, etc. should be all layed out and willingly shared by all to all.
That odd embarrassed taboo about talking about progress in spiritual practice has to go.
Okay.

Now, I'm exploring the culture of a certain segment of the soto zen world. The passages I read from Suzuki Roshi that inspired my recent post made it very clear that he believed in awakening and intimacy and that he beleived that those were the purpose of zen practice. However, I think his consistent teaching to have "no gaining idea" and to sit with no set expectation may have caused some (maybe most?) of his students and resultant students' students to develop that weird embarassed taboo around progress/goals. If so, I think they are possibly wrong -- they forget that the only reason he taught such things was that that was just the dogen/soto way to awaken.

However, I think his consistent teaching to have "no gaining idea" and to sit with no set expectation may have caused some (maybe most?) of his students and resultant students' students to develop that weird embarassed taboo around progress/goals. If so, I think they are possibly wrong -- they forget that the only reason he taught such things was that that was just the dogen/soto way to awaken.



-michaelmonson

Yes Mike, I agree! I think there's a massive miscommunication that occurred in many transmission streams east --> west during that first wave of transmission to the west and you've summed it up well. What I notice (at school for instance, where many classes involve meditation/mindfulness) is that this taboo prevents clear communication pure and simple and invites a situation where people are making assumptions about each other without adequate info. I can't avoid the impression that, not in all but certainly in many cases, this taboo allows people who haven't gone very deep with practice (but have been doing it for a while, or attended one or several "mindfulness facilitator trainings" or such) to see themselves as teachers/coaches/instructors simply because they've learned how to explain the basic techniques, and have learned to do so while sitting and in "dharma voice". But it often seems that the taboo against talking openly about experiences and progressive development is a handy screen for their lack of experiences or progress. None of this would bother me in the slightest, except that I've seen a couple of young people actually apply the technique, and begin to make progress with it, only to find their reported experiences basically dismissed by the instructor.

Now, if this dismissal were in the context of an ongoing in-depth student teacher relationship this would be one thing-- that could be a legitimate teaching style, letting a student have their own unfolding in their own time and not reinforcing their excitement and pride at an early breakthrough. But it's not, it's in the context of a fifteen week college course with no follow up. The same thing goes for any mainstream dharma teaching situation, I think. In such circumstances I think full openness and sharing of expected stages, obstacles and strategies for meeting stage-specific obstacles keeps everything grown up and allows for informed consent and personal responsibility.

that does make sense. as with all forms of athleticism/hard core endeavor, it can be quite discouraging to see the virtuosos wearing their accomplishments like a badge if one isn't wired up with a lot of raw talent in the given area so keeping the competition under wraps IS a good thing, competitive awakening is an oxymoron hahaha

This is where the competitive/athletic attitude is just way off the mark. There should be no "virtuosity" "accomplishment" or "badge". But that's not the same as pretending everyone's the same or that enlightenment is not real.

I think there's a good place for honoring and respecting those teachers or peers who have a deeper or more clear understanding or more experience than oneself.

Technically those with deeper or more clear understanding or more experience should be recognizing their interconnectedness to others, naturally developing deeper compassion and wisdom, more skillfulness and awareness of their own foibles, and so on. Respect for the student is as important as respect for the teacher. Respect for the student doesn't always mean telling them soft sweet things they want to hear. It might require tough love sometimes. But there should be real love in that, and caring, and a wish to "dedicate ones practice to the benefit of all sentient beings" - not to build ones pride up.

A good practice/teacher/group should provide this context of wisdom so that those who do have experiences of awakening are prepared not to prance around with a badge and be arrogant (which is a trap that one can fall into) but to integrate their awakening into the wholeness of life.

People being people, that's bound to fail now and again, but it's a shame if a method, approach or group just starts right out either feigning ignorance of awakening or encouraging arrogance about it.

Getting back to the original question "how is zazen different from vipassana or other meditation techniques", I would say that 'just sitting' zazen is not meditation technique.

The paradox of Buddhist practice is that if enlightenment is the realization that there is no such thing as a *doer* or a *knower*, then the very idea of a person doing meditation in order to become enlightened is not only absurd, but can even become counter-productive.

Dogen's shikantaza must therefore be seen as a non-practice. To get a taste of it, best is to sit in the lotus or half-lotus posture, hands in the dhyana mudra, and assume, pretend or realize that this body and this consciousness are just doing their thing on their own, in the absence of a *doer*. We only need to realize or at least present that we do not need to do anything to allow thoughts to come and go; to allow the seeing and the hearing to function, to be aware and conscious, to digest and pump blood into our veins. Everything is happening on its own without a *doer*, through the miraculous functioning of [buddha-] nature.

In the absence of a *doer* and a *knower* there is nothing to do, seek, investigate, let go of or surrender. There is nothing but this body sitting. Just sitting.

When we realize that, we also realize that the practice is the realization and the realization is the practice. In this sense, there is no real progress. It is just that it becomes clearer and cleaer over the months and years. In the beginning this is just an act of faith. One pretends that there is no-one doing zazen, allowing everything to be as it is. Then it become a realization and zazen becomes the natural expression of enlightenment. Eventually, the sense of being a *doer* and *knower* drops completely and everything become zazen.

Getting back to the original question "how is zazen different from vipassana or other meditation techniques", I would say that 'just sitting' zazen is not meditation technique.
The paradox of Buddhist practice is that if enlightenment is the realization that there is no such thing as a *doer* or a *knower*, then the very idea of a person doing meditation in order to become enlightened is not only absurd, but can even become counter-productive.
Dogen's shikantaza must therefore be seen as a non-practice. To get a taste of it, best is to sit in the lotus or half-lotus posture, hands in the dhyana mudra, and assume, pretend or realize that this body and this consciousness are just doing their thing on their own, in the absence of a *doer*. We only need to realize or at least present that we do not need to do anything to allow thoughts to come and go; to allow the seeing and the hearing to function, to be aware and conscious, to digest and pump blood into our veins. Everything is happening on its own without a *doer*, through the miraculous functioning of [buddha-] nature.
In the absence of a *doer* and a *knower* there is nothing to do, seek, investigate, let go of or surrender. There is nothing but this body sitting. Just sitting.
When we realize that, we also realize that the practice is the realization and the realization is the practice. In this sense, there is no real progress. It is just that it becomes clearer and cleaer over the months and years. In the beginning this is just an act of faith. One pretends that there is no-one doing zazen, allowing everything to be as it is. Then it become a realization and zazen becomes the natural expression of enlightenment. Eventually, the sense of being a *doer* and *knower* drops completely and everything become zazen.

-alex_w

I'd say that's a pretty good answer

The paramitas seem to me to be qualities of awakeness that have wound up seeming like lists of virtues to try to emulate.

-kategowen

Thanks for that. That seemed to clear up a lot of confusion that I didn't even know I had:)

I would add that for Dogen, zazen is not a sitting posture to investigate a Zen koan. Instead, zazen itself is the Zen koan.

Therefore a Soto Zen master will never try to explain zazen. He will just as you to sit and find out for yourself. Like, "in 20 years it may start to make sense; in the meantime, just sit" - needless to say, this is really annoying, but this is how it works in Japan.