reality check

Sometimes when talking to ya'll and others about "practice" I usually think we are all talking about the same thing.

But sometimes I'll get into a conversation and I'll think that maybe I'm not really on the same wave length.

So, please indulge my curiosity:

Is it your intention both while sitting and in daily life to cultivate an open empty attention? Are you consciously emptying your mind in order to at least attempt to be meeting life with a bare fresh approach?

I'm not talking about perfection here, I'm just wondering if this is an important part of your practice. And, if not, why not, and what are you doing that is different?

Thanks.

I don't constantly try to cultivate "open, empty attention." In fact, I don't think I ever do. In my experience, this leads to "trying too hard." I just go through life. I have little insights on a regular basis and they are always spontaneous.

I must say though that one of the themes in my practice has been learning to not try so hard.

I think I'd summarize my practice in a simple way as allowing everything to be as it is. What "is" can vary widely, and my reactions to it can vary widely. Sometimes things are pretty quiet or pleasant, and the tendency is to want to hold things/grasp at current experience. Other times things are more tumultuous or uncomfortable and the tendency is to want to reject current experience. Sometimes the grasping and rejection is very subtle - just sort of occasional bloops of movement in the mind amidst a fairly consistent tranquility and peace. Sometimes it's more obvious (Arr! This sucks! or Wow! Beautiful!). So the overall "method" remains consistent, but the experiences to which the method applies range widely.

I may rethink this later, but meanwhile off to lunch.

... the second part also required you to investigate what it is you are paying attention to and what it is that is paying attention.




-cmarti

@chris - this probably deserves bold face and italics. I personally prefer questions to do this kind of investigating, such as "who is experiencing that?" "what will the next thought be?" and so on.

Thanks for the replies.

I'm still a little confused about this area. I think that because I've gone back and forth so much on doing zazen as instructed in soto zen and then doing vipassana mostly the Sayadaw way but without a lot of emphasis on noting, I've never really taken to "investigating." -- at least not yet. I'm not really sure what it is.

My emphasis is always on paying attention in a gentle open way while doing as little else as possible. Just watching. This is great and can bring great insights and I think keeps my life most of the time in a state of "ready for anything" so I can have some original discoveries. Also, I"ve developed an antipathy to trying to figure things out, coming to conclusions, etc. I just kind of have faith in the process of continuously emptying my mind in order to have a constantly fresh approach (I can't always do this of course, but it is my practice).

So, since I'm not really sure about investigation, I'm not really saying I don't want to do it. Maybe it's time I learned more about it and try to focus on it? When I'm really sitting quietly noticing things in great detail I do marvel at the "me" feeling/image/process and I like to look at that and watch it work step by step -- is that what is meant by investigation?

Also, I want to add that my emphasis on cultivating an "empty" mind is not something I'm really trying to do, I think it is a natural response to insights and various practices over the years. I really don't want to come at the world as the collection of all the stuff that is "me" -- that just seems so heavy and difficult and the way of suffering and mayhem. So my natural tendancy is to try to just ... look (when I can pull it off of course). If I need "me" and all the memories and knowledge, etc. that comes with it, it's always right here ready and waiting.

Does this make ANY sense?

If I'd asked this question to a hypothetical collection of soto zen practioners I imagine that most people would have answered "YES," and the words "investigation" would never come up.

"If I'd asked this question to a hypothetical collection of soto zen practioners I imagine that most people would have answered "YES," and the words "investigation" would never come up. "
I'm going to disagree, Mike. I'm pretty sure investigation is part of Soto Zen, but I'll ask Mike "Gozen" to come here and comment from a more experienced Soto Zen POV. I think investigating is a critical part of the process in all traditions. Without it, without noticing what's going on, there's no deepening, no change. Without noticing/investigating there is no getting to what I said before -- what is it that we're observing, and what is it that is observing?

-cmarti

Okay, that could be true, but in my attendance at various talks, retreats and events and listening to lots of recorded talks -- I just can't remember that being mentioned. It's just too specific, you know?
But, I'm curious to see if it is a part of Soto and I've just missed it. Quite possible, of course.

Oh, and I'm a little confused by your response in that I'm not saying that I'm (or soto zen practicioners) aren't noticing/looking/observing -- that is, in fact the entire thing. I just felt like you then added an extra level to it, called "investigating" that was an extra step beyond just paying very close attention/noticing. Something different somehow. See what I mean?

Read that article by Stuart Lachs on the use of investigating questions in Zen - might be right up your alley:

http://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/2012/03/hua-tou-a-method-of-zen-meditation-by-stuart-lachs.html

I disagree. Just because a question doesn't have a conceptual intellectual answer does not mean it is not an investigation!!!

It is in fact pointing to exactly that point - the Unknowing, the Not Knowing, which is critical to insight. "I don't know" or "I can't find anything" is sometimes the answer. And that leads to revelation.

The point (eta: at least part of the point!) is that the conceptual mind, intellectualizing, can be a huge impediment to certain insights. Trying to circumvent that with these investigations is very, very helpful.

I'm just going to rant for a moment, and it's not personal to anyone on this board. "Insight" or "revelation" (to use the Christian term) is not just "getting it" like "oh, damn, I totally get how to do long division, now I can do it"). The word can be used that way. But the *other* kind of insight/revelation, the kind that really matters, is where you have a direct experience that leaves you on the floor in stitches or in tears or in terror. Your mind completely blown. I think people get so comfortable throwing the word insight around, they think that "grokking" something is the same as direct experience. It's not. If "insight" doesn't leave you utterly stunned and shaken, it's not direct experience.

If "insight" doesn't leave you utterly stunned and shaken, it's not direct experience.

-ona

I disagree strongly. All my insight experiences have been gentle—the sort of of thing that doesn't even sound like a big deal when described to somebody else. For me insight is the sensation of suddenly realizing you've been clenching a fist, this whole time; then all you need to do is unclench it. The sound it makes is just, 'Oh—!' The 'Oh' of recognition and the exhalation of letting go.

Thanks again for all the comments, this is something I'm very curious about and I'm enjoying what I'm reading here.

Note that the Lach's material isn't something one would find in Soto Zen, it is apparently something from a Chinese zen school, right? I've never come across anything like it. And, note, when I talk about "soto zen" I'm basically referring to that Japanese school of zen founded by Dogen that pretty much uses Dogen as a big authority and that was propagated in the US and the West by Suzuki Roshi and other Japanese priests and then continued on at the SF Zen Center or by Gozen's main teacher Soyu Matsukoka.(who I think actually came to the US before Suzuki and was the first zen priest I ever laid his on at his Zen Center in Long Beach, CA when I was in high school), and, of course, by Brad Warner.

One that I had is that even though I just don't think I've ever heard any talk of "investigation" from a soto zen teacher, perhaps it is something that is gone into in dokusan (the private sessions with the teacher)?

And, still, I'm wondering if "investigation" is somehow a different activity than just noticing in great detail what is actually going on with each in breath and out breath? (all of it)

I disagree strongly. All my insight experiences have been gentle—the sort of of thing that doesn't even sound like a big deal when described to somebody else. For me insight is the sensation of suddenly realizing you've been clenching a fist, this whole time; then all you need to do is unclench it. The sound it makes is just, 'Oh—!' The 'Oh' of recognition and the exhalation of letting go.

-cruxdestruct

that's kind of what I was going to say.
Most of my "insights" or what I call insights are some kind of "seeing" in which just before the seeing I was suffering and just after all is good and I can see that there is no problem and there really wasn't a problem in the first place.
The other kind I've had or have are just stronger or weaker versions of the same ones:

Oh, RIGHT! -- I'm just creating myself up out of nothing and my view on myself is completely arbitrary
or
Oh, wow! I dont' need to fight for that thing because getting it won't change anything everything is already here
or
Awesome -- even THAT ends, of course, I almost forgot that everything ends constantly, whew, what a relief!
or
none of this stuff I'm creating in my head (including Buddha, "insights," awakening, Jesus, etc. etc. etc.) is any more real than the mental self-centered energy that I may or may not give it (this insigh can bring great peace and brightness but no in stitches on the floor)

I think when I first got what I think in the "progress of insight" is called "mind and body" I was pretty blown away, and I when I first got "no self" there was a period of joy and energy that didn't last of course, but I don't think I've ever had a direct experience that leaves me on the floor in stitches or in terror (what am I doing wrong?????)

My biggest "insight moment" (this will be good) was one day up by a lake near Austin when I was just looking at the grass and the bugs buzzing around the grass and I realized that me and the grass and the bugs were all empty in exactly the same way and that my brain and my body was just a thought and feeling and desire machine and that body, those thoughts and those feelings were just completely NOTHING, just hot air compared to the huge quietness of everything else that i was actually a part of, i.e., the grass and the bugs and the earth, etc. etc. etc.. I loved that moment and it's still with me all the time. But, still, it was quiet and gentle and completely undramatic.

Ona, maybe some people are more prone to big insight moments with lots of energy behind them while others just don't have such experiences for whatever reason? I'm pretty low key in a lot of ways, maybe if/when you have similar insights to mine you react with much more gusto?

“If ‘insight’ doesn’t leave you utterly stunned and shaken, it’s not direct experience.” –Ona

“For me insight is the sensation of suddenly realizing you've been clenching a fist, this whole time; then all you need to do is unclench it. The sound it makes is just, 'Oh—!' The 'Oh' of recognition and the exhalation of letting go.” –Crux

My practice has insights of both sorts described above, and I find that both are valid.

I would agree that insight isn’t simply “getting it” in a cognitive way. Yet sometimes we “get” something that shows us a way to respond differently, such as letting go. Like Crux, I think these experiences are rightfully included under the “insight” umbrella.

Though, the really profound, life altering, quantum-shift type insights I’ve experienced really have been of the “rock-your-world” variety. At the same time, some of the more potent experiences I’ve had (particularly under the A&P category) have not been as profound as some which were much more subtle.

This is an interesting topic; definitely worth our attention, I think.

I'm looking forward to hearing from others. Very interesting.

I think my motive in writing about the "world rocking" type insights vs the gentler kind is that I keep running into people who have some of the latter and are sure they've had the former.

The subtle, gentle and ongoing insights are important and real, yes. But they are not the same as the openings/shifts that radically alter your perception and experience. Especially in a context like the land of online forums, blogs, etc. where people are not working with a teacher, one can get "ahead of oneself" in self-evaluating ones level of insight.

When this happens I think it can lead to lack of progress both for the person in question and for others who look up to them for guidance.

That's probably more than two cents, but I think sometimes we tiptoe around to be nice, when some zen whacking is in order.

I remain unconvinced that a world-shattering insight is necessary, or necessarily a deeper insight than the kind I was talking about. After all, I think most of us can agree that enlightenment is, in the Buddhist practice, not really a matter of 'opening one's third eye' and achieving omniscience, communing with the divine, seeing all ten dimensions, that sort of thing. It's more a matter of allowing views and attachments to drop, and realizing on a really deep, functional level: there's just this. Right? So certainly I can imagine lots of areas along the way where a certain temperament or a certain practice would include massive earth-shaking metaphysical realizations along the way, but what they're leading to is something very humble and matter-of-fact.

My sort of practice might be more likely to provide that path than many of yours, being as it is, well, rather boring in a lot of ways—phenomenological, psychological. Sometimes you listen to these monks who have been practicing for 25 years and they're just talking about ways to be nicer, and reduce stress. But it's obvious to see them and hear their voices that they speak from a place of deep, deep wisdom. It's the lesser vehicle, and often very self-effacing—but I think what it leads to is a place where even those potentially earth-shattering realizations—the dropping of the fetter of identity view, for instance, ie, the realization on a deep, bodily level of not-self—can arise in the most matter-of-fact, unspectacular ways.

"I just don't think I've ever heard any talk of "investigation" from a soto zen teacher, perhaps it is something that is gone into in dokusan (the private sessions with the teacher)?" -- Monson

Ever see an iceberg, Mike? How much of it was above the water line? So I ask you this: if you can't speak to what happens in dokusan, how can you speak authoritatively for Zen?

-cmarti

I can't. And that's okay with me. I was just saying what I thought based upon all the experiences I had had with soto zen. I'm not invested in being right about this -- I'm curious if there is some stuff I didn't know about.

The zen thing was just an aside -- what I'm really want to know is if there is something called "investigation" that is an extra step beyond just looking and noticing very closely. And, if there is, what it is, and if it is something I'd like to do. (or if I'm already doing it)