Living Two Traditions, by Gil Fronsdal, article @ Tricycle.com

I was poking around Hokai Sobol's website and noticed a link from his twitter to the following article...

Living Two Traditions

I had heard of Gil Fronsdal, and even listened to a few of his talks. I never really noticed how insightful this guy is. This article is a real gem.

Some excerpts...

So what was your problem with the teachings on the three characteristics?

"I couldn’t quite wrap my mind around them. Sure, in some ways everything’s impermanent. The mountains are impermanent - that I could accept. But that the mountains were suffering seemed a little odd to me. And that the mountains were 'not-self' also had little meaning for me. The teaching that everything was impermanent made sense logically but remained, somehow, only a view without much personal meaning. Eventually, I decided that I could only understand the three characteristics as describing the nature of how I experienced the world. There are lots of problems in claiming to know what reality actually is, what it is like. I don’t see Buddhism as a form of physics. Rather, I saw mindfulness as revealing how I perceive the world."

Then what is the value of the three characteristics?

"As Vipassana practice deepens, the three characteristics become obvious. They are not a view, or an understanding that we apply; they become clear and predominant experiences. It’s very direct and immediate. And the greatest value of these insights is that they are powerful aids in helping the mind loosen its clinging. When we can find nothing permanent to grasp onto, the mind will eventually stop grasping." (italics mine.)

How about that? I've been writing a lot about this very topic lately. I love it when synchronicity leads me to a teacher who puts something I've been trying to say into phrases that are much clearer than my own. Fantastic!

Enjoy the article,

-Jackson

With the strong concentration of that retreat, I touched what I can only describe as some core element of my mind, which I felt compelled to pursue further.

-Gil Fronsdal

I would LOVE to know precisely what he means by, "some core element of my mind." Something tells me he's referring to the Unconditioned element, which is known by some to be that which the mind apprehends at the moment of cessation when one's concentration is very strong.

It is quite possible that I am reading my own experience into Fronsdal's words. I fully admit that. But if he's saying what I think he's saying, than he sticks with vipassana for the same reason that I do. For me, the reality and significance of the Unconditioned as apprehended via the vipassana technique (but not reserved to it) is something that I can't ignore.

Though, he also writes:

My Vipassana practice taught me that the radical acceptance of myself and of things-as-they-are that I learned in Zen included an innate, natural impulse toward liberation. I didn’t have to be goal-oriented as much as I needed to let go of any obstacles to this innate impulse.

-Gil Fronsdal

He could very well be referring to this natural impulse and not the Unconditioned itself. I'd prefer he was speaking about the latter, probably for selfish reasons Honestly, I enjoy the feeling of validation that arises when a senior teacher sees things my way. How's that for transparent?

-Jackson

I thought (seriously) that he was referring to the natural impluse that helped him to experience the unconditioned and, how experiencing the unconditioned strengthens the natural impulse that is always there.

My fascination has always seemed to go back and forth from Vipassana to Zen and back again. They are both such cool practices. However, at this point for me stream entry and fruition and basic vipassana skills make my brain better at doing basic zazen and kind of seeing the world in a sort of soto zen mindset ("zen mind, beginners mind" makes even more sense now).

I still think that serious serious zen practice (the kind done at a center with others and a teacher and lots of day longs and sesshins -- getting emersed as much as possible in the entire zen world) will eventually but haphazzardly lead one to fruition/cessation, while a serious sustain vipassana practice will bring one there in a direct line.

Once one is there, then, perhaps, they can continue to develop their zen chops with a renewed and invigorated "natural impluse."

Mike, I share your affinity for both the Zen and Vipassana traditions. I find it interesting that when stripped of the mythic dogma, the practice of vipassana is very compatible with Zen. In fact, I would say that "radical vipassana" and "radical Zen" are not about religion, but are about release/freedom.

I also think that Zen practice can lead to realizing the Unconditioned by way of momentary cessation. But I think it depends on how it is taught. Mike Gozen and/or Alex will have to help me out with this. I think in any Buddhist tradition one is likely to find those who are way more into the philosophy than into the practice. Those who are serious about non-clinging practice accordingly, while others just rearrange their furniture. There's as much "up in my head" Zen as there is "up in my head" Theravada. But I digress...

Personally, the practice of vipassana (the way I do it, anyway) is the way to end clinging that works best for me. But, like Fronsdal, what I appreciate about the Zen tradition is the ruthless challenging of views. Combining the two -- the vipassana method of practice and the view-challenging context of Zen -- is how I've been approaching things lately, and I like it.

Yes.

I think that it is possible that there are zen students who meditate formally in a zendo daily, in daylongs, in sesshins (one can do this in many of the zen centers in large american cities, practice opportunities are endless if one lives in the right place) who actually just sit and think and day dream and don't really "practice."

BUT -- that would actually be pretty hard to pull off I think. Especially in a day long or a sesshin, sitting hour after hour with only one's brain and the pain in one's legs to keep one company -- a person I think is forced to come up with some strategy to deal with this usually very excuciating situation (along with keeping up all the complicated forms (kinhin walking medication, oryoki meals, bowing, the proper placement of hands and posture, etc.) ) and I think this "strategy" becomes a sort of non-verbal, non-conceptual, natural, organic technique that leads one into a very attentive, very aware state of mind that is akin to the mindfulness of vipassana. And, once one is in this very attentive state of mind discoveries that lead to awakenng and fruition will happen. I mean, shit, I believe the whole thing (formal zen sittings, sesshins, forms, etc.) is meticulously designed to do just that.

I think to understand what I just wrote one would really have to participate in a formal zen sitting (the longer the better) to see just how effective the setting is to changing one's brain. And I think many of you have done this.

Doesn't the mind come first, and then the practice?

-cmarti

Can you elloborate, Chris? I don't follow. My brain isn't working properly due to having stayed up late to watch the season finale of Dexter, rather than going to bed at a decent hour.

Doesn't the mind come first, and then the practice?

-cmarti

I'm not really sure what you mean by the question. hmmmmm ....

All I can think of in response is that if one finds oneself in the middle of a zen sesshin (have you ever looked at the schedule of one of those?) the actual forms of the practice from the time of awakening each day to the brief time of sleep at night will just naturally put the mind into a state of open awareness.

this is gradual and will always deepen each day and the quality of the state will differ with each student and with the special atmosphere of each sesshin.

I mean, there is the zen of books and discussions and scholarship and THEN, also, and maybe more significantly, there is the "zen" that is the formal practice followed in a zendo/zen center type of place, especially the day long or 3 day or five day or 10 day sesshin. Especially, maybe, in Japanese soto zen temples and the american zen centers that ape their "forms," zen is something one "does" in a very communal, physical sense, and in doing this 'zen,' one's mind will become open, aware, able to stay in the detail of each moment and -- sometimes -- awaken.

One of the lovely (and sometimes odd) things about attending sittings/services, etc. at the San Francisco Zen Center is watching the various priests and students going through all the prescribed rituals of each event. It is all done together, in public, and you can actually sense the mindfullness of the priest as the insense is lit and offered and the bows are made and the sitting down is done and the robes arranged just so and the hands arranged just ... SO. The whole thing if one surrenders to it and participates on a non verbal level can produce a sense of peace, of space, of quiet, of emptiness.

The atmosphere during sittings and retreats at an american vipassana place like Spirit Rock is so different. There are no straight lines, the zafus and clothes actually have colors and the ritual is almost nil. Not better or worse, but VERY different.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the question. hmmmmm .... All I can think of in response is that if one finds oneself in the middle of a zen sesshin (have you ever looked at the schedule of one of those?) the actual forms of the practice from the time of awakening each day to the brief time of sleep at night will just naturally put the mind into a state of open awareness.
this is gradual and will always deepen each day and the quality of the state will differ with each student and with the special atmosphere of each sesshin.

I mean, there is the zen of books and discussions and scholarship and THEN, also, and maybe more significantly, there is the "zen" that is the formal practice followed in a zendo/zen center type of place, especially the day long or 3 day or five day or 10 day sesshin. Especially, maybe, in Japanese soto zen temples and the american zen centers that ape their "forms," zen is something one "does" in a very communal, physical sense, and in doing this 'zen,' one's mind will become open, aware, able to stay in the detail of each moment and -- sometimes -- awaken.
One of the lovely (and sometimes odd) things about attending sittings/services, etc. at the San Francisco Zen Center is watching the various priests and students going through all the prescribed rituals of each event. It is all done together, in public, and you can actually sense the mindfullness of the priest as the insense is lit and offered and the bows are made and the sitting down is done and the robes arranged just so and the hands arranged just ... SO. The whole thing if one surrenders to it and participates on a non verbal level can produce a sense of peace, of space, of quiet, of emptiness.
The atmosphere during sittings and retreats at an american vipassana place like Spirit Rock is so different. There are no straight lines, the zafus and clothes actually have colors and the ritual is almost nil. Not better or worse, but VERY different.

-michaelmonson

Another thing about zen "doing" -- as in soto zen temples, zen centers --it is meant to be communicated from teacher to student -- mind to mind -- often in a non verbal way.
The zen teacher in Modesto/Fresno --Grace Schierson -- told a story about when she was going through "pre-dharma transmission" training with Mel Weitzman (the long time abbot of Berkeley Zen Center which is affiliated with SFZC) every time she entered the dokasun room to meet with him he'd make her leave and come back until he felt that she was exhibiting the proper amount of moment to moment mindfullness. He could tell if she wasn't really paying attention at level he desired. This is "training" and what he was looking for wasn't something that she was saying or thinking, it was something she was doing.

Chris, I think I get it now. Mind - the way things are - comes first. Interpretation/view comes after the fact.

Practice varies as well. There seem to be some basic mechanics involved, but there are different ways to influence them deliberately. Different practices seem to conceptually align better with some views more than others, which is why there are so many different "traditions."

Tangential note: it seems that the hardcore/pragmatic dharma movement was spawned by an attempt to strip practice and realization to its bare bones components. Unfortunately, Daniel perpetuated the use of terms that are found in the common dogma, and yet framed realization in terms of attaining some kind of perceptual non-duality. Kenneth has attempted to reinterpret the path in many different ways, but I think something is missing. I guess I have a different conception of what the basic mechanisms are, how they are influenced, and where good practice leads.

Frankly, I think we do a better job with nuts and bolts vipassana than the others, as I feel that accurate descriptions of the essential components are lacking within their respective systems. That, and I think our approach to integration is more down to earth, and even somewhat humanistic - in a good way.

I don't know. Thoughts?

Sometimes I feel like I lucked into an 'unfair advantage' in the very clear explanation of the Vajrayana path in terms of principle and function, given by my teacher Ngak'chang Rinpoche. His excellent book on Dzogchen, Roaring Silence: Discovering the Mind of Dzogchen, describes a four-stage 'preliminary practice' that brings one to the basis of Dzogchen proper [that basis is flashes of non-dual experience; the actual practice of Dzogchen is 'simply' to 'remain in the non-dual state']. The first stage is Shamatha [Shi-ne in Tibetan]; the second is Vipashyna [Lhatong, Tibetan]. the third is Nyi-med, Tibetan for 'not-two'; the fourth is Lhundrup, Tibetan for 'spontaneity.'

Now, it seems to me that this approach does away with all the futile questions about whether Shamatha or Vipashyna is 'better', or preferable: it makes clear that they are interdependent stages of the same process. In my simpleminded way, I have concluded that the function of Shamatha is to become capable of focus-- of paying attention-- in the simplest scenario of sitting in a quiet place with nothing else to do. Once you can do that, you deploy that attention to the degree of becoming absorbed in some object-- Vipashyna [interestingly, the Tibetan word translates 'far-sight', a slight difference from 'insight'] This is a practice that can be done on the cushion, but also happens in all kinds of other circumstances: playing music or sports, painting, writing-- even having a crucial conversation, or getting through a dentist visit, or sitting with someone who's dying.

The third and fourth practices are where Vajrayana leaps beyond what is systematically laid out in both Theravadan and Mahayana maps-- or so I think, anyway. The third practice is to notice what is the same in both Shamatha and Vipashyna: it is going to be 'that which is focused' and 'that which is absorbed', of course-- but not as a deduction: rather, as an experience. This is the beginning of integration. The fourth practice is really the gathering momentum of integration, as life and practice become seamless.