Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Including a gentle but consistent awareness of ones visual sense gate, prevents the construction of that blank screen & deprives the ego of another tool used in the maintenance of it's dream.
Best explanation I have heard for the reason to keep eyes open if using this method. Many thanks. :thumbup: .
@SpinyNorman said:
Does that suggest the visual field is being used as an object of concentration?
I would say technically no because shikantaza by definition is "objectless", but that does not mean there are no objects. Best description I have heard is this.
"No subject-object distinction: Consciousness is no longer an intentional vector proceeding from a subject to an object but is, rather, an open dynamic field in which objects present themselves. The object is no longer an object that is the target of an intentional act but is, rather, the object itself as it presents itself within the open dynamic field of consciousness."
@SpinyNorman said:
Does that suggest the visual field is being used as an object of concentration?
No, it is definitely not supposed to be that.
I was just describing an intervening step (related to folks talking about the eyes and shikantaza) that can be observed occuring between being mindfull and not.
For those practitioners turned off by Zens sometimes ardent descriptions of Zazen, Dzogchen meditation describes Zazen beautifully without all the un nessesary
Bushido flavourings.
My teacher teaches 'formless meditation' which I find to be similar to Shikantaza. It's also similar to the author/teacher, Pema Chodron, who is more well known than my teacher. The difference is that there IS some kind of instruction to notice the 'space'.
@how said:
For those practitioners turned off by Zens sometimes ardent descriptions of Zazen, Dzogchen meditation describes Zazen beautifully without all the un nessesary
Bushido flavourings.
The way I was taught Dzogchen shamata was "resting in the present", with a nominal 25% of attention on the breath and an emphasis on spaciousness. There may be other approaches though?
With there being a thousand different permutations of meditation, I'll take the sincerity and consistency by which one practices, over the ruminations of it's possible correctness any day.
To this extent, I agree with lamaramadingdong that "it's easier done than said."
The "ruminations" of correctness are an indication of sincerity and consistency. I don't think we're doing people any favours by pretending that the method doesn't matter. It definitely does matter,
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@AldrisTorvalds said:
I hadn't heard of this phenomenon of Anapanasati practitioners seeking out Zazen, and I wonder what they were doing to think it wasn't enough. Maybe it goes back to the time issue. I don't think either meditation technique is necessarily better than the other.
And now I make a hypocrite of myself, because I'm wanting to learn about Dzogchen and think my current practice (which is Shikantaza) may be lacking (either that, or I am).
@AldrisTorvalds
When you think about it, every school is going to get either people new to meditation or those folks dis satisfied with whatever other practice they had been doing before...otherwise they would have stayed where they were. Those folks choosing Zen over whatever they had been doing might also just move along whenever the going gets tough again.
I think the point is to really be honest with yourself in assessing why you wish to move from where ever you are. I tend to stick where I am because so much of my own stumbling has really just sorted itself out with an applied practice. I suspect had I moved from another practice to Zen because of my difficulty with stumbling, I would have only been delaying it's resolution again.
I have been a committed student of Soto Zen for over 40 years but I certainly don't think that my path choice over any othe meditative path counts as much as my willingness to practice within it.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@how That's good advice, but maybe what I'm looking for is another perspective. What works for one person isn't necessarily going to work for another, and I'll lose nothing by at least trying another meditation technique. If it doesn't bear fruit, I still have Shikantaza. I've been doing it for 10 years.
I view Shikantaza as a kind of general mindfulness while doing nothing, but I've rarely had occasion to try other techniques that are specialized. Now is as good a time as any. I don't want meditation to become a "lifestyle choice"... as much as people want to say there's no goal to practice, there most certainly is a goal to me, and it's the same goal I've been heading toward since I was a young child saying "that doesn't make sense" to my Christian parents: to see how things really are, as fully and deeply as I can.
That this is meant to alleviate suffering is, to me, a fortuitous coincidence.
@AldrisTorvalds
Ouch!
A 10 year student of meditation is usually able to see that each new moment is both a new you and a universe. Our identity, whose inertia manages to bridge such changes, does so with prospective but there is little prospective that is so different from any other prospective as no prospective ( or just having whatever prospective is birthed free of the last moments one).
That a prospective has an effect is not in contest.
I only suggest that letting go of prospectives allows possibilities of freedom that no prospective** held** can match.
Is that deepity enough fer ya.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@how I have no idea what you said, agree with you, and continue on my way.
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@SpinyNorman Sure it sounds cute, until you realize that the most common individual to whom the word "deepity" is applied... is Deepak Chopra. It's to say something that sounds deep, until you reflect further on it and discover it to be simply superficial or superfluous. I think Daniel Dennett, author of "Breaking the Spell", coined the term.
I'd be interested to hear the results of your Dzogchen meditation explorations. From what I remember it's really not much different from the shikantaza approach we've been discussing, maybe quite similar to samatha / vipassana?
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@SpinyNorman I hope not, and expect not. Alan Wallace (one of the teachers I was watching on YouTube) said that sometimes people mistake Dzogchen meditation for more basic techniques because it's taken out of context. I don't know quite what that means yet, but I'm giving his warning the benefit of the doubt. If I get lucky and "get it", I'll be pleasantly surprised and more than happy to share/collaborate.
Well, let's hope you get lucky! Do bear in mind that some Dzogchen types have a tendency to blow their own trumpets, they believe it's the fast-track to awakening, a superior path, and so on. I practised Dzogchen meditation "in context" for years, and I don't remember it being all that different from the kind of stuff I do now. Or maybe I just didn't get it! .
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@SpinyNorman I hate tooters. I'm just looking for something different to try. What I gather so far, what's been said explicitly in videos I've watched, is that Dzogchen is not Vipassana (not even Vipassana done correctly and deeply). That should also exclude Shikantaza and Anapanasati... these are all variants on a theme, IME. If Dzogchen seems to me like these other techniques in a foundational way, I'm going to assume I don't understand it (after all this talk about how it's not).
I don't think I want to purchase books about Dzogchen yet, I'm still looking for freely available information, such as websites and YouTube vids, to see if I can cull enough of a taste to understand something.
I suspect that Dzogchen is just another variation on the theme, but it's worth exploring anyway.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@SpinyNorman said:
I suspect that Dzogchen is just another variation on the theme, but it's worth exploring anyway.
What got me interested is that, in comparison to meditation techniques such as Shikantaza where you're mindful of all arisings and passings (and this hopefully leads to insight about the lack of "self" in the process), Dzogchen is said to direct the mind specifically to seeing this lack of self.
Sounds like a 180-degree turn from everything I've been doing, while still making sense. It sounds like cutting through directly to the problem, instead of indirectly. This description of Dzogchen may still be wrong... I'm about to look for more to read/watch.
I remember a lot about "spaciousness" and the "sky-like nature of mind", nothing about seeing lack of self or whatever. But it was a long time ago. Also there may well be different approaches to the practice according to which teacher it is - like in Theravada!
Years ago I did a 3-week meditation retreat with Sogyal Rinpoche at Dzogchen Beara: http://www.dzogchenbeara.org/
The main shrine room looks out over the ocean, which was great for an eyes-open practice!
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
I love this here. They're pointing to the knowing (rigpa), not the known (the contents/arisings). That could explain the entire 180 right there, and it is a 180. In Shikantaza we're the awareness/knowing, but that's not what we're paying attention to; we're paying attention to everything else.
The "knowing" of rigpa sounds very much like the pure awareness of shikantaza or formless vipassana. So assuming one experiences rigpa, then what?
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
Yeah but it's still backward from Shikantaza. Shikantaza is being the awareness and watching the whirling of mind, while Dzogchen seems to be looking at yourself (knowing you are the knowing), which makes the whirling of mind just so much nonsense that can rot in a cave and die for all you care. I don't think there's a "then what", but I'm still trying to get a handle on this (it's already struck a chord, I'm sure I can play it out).
Here's another vid. See now we're on the wrong thread for Dzogchen, I made one for this. Actually go there for the vid.
Comments
Best explanation I have heard for the reason to keep eyes open if using this method. Many thanks. :thumbup: .
http://goodlifezen.com/how-to-start-meditating-ten-important-tips/
I would say technically no because shikantaza by definition is "objectless", but that does not mean there are no objects. Best description I have heard is this.
"No subject-object distinction: Consciousness is no longer an intentional vector proceeding from a subject to an object but is, rather, an open dynamic field in which objects present themselves. The object is no longer an object that is the target of an intentional act but is, rather, the object itself as it presents itself within the open dynamic field of consciousness."
I would say technically no because shikantaza by definition is "objectless", but that does not mean there are no objects.
Yes, that's what I assumed. It's like there is a spacious awareness which doesn't cling to any particular object of consciousness.
@SpinyNorman said:
Does that suggest the visual field is being used as an object of concentration?
No, it is definitely not supposed to be that.
I was just describing an intervening step (related to folks talking about the eyes and shikantaza) that can be observed occuring between being mindfull and not.
Yes, OK.
For those practitioners turned off by Zens sometimes ardent descriptions of Zazen, Dzogchen meditation describes Zazen beautifully without all the un nessesary
Bushido flavourings.
My teacher teaches 'formless meditation' which I find to be similar to Shikantaza. It's also similar to the author/teacher, Pema Chodron, who is more well known than my teacher. The difference is that there IS some kind of instruction to notice the 'space'.
The way I was taught Dzogchen shamata was "resting in the present", with a nominal 25% of attention on the breath and an emphasis on spaciousness. There may be other approaches though?
Truth be told, it's actually easier done than said.
There is doing and doing correctly. There are some subtle nuances with these practices.
With there being a thousand different permutations of meditation, I'll take the sincerity and consistency by which one practices, over the ruminations of it's possible correctness any day.
To this extent, I agree with lamaramadingdong that "it's easier done than said."
The "ruminations" of correctness are an indication of sincerity and consistency. I don't think we're doing people any favours by pretending that the method doesn't matter. It definitely does matter,
And now I make a hypocrite of myself, because I'm wanting to learn about Dzogchen and think my current practice (which is Shikantaza) may be lacking (either that, or I am).
@AldrisTorvalds
When you think about it, every school is going to get either people new to meditation or those folks dis satisfied with whatever other practice they had been doing before...otherwise they would have stayed where they were. Those folks choosing Zen over whatever they had been doing might also just move along whenever the going gets tough again.
I think the point is to really be honest with yourself in assessing why you wish to move from where ever you are. I tend to stick where I am because so much of my own stumbling has really just sorted itself out with an applied practice. I suspect had I moved from another practice to Zen because of my difficulty with stumbling, I would have only been delaying it's resolution again.
I have been a committed student of Soto Zen for over 40 years but I certainly don't think that my path choice over any othe meditative path counts as much as my willingness to practice within it.
@how That's good advice, but maybe what I'm looking for is another perspective. What works for one person isn't necessarily going to work for another, and I'll lose nothing by at least trying another meditation technique. If it doesn't bear fruit, I still have Shikantaza. I've been doing it for 10 years.
I view Shikantaza as a kind of general mindfulness while doing nothing, but I've rarely had occasion to try other techniques that are specialized. Now is as good a time as any.
I don't want meditation to become a "lifestyle choice"... as much as people want to say there's no goal to practice, there most certainly is a goal to me, and it's the same goal I've been heading toward since I was a young child saying "that doesn't make sense" to my Christian parents: to see how things really are, as fully and deeply as I can.
That this is meant to alleviate suffering is, to me, a fortuitous coincidence.
@AldrisTorvalds
Who knows if it even works for me..But...
Have you considered that any perspective** held** beyond this moment simply holds us longer in our egos habituated sway.
@how Have you ever heard of a deepity? I don't mean a perspective to hold, I mean a different way of getting at the problem.
@AldrisTorvalds
Ouch!
A 10 year student of meditation is usually able to see that each new moment is both a new you and a universe. Our identity, whose inertia manages to bridge such changes, does so with prospective but there is little prospective that is so different from any other prospective as no prospective ( or just having whatever prospective is birthed free of the last moments one).
That a prospective has an effect is not in contest.
I only suggest that letting go of prospectives allows possibilities of freedom that no prospective** held** can match.
Is that deepity enough fer ya.
@how I have no idea what you said, agree with you, and continue on my way.
Outstanding!
...deepity...
I like that word.
.
@SpinyNorman Sure it sounds cute, until you realize that the most common individual to whom the word "deepity" is applied... is Deepak Chopra.
It's to say something that sounds deep, until you reflect further on it and discover it to be simply superficial or superfluous. I think Daniel Dennett, author of "Breaking the Spell", coined the term.
I find it hilarious, but @how found it less so.
I'd be interested to hear the results of your Dzogchen meditation explorations. From what I remember it's really not much different from the shikantaza approach we've been discussing, maybe quite similar to samatha / vipassana?
@SpinyNorman I hope not, and expect not. Alan Wallace (one of the teachers I was watching on YouTube) said that sometimes people mistake Dzogchen meditation for more basic techniques because it's taken out of context. I don't know quite what that means yet, but I'm giving his warning the benefit of the doubt. If I get lucky and "get it", I'll be pleasantly surprised and more than happy to share/collaborate.
Well, let's hope you get lucky! Do bear in mind that some Dzogchen types have a tendency to blow their own trumpets, they believe it's the fast-track to awakening, a superior path, and so on. I practised Dzogchen meditation "in context" for years, and I don't remember it being all that different from the kind of stuff I do now. Or maybe I just didn't get it!
.
@SpinyNorman I hate tooters. I'm just looking for something different to try. What I gather so far, what's been said explicitly in videos I've watched, is that Dzogchen is not Vipassana (not even Vipassana done correctly and deeply). That should also exclude Shikantaza and Anapanasati... these are all variants on a theme, IME. If Dzogchen seems to me like these other techniques in a foundational way, I'm going to assume I don't understand it (after all this talk about how it's not).
I don't think I want to purchase books about Dzogchen yet, I'm still looking for freely available information, such as websites and YouTube vids, to see if I can cull enough of a taste to understand something.
I suspect that Dzogchen is just another variation on the theme, but it's worth exploring anyway.
What got me interested is that, in comparison to meditation techniques such as Shikantaza where you're mindful of all arisings and passings (and this hopefully leads to insight about the lack of "self" in the process), Dzogchen is said to direct the mind specifically to seeing this lack of self.
Sounds like a 180-degree turn from everything I've been doing, while still making sense. It sounds like cutting through directly to the problem, instead of indirectly. This description of Dzogchen may still be wrong... I'm about to look for more to read/watch.
I remember a lot about "spaciousness" and the "sky-like nature of mind", nothing about seeing lack of self or whatever. But it was a long time ago. Also there may well be different approaches to the practice according to which teacher it is - like in Theravada!
Years ago I did a 3-week meditation retreat with Sogyal Rinpoche at Dzogchen Beara: http://www.dzogchenbeara.org/
The main shrine room looks out over the ocean, which was great for an eyes-open practice!
I love this here. They're pointing to the knowing (rigpa), not the known (the contents/arisings). That could explain the entire 180 right there, and it is a 180. In Shikantaza we're the awareness/knowing, but that's not what we're paying attention to; we're paying attention to everything else.
The "knowing" of rigpa sounds very much like the pure awareness of shikantaza or formless vipassana. So assuming one experiences rigpa, then what?
Yeah but it's still backward from Shikantaza. Shikantaza is being the awareness and watching the whirling of mind, while Dzogchen seems to be looking at yourself (knowing you are the knowing), which makes the whirling of mind just so much nonsense that can rot in a cave and die for all you care. I don't think there's a "then what", but I'm still trying to get a handle on this (it's already struck a chord, I'm sure I can play it out).
Here's another vid. See now we're on the wrong thread for Dzogchen, I made one for this. Actually go there for the vid.
Yes, we've gone a bit off topic...or maybe not?
.