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.
Zazen & Vipassana
Invincible_summer
Heavy Metal DhammaWe(s)t coast, Canada Veteran
So, to my understanding, zazen - at least with the "just sitting"/shikantanza style practice - is pretty much that. You sit with good posture, breathe "into" your stomach, with ample focus on the breath, and noting the thoughts and emotions that are bound to bubble up, but mainly being aware of the present moment by returning to the breath and bodily sensations. At least, that's how I've been practicing it... now I'm afraid someone will tell me I've been "doing it all wrong" when I've been saying I practice Zen Buddhism for at least a year now 
As for vipassana - and I could be getting this completely wrong - it's sitting with less attention to posture, breathing through the nose, focusing on the breaths at the nose, and observing/investigating the emotions/thoughts that arise and fall during meditation. The goal is to become acutely aware of the causality and impermanence of the emotions or results of actions that come up in our minds.
To me, it sounds like zazen is almost like... jumping right into the more "advanced" stages of vipassana; what I mean by "advanced" is that someone who has practiced vipassana for a long time would be able to get over the emotions and thoughts and just be sitting, breathing, and being aware of the present moment without getting caught up in investigating thoughts because they've already investigated most thoughts and have that experiential wisdom. Would this be accurate?
Also, since zazen (at least my understanding of it which could be faulty) doesn't really encourage investigating the thoughts/emotions that arise, is it wise for a beginner to start with zazen? It seems like jumping right into focusing on the present moment without allowing the meditator to understand how to deal with any feelings can be problematic.
Finally, assuming my basic grasp of vipassana is somewhat accurate, it seems like a good teacher is needed to make sure one doesn't get totally overwhelmed by observing and investigating thoughts/emotions - guidance is required to ensure the meditator is observing properly.
Let me know if I've got things completely wrong here.
As for vipassana - and I could be getting this completely wrong - it's sitting with less attention to posture, breathing through the nose, focusing on the breaths at the nose, and observing/investigating the emotions/thoughts that arise and fall during meditation. The goal is to become acutely aware of the causality and impermanence of the emotions or results of actions that come up in our minds.
To me, it sounds like zazen is almost like... jumping right into the more "advanced" stages of vipassana; what I mean by "advanced" is that someone who has practiced vipassana for a long time would be able to get over the emotions and thoughts and just be sitting, breathing, and being aware of the present moment without getting caught up in investigating thoughts because they've already investigated most thoughts and have that experiential wisdom. Would this be accurate?
Also, since zazen (at least my understanding of it which could be faulty) doesn't really encourage investigating the thoughts/emotions that arise, is it wise for a beginner to start with zazen? It seems like jumping right into focusing on the present moment without allowing the meditator to understand how to deal with any feelings can be problematic.
Finally, assuming my basic grasp of vipassana is somewhat accurate, it seems like a good teacher is needed to make sure one doesn't get totally overwhelmed by observing and investigating thoughts/emotions - guidance is required to ensure the meditator is observing properly.
Let me know if I've got things completely wrong here.
0
Comments
But, of zazen, I would say that to the extent that anyone thinks there is a goal, they have missed the point. And don't let anyone feed you any crap about 'no goal.'
And as to 'coping' with thoughts, emotions and so forth ... well, if you practice zazen, the obvious limitations of thought and emotion will become clear all by themselves. The only question after that might be, "who says 'limited?'"
So...awesome...
here you must understand what "investigating" means in this context.
Investigating isn't thinking about the subject of the thoughts or emotions, it is noting them, realizing that they are here at that precise moment.
and then returning to the breath (or body scanning if you are doing Goenka).
Looking at the sensation, realizing it's impermanence/no self/unsatisfactory nature directly on a physical level.
Tuning your mind so precisely to the point where you can see the sensation (fear, anxiety, anger, all king of other tiny emotion you couldn't put a name on that you actually would have had no idea existed) vibrate.
flashing in and out of existence at a very high rate, pulsing.
Observing that the sensation doesn't even stay for a fraction of a second.
It arise, stay a little, then gone. many times every seconds.
In this way you can directly observe impermanence. i think you misinterpreted "investigating" in this context (see above).
therefore your line of thought is going astray. By simply noting the thoughts and sensations/emotions, you are in fact investigating them.
You will make observation base on your noting and it will lead to insight.
ie: you'll realize things about whatever you are noting. see previous point. guidance is required so everyone from all tradition actually get the work done.
Otherwise people might do things like developing first jhana for 10 years, while they could have moved on long time ago.
nurturing frustrations for a long time, not making any progress and seeing any benefits in their lives, and eventually giving up... I suggest you get a good grasp of what is concentration meditation (samadhi), what is it's purpose etc...
What is the point of the things you do in meditation...
Things like noting. You read somewhere in your book that "focus on the breath, note whatever arise and return to the breath".
Why? think about this stuff.
Why is it a good thing to note, why not distract yourself instead?
I'm not trying to make a dividing line between zazen and vipassana, but it's just that, from my understanding of the two traditions (which I suppose doesn't run that deep), they seem very similar. I know the purpose of noting and returning to the breath. I wasn't aware that "noting = investigating," as a podcast I listened to sort of went on a tangent about investigating and I guess I misunderstood it.
I just don't quite understand the differences between vipassana and zazen meditation in terms of their "goals" or "focus," as they seem pretty similar.
My guess is the biggest difference is Vipassana would be (or could be) slightly more "hands on".
Hands on with things like "noting", observing no self/impermanence/unsatisfactoriness of things directly are a big emphasis of the practice.
http://alohadharma.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/dr-ingram-and-hardcore-dharma-video/
this may clear things up a bit.
for example,
in Zazen, we note the thoughts and sensations when they arise, then return to the breath immediately.
This, i believe, is pretty much pure Samadhi, developing concentration.
in Vipassana, we begin by doing this (same as zazen), but then move on to doing Vipassana.
in Vipassana, we note the thoughts and sensations when they arise, then stay a little with them, noting them for a while (no thinking about them, just note-note-note-note-note), and then return to the breath after a couple minute if the sensation is still there.
There are plenty of great things that come out of Samadhi.
Plenty of realizations about how things are.
But i imagine it would be really difficult and one would almost need to get "lucky" in order to tune his mind to be able to perceive the vibrating quality of sensations (that include emotions).
In Vipassana, the small detail of staying with the sensation and consistently noting it, can allow us to tune the mind to perceive very very fine vibrations.
This is a mechanical thing. Like tuning your guitar, when you play 2 notes that are very close to each other, the sound start to vibrate.
When this happen in meditation, then no effort are necessary anymore.
The mind is tuned and we just "see" the vibrations effortlessly.
Actually it's difficult not to see them anymore as long as a minimum of concentration remains.
Having been taught both vipassana and Zazen (shikantaza)
Here is how both present...
Vipassana.. is a means of deconstructing the body and mind and through insight realizing (tasting) non-suffering.. the overarching goal is the uprooting of greed hatred and delusion and the end of birth.. "no longer born into this world" .. Nibbana. This is vipassana as I was taught, but will leave others to clarify whether this is a good description or not...
Zazen.. this is my basic practice... this is a description of zazen (Shikantaza) from another thread..
Here is a description of the view of zazen from a Zen master.. in response to a question about the Bodhisattva vows and the bottomlessness of greed hatred and delusion.. it is not opinion... it is the teaching of that school.
So saying zazen is basically vipassana or vipassana is basically zazen.. is IMO a disservice to both. we can sit in silence with no difference... but when we talk we have to respect differences... or else it quickly devolves into chauvinism.
For some reason this is a bit unappealing... it almost makes it into a contest ("I'm on A&P after 2 weeks! What about you?")
Although zazen states that there is "no goal," after enough cushion-sitting shouldn't one comes to similar if not the same realizations as when doing vipassana? After all, Buddhist meditation is aimed towards overcoming suffering, no? I don't want to show any disrespect to the historical traditions of either zazen or vipassana, but I do sort of want to draw attention to the similarities. I wouldn't think it's chauvinistic at all, but rather breaking down sectarian walls. perhaps I'm overlooking something, @RichardH?
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
The teachers must know what they are talking about, and with experience recognize where the student is so to be able to give appropriate advises.
Same as any other Buddhist school actually.
Mahayana have their defined maps, even some Christians (who use to meditate) had their primitive map.
It's the same path for everyone, just a different map to describe the same things.
Just the word used to describe it, and where the line is drawn to define steps in the path changes.
But if you are a Goenka or Mahasi student, you will not be thought the map in this way.
You just sit down and meditate. no no.
The goal of Vipassana is liberation from suffering through self realizations.
Understand who/what are we and who/what are things until no more delusions about the world is left.
Enlightenment. The "pragmatic" movement are those who do this. The whole map thing.
The benefit of using the maps and a technical understanding of the maps all the way to stream entry and beyond, is that it sometimes makes it much easier to avoid getting stuck, and getting ourselves unstuck so progress can be made quickly.
The problem with using the maps is that it can be distracting and people can get discouraged if what is "supposed" to happen doesn't happen to them.
Also they can misinterpret things, which is going to make things very confusing real quick. (but asking experienced teachers should solve that puzzle)
In the end, it's nice to have a choice, which approach best fit our personality.
Personally, i just believe that the traditional way of doing it is best for most people (don't worry about anything, just put your trust in your teacher).
The pragmatic approach is best suited for "engineers" type of mind. Which is not a big portion of the population.
Regarding... "just sitting'... There is bright transparency as the totality of present experiencing ....body-mind-world....at-once. Simple awakeness. It is "not two"
An old Theravadin friend used to say.. "it's not about having an experience, but whatever experience is present" and that.. "The unconditioned" is realized as the unobstructed, ownerless, unfolding of conditions... Zazen is that ... "at-once" Body mind and world "as is".
My feeling is that the different styles of practice are suited to different styles of people..
Zazen is not for everyone... vipassana isn't for everyone. But there is, I believe, a way of practice that will work for everyone.. with a bit of exploration.
Once we stop thinking about it, trying to grasp an ontological basis for experience.. we can give in to sheer experiencing.. and forgetting. Once there is a taste of that.. we gain a new perspective on our usual grasping, dukkha filled, self-centered, way of being. It is life changing.
.
I think for me, it's easier to "just meditate" than have a chart like that. I'd be easily caught up in figuring out which step I'm on, etc.
Now that I feel I've a better understanding of what vipassana is, I'm definitely interested in trying it out by sitting with a group and seeing how it contrasts with the Chan place I go to now.
As far as "trying" vipassana, it is very highly recommended to attend a 10 days course as an introduction.
The reason is one has to raise his concentration level quite a bit for 3-4 days in order to be able to begin vipassana (as thought by Goenka and Mahasi) and begin to understand what it is and give it a real try.
It helps that these retreats are free, the food is delicious and usually a amazing location in the middle of the forest