eradicating defilements

[omnifriend]

does shikantaza uproot the defilements? thank you.

[Astus]

"According to this teaching, simply the awareness that you are deluded, which comes from practising zazen, makes you, in reality, a Buddha. It's zazen that teaches us that we too are deluded, and hence delivers us from this delusion. When we actually practice zazen and look carefully at all the deluded ideas that keep popping up, we realize how ordinary we are and how little we have to be proud of or to brag about; nothing to do other than quietly hide away. This is, after all, what we truly are."
(Sodo Yokoyama)

[LastLegend]

does shikantaza uproot the defilements? thank you.

Yes, but of my opinion, it is important to recognize that the impermanent nature of the 5 desires (wealth, sex, fame, eating, and sleeping). If one is not attached to anything whatsoever, appearance, shape, size, form, one will be liberated.

[thigle]

does shikantaza uproot the defilements? thank you.

If you "practice" simply sitting instead of simply sitting, it doesn't "uproot the defilements".

[Kaccāni]

@lastlegend: But I want non-attachment!

[LastLegend]

@lastlegend: But I want non-attachment!

You can have it.

[Bonko]

does shikantaza uproot the defilements? thank you.

Yes, but of my opinion, it is important to recognize that the impermanent nature of the 5 desires (wealth, sex, fame, eating, and sleeping). If one is not attached to anything whatsoever, appearance, shape, size, form, one will be liberated.

I'm not sure how useful that type of phrasing is. Surely, it is like saying, for example, if I never jump into water, I will be free from getting wet! Isn't it just self-proving logic to say if I let go of attachment to X, then I will be liberated from attachment to X?

Rather, shouldn't we be more wary of setting up 'non-attachment' as a mental object of desire, a must-have, something to strive for, something to be attained?

Surely, most of us already know that sleeping, eating, etc, are impermanent? If I didn't, I would never wake up, or I would never stop eating?

Bonko

[LastLegend]

I'm not sure how useful that type of phrasing is. Surely, it is like saying, for example, if I never jump into water, I will be free from getting wet! Isn't it just self-proving logic to say if I let go of attachment to X, then I will be liberated from attachment to X?

Rather, shouldn't we be more wary of setting up 'non-attachment' as a mental object of desire, a must-have, something to strive for, something to be attained?

Surely, most of us already know that sleeping, eating, etc, are impermanent? If I didn't, I would never wake up, or I would never stop eating?

Bonko

I mean you can play that too. However, non-attachment means there is some sort of attachment to something, that's why there is non-attachment. Then we need to know what we are attached to in order to practice non-attachment right.

[Bonko]

However, non-attachment means there is some sort of attachment to something, that's why there is non-attachment.

It is my understanding that attachment, in the Buddhist sense, implies separation: we think there is something out there that we need, to make us feel more fulfilled, so we chase after it. On the other hand, non-attachment means no separation; unity; no difference between 'me' and 'you'; no 'things' out there to desire.

Bonko

[LastLegend]

It is my understanding that attachment, in the Buddhist sense, implies separation: we think there is something out there that we need, to make us feel more fulfilled, so we chase after it.

If not out there, then "in here?" Where "in here"?

On the other hand, non-attachment means no separation; unity; no difference between 'me' and 'you'; no 'things' out there to desire.

Bonko

In what aspect we are not seperate and different? Clearly, I am not you and you are not me and I am not physically attached to you.

[Kaccāni]

[...] attachment [...]implies separation [...] non-attachment means no separation; unity; no difference between 'me' and 'you'; no 'things' out there to desire.

Conventionally speaking, following this argument I still see traps. If you say "attachment implies separation", then you create a subject-object duality, with a functional relationship (clinging) in between. Giving up this separation, there may still be an identification process that hinders. One could still identify with what is otherwise attached to, giving up subject-object duality but still having a sense of ego that is grounded in samsara.

I guess if you approach this matter from an intellectual point of view, there must be a separation before one can transcend that separation in unification to go beyond. That means, a notion of ego (identification) that is separate from samsara (renunciation of samsara) must precede unless you give up identification spontaneously as it may happen in Zazen. You could argue that intellectually, this still is a subject-object duality (and often carried out as argument over the term "soul"). However it is not, as the intellect is rooted in samsara. But as long as one is identified, it helps to identify with "not this, not this, not this, and not this", until at some point out of habit identifying is given up and becomes irrelevant. Thus all the questions that arise from identification also become irrelevant.

Otherwise, "no separation" may result in "identifying with unity", as opposed to separation. That would renounce something (creating a nonseparation-separation), but it would not be renunciation of samsara.

Best wishes
Dana

[Bonko]

It is my understanding that attachment, in the Buddhist sense, implies separation: we think there is something out there that we need, to make us feel more fulfilled, so we chase after it.

If not out there, then "in here?" Where "in here"?

On the other hand, non-attachment means no separation; unity; no difference between 'me' and 'you'; no 'things' out there to desire.

Bonko

In what aspect we are not seperate and different? Clearly, I am not you and you are not me and I am not physically attached to you.

What I said is standard Zen teaching. When we get into the heart of it, there is no 'where' or 'who', just a unified reality. We kind of just imagine we are separate selves. But, until, we realize our true nature, it is expedient to live normally and follow the precepts.

Bonko

[Dan74]

Some teachings on this, the first from one of the major names in Silent Illumination school and the grand-teacher of Dogen, and the second is from a contemporary teacher, a disciple of Ven. Sheng-Yen.


http://terebess.hu/zen/zazenshin.html#z6

The correct way of practice is to simply sit in stillness, and silently investigate; deep down there is a state one reaches where externally one is no longer swirled about by causes and conditions. The mind being empty, it is allembracing; its luminosity being wondrous, it is precisely apt and impartial. Internally there are no thoughts of grasping after things; vast and removed, being just as it is—free from confusion. Alive and potent, all dependency and opposition are severed; one remains self-contained. This contentment has nothing to do with emotional feelings; one must not rely on anything at all. Being quite outstanding, [this state of suchness] is full of life and spirit, and does not fall into defiled appearance; one finds a resting-place. Pure and immaculate, it is bright; being bright, it is penetrating. It is able to respond smoothly in accordance with phenomena, where phenomena do not obstruct each other. Floating effortlessly, clouds appear on mountain peaks; shining boldly, the reflections of the moon flow along mountain streams. Everywhere—there are radiant luminosity and spiritual transformations; clearly, appearances are unobstructed! Mutually responding, like a cover to a container or the tip of a sword meeting a shooting arrow's point. With further training and nourishing, it ripens. Its essence becomes firm and stable; it penetrates every place freely. Cut off sharp corners; don't speak of theories [of right and wrong]. Like a white ox or a tamed ferret that naturally [and willingly] responds to any command—one can then be called a true person. Therefore it is said, "Having the Dao of no-mind, one can be like this; having not yet gained no-mind, it is extremely difficult!"

Wide and far-reaching without limit; pure and clean, it emits light. Its spiritual potency is unobscured. Although it is bright, there are no objects of illumination. It can be said to be empty, yet this emptiness is [full of] luminosity. It illumines in self-purity, beyond the working of causes and conditions, apart from subject and object. Its wondrousness and subtleties are ever present; its luminosity is also vast and open. Moreover, this is not something that can be conceived of as existence or nonexistence. Nor can it be deliberated about with words and analogies. Right here—at this pivotal axle, opening the swinging gate and clearing the way, it is able to respond effortlessly to circumstances—the great function is free from hindrances. At all places, turning and turning about, it does not follow conditions nor can it be trapped in models. In the midst of everything, it settles securely. With "that," it is identical to what "that" is; with "this," it is identical to what "this" is. "This and that" inter-fuse and merge without distinction. Therefore it is said, "Like the earth that holds up a mountain, unaware of its steepness and loftiness; like the stone that contains jade, unaware of the flawlessness of the jade." If one can be thus, this is truly leaving home. People who have left home must get hold of the essence in this way.

Patch-robed monks should wither away and freeze the [deluded] thoughts of the mind, and rest from remnant conditioning. Single-mindedly restore and cultivate this field. Directly cut down all the overgrown grass throughout the boundary of the four directions. Do not allow a single speck of dust to defile [this field]. Spiritually potent, it is bright; vast and removed, it is transparent. Thoroughly illumine that which comes before the [principle] essence, until you reach a state where the light becomes naked and pure—where not a single speck of dust can be attached to. When you tug and pull back this ox[-mind] by the nose, it will naturally come alive and be imposing. Being quite unusual and outstanding, it mingles with others along the pathway without damaging people's sprout and grain. Thriving and dynamic, [the ox] effortlessly responds to circumstances; responding to circumstances without artificiality, it thrives and is free flowing. Not fixed to any set place, it is free from fetters—this is the place where the ox plows through the field of the empty kalpa. Proceeding in such a way, all things appear vividly without obscurity; everywhere, all things manifest as they are, [maintaining] one thought for ten thousand years. Fundamentally, this is non-abiding in appearances. It is said, "The mind-ground contains every seed. The rain will universally cause them to sprout. When the meaning of the blossoming flower of enlightenment is understood, the fruit of Bodhi will ripen of its own accord."

http://www.bcbsdharma.org/2014-1-15-insight-journal/

The true practice of Silent Illumination has no stages. The practitioner rests in moment-to-moment wakefulness–the reality of the here. It is the most natural, the most normal state of mind, yet without scattered thoughts and delusion. If you don’t wander off somewhere, the mind is in its natural state and has no center. The mind is pure. Self-referential discriminations and emotional afflictions drop off of their own accord. The key is clear, nonattachment. Scattered, wandering thoughts arise from grasping and habitual tendencies. When the practitioner is truly free from grasping, there are no wandering and habitual tendencies. This is the practice of Silent Illumination.

[Bonko]

[...] attachment [...]implies separation [...] non-attachment means no separation; unity; no difference between 'me' and 'you'; no 'things' out there to desire.

Conventionally speaking, following this argument I still see traps. If you say "attachment implies separation", then you create a subject-object duality, with a functional relationship (clinging) in between. Giving up this separation, there may still be an identification process that hinders. One could still identify with what is otherwise attached to, giving up subject-object duality but still having a sense of ego that is grounded in samsara.

I guess if you approach this matter from an intellectual point of view, there must be a separation before one can transcend that separation in unification to go beyond. That means, a notion of ego (identification) that is separate from samsara (renunciation of samsara) must precede unless you give up identification spontaneously as it may happen in Zazen. You could argue that intellectually, this still is a subject-object duality (and often carried out as argument over the term "soul"). However it is not, as the intellect is rooted in samsara. But as long as one is identified, it helps to identify with "not this, not this, not this, and not this", until at some point out of habit identifying is given up and becomes irrelevant. Thus all the questions that arise from identification also become irrelevant.

Otherwise, "no separation" may result in "identifying with unity", as opposed to separation. That would renounce something (creating a nonseparation-separation), but it would not be renunciation of samsara.

Best wishes
Dana

Separation is just part of the delusion. Your true nature is pure and undifferentiated. Identifying with anything is still separation/duality. But, in your true nature, there is neither separation nor no separation. Even differentiating between nirvana and samsara is not skilfull. We are just using concepts to point to/explain something which really cannot be expressed. But, that's OK - so long as we don't cogitate too much about opposing concepts!

Bonko

[Kaccāni]

@Bonko: That "true nature" you are speaking of is not different from "untrue nature". Of course, conventionally it is. You can always go back and forth by reintroducing and leaving conventional speech. But there's hardly a point to that. This is a forum. So we're bound to convention. The only unconvention would be leaving it, or stopping to care. Which I do often enough.

Best wishes
Dana

[Dan74]

When we speak of eradicating defilements, this to me concerns our moment-to-moment experience. It is a direct intimate question. And yet, I see no sharing of experience, but abstract concepts. How so?

For example, in shikantaza type practice, defilements naturally arise (boredom and the desire for entertainment, restlessness and the desire to stop, cravings and the desire to satiate them, discomfort and the desire to alleviate it, etc etc) and we sit with them rather than act on them, focus on them, entertain them. We learn to let these thoughts come and go without indulging them while cultivating an equanimous spacious awareness rather than the usual narrow grasping, where the consciousness focuses on the pressing impulse. This already develops an attitude which is radically different to the usual reactivity and removes much energy out of defilement.

There is heaps more we could go into, but I get the sense that the interest is elsewhere.

[LastLegend]

I am not denying suffering/defilement. I have no problem with the goal to end suffering/defilement. I am just saying we might be working with the same attachment we have for the goal.

[Kaccāni]

@Dan: I suppose it is in the nature of written language that it tends towards dealing with concepts. The world of lyrics and koans may help, but a forum probably asks for more.

For me, eradicating defilements is a process of bringing the attention from recognizing spawned defilements to the beginning of the spawning itself and even slightly before that. Then, the defilement does not arise. That of course requires an awareness for one's affective states to begin with. Does that mean that no emotions are being triggered? No. For me it does not mean that. Emotions are both triggered by external sensations and internal thought. Emotions based on external sensations are still being triggered, and eradicating defilements does not mean to eradicate emotions that spontaneously arise by external stimuli. That would mean to kill the biology of the body. Trying to change the external world or the body will probably cause even more defilements than it eradicates. Emotions still arise in the body.

Does it mean that no emotions are internally induced by thoughts? In my opinion yes, very much so, at least not involuntarily. In an intermediate step, thoughts are not turned into realities as they are no longer allowed to create stories that given an illusionary nature of truth by invoking reactions in the body. Where the biology still reacts to the environment via biological reflexes, the higher, cognitive reflexes which are created by clinging and identification are interrupted, creating space. Then thoughts are just a puff in the ether with no magic connected. This space also allows to non-react to a variety of external stimuli, if the reaction is mediated via thinking. So in everyday life, I notice that anger is about to form, and thus the anger has no ground to form upon in the first place. Once equanimity has been established, emotionality may be shaped by volition, giving rise to loving-kindness, as there is nothing that would hinder it. Then, the last bastion of emotionality arises when people thrash at your thoughts on defilements, making forums a perfect practice

I rarely sit ritually anymore. There's no want that arises when I simply sit, i just sit. An office job creates enough opportunity to just sit during the course of the day. For me, the practice has become dynamic, one taken to life. Keeping that openness when doing what I do. Even when reading or writing. Especially when talking to people, facing situations that are widely considered unfair, people who deliberately try to provoke, those situations and people where I know from the past that they had the potential to trigger my emotions are my most imporant teachers. When I'm playing pool, when I'm faced with judgment in our society, when there's more obligation than can be handled, when the body or own conditioning does not want to live up to ideals, refraining from political games where other people are playing them, etc. It then becomes quite obvious how, for example, alcohol promotes reflexive behavior in the brain, diminishing that mental space. Everyonce in a while the practice is contagious and other people do the same.

That doesn't mean that I don't act or don't act according to my interest. There are situations that cross my way that want or need to be handled, and decisions to be made. I plan every once in a while, and then let things flow spontaneously in between. However, when I'm acting I try to act in a way that will not trigger negative emotions in other people, and also not superstitiously happy ones. Unfortunately there are many opportunities in our modern world, as much of it is designed to play with people's emotions, either to control them or for profit. If one opts out of this, other people retain the contingency over their own emotionality, or at least one doesn't contribute to their suffering or this insane game. Society also appears to reward people more who play the control game, so there are enough opportunities at temptation. It's not always understood by other people that one opts out of this game, especially if they live in an emotionally dominant culture, which I often experience in our business world. Take the German Angst as a culture. But it can be done, and it is rewarding when one finds people who do alike or one can create little bubbles in larger organizations where one can cooperate in this way. Temptation has been high to completely opt out at times, but that path did not unfold. When thinking of it, there's that smiling face on my shoulder that reminds me, "So you're telling me that your art is not applicable here, eh?", brushing off that wave. It still is nice to meet people who practice alike every once in a while. I've found some in sports or games that involve a high degree of mental control, far from spirituality.

Toning down emotional responses is something that unfortunately cannot be done on a forum when dealing with written text. There is no way to predict what other people may emotionally link with something I say, and also no immediate means of mediating that response, e.g. the small rituals that have been invented for direct speech. People may be freely associating within their own situative context and conditioning, defiling ad lib, ending up with Godwin's law. Sometimes a smiley next to the screen may help. A seemingly neutral statement may provoke a notion of "What an idiot!" in somebody who has an inclination to contradict, or disagreed with something one said a couple of months back. That even seems to happen if one deliberately avoids "you"-messages, which I still consider best practice. One of the most interesting experiences I had so far: One year of skill training, without ever mentioning the word "you", but only "yes" or functional hints as guides. No person involved, just performance.

Now, that still was sort of abstract, but I hope a bit more story-like.

Best wishes
Dana