jhana vs silent illumination or other zen methods

[johnny]

many chan/zen teachers do not recommend traditional jhana meditation and instead teach silent illumination (in japanese shikantaza, although i think this is a dogen version of it and is a little different).

is one better than the other?

are they technically the same?

is there anything like silent illumination or other zen methods in the pali canon?

did the buddha only teach meditation that leads through the jhanas?

[Cittasanto]

many chan/zen teachers do not recommend traditional jhana meditation and instead teach silent illumination (in japanese shikantaza, although i think this is a dogen version of it and is a little different).

is one better than the other?

are they technique the same?

is there anything like silent illumination or other zen methods in the pali canon?

did the buddha only teach meditation that leads through the jhanas?

it maybe helpful if you spell out what it is you mean by Shikantaza, as you note that there are other interpretations and I am not familiar with all of the styles it could refer to such as exactly what is the Dogen style.
I had a check on Wiki and see that silemt illumination is a combination of Samantha & Vipassana so yes it is all over the place as the two are joined together in the pali canon quite allot, and the modern interpretation of just siting can be seen as the clear comprehension section mind and Feelings tetrads of the satipatthana sutta.

[Dan74]

"Is one better than the other?" is not only a very loaded but a pretty pointless question. Better for whom?

We all have our particular obstructions and some respond better to a particular method while other may respond better to another. Even people with the same sickness don't always respond in the same way to the same medication.

Here there would not be many people who have practiced the methods you ask about, but perhaps you can ask the few who have to describe their experiences. Again I am not sure what use that would be to you.

Advice to Bahiya that has already been mentioned in one of your threads, I think, has strong parallels to silent illumination. Ven Nyanaponika taught meditation he called bare attention which also has similarities.

As for jhanas vs shikantaza, I think there is a lot of evidence to show that shikantaza is an advanced practice and the practitioner would have reached a level of maturity before practicing silent illumination. This maturity may involve some mastery of the jhanas, I am not sure. In any case most teachers I have heard and the one Soto teacher I have sat with taught breath awareness meditation much like anapanasati, first.

Have a look at the teachings of Honzhi on silent illumination. He was one of its great proponents and Dogen held him in highest regard so it should be relevant both to Chan and Soto Zen.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/Hongzhi%20Zhenjue/Teachings/Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Hongzhi%20Zhenjue.htm

[daverupa]

did the buddha only teach meditation that leads through the jhanas?

He taught that sammasamadhi had seven prerequisites, the first seven of the eightfold path. Therein, sammasamadhi means the rupajhanas & sammasati means satipatthana. Without this, the meditation isn't correct for Dhamma practice.

[johnny]

many chan/zen teachers do not recommend traditional jhana meditation and instead teach silent illumination (in japanese shikantaza, although i think this is a dogen version of it and is a little different).

is one better than the other?

are they technique the same?

is there anything like silent illumination or other zen methods in the pali canon?

did the buddha only teach meditation that leads through the jhanas?

it maybe helpful if you spell out what it is you mean by Shikantaza, as you note that there are other interpretations and I am not familiar with all of the styles it could refer to such as exactly what is the Dogen style.
I had a check on Wiki and see that silemt illumination is a combination of Samantha & Vipassana so yes it is all over the place as the two are joined together in the pali canon quite allot, and the modern interpretation of just siting can be seen as the clear comprehension section mind and Feelings tetrads of the satipatthana sutta.

i know a little about sheng yen's version of silent illumination which is based on hongzhi's work who was an early promoter of the technique. he recommends developing it in stages.

dogen shikantaza is literally just sitting, nothing else. he taught that sitting in the lotus position is itself nirvana. his whole approach too zen is very much it's own thing and doesn't really have much of a counter part in other schools.

[johnny]

did the buddha only teach meditation that leads through the jhanas?

He taught that sammasamadhi had seven prerequisites, the first seven of the eightfold path. Therein, sammasamadhi means the rupajhanas & sammasati means satipatthana. Without this, the meditation isn't correct for Dhamma practice.

indeed. in my readings of the canon the buddha says more than once that development of jhana is quite necessary. nonetheless, i wonder about the merits of silent illumination as it seems too fit in with some ideas i have about meditation and reality. however i know very little about it.

[johnny]

"Is one better than the other?" is not only a very loaded but a pretty pointless question. Better for whom?

We all have our particular obstructions and some respond better to a particular method while other may respond better to another. Even people with the same sickness don't always respond in the same way to the same medication.

Here there would not be many people who have practiced the methods you ask about, but perhaps you can ask the few who have to describe their experiences. Again I am not sure what use that would be to you.

Advice to Bahiya that has already been mentioned in one of your threads, I think, has strong parallels to silent illumination. Ven Nyanaponika taught meditation he called bare attention which also has similarities.

As for jhanas vs shikantaza, I think there is a lot of evidence to show that shikantaza is an advanced practice and the practitioner would have reached a level of maturity before practicing silent illumination. This maturity may involve some mastery of the jhanas, I am not sure. In any case most teachers I have heard and the one Soto teacher I have sat with taught breath awareness meditation much like anapanasati, first.

Have a look at the teachings of Honzhi on silent illumination. He was one of its great proponents and Dogen held him in highest regard so it should be relevant both to Chan and Soto Zen.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/Hongzhi%20Zhenjue/Teachings/Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Hongzhi%20Zhenjue.htm

hmmm. you're right. it's difficult. from a zen perspective, many teachers will just plain tell you that the jhanas are inferior and explain why. clearly you don't feel this way about jhana, or at any rate theravada, meditation being superior too zen meditation. so i think if you were very opinionated on the topic it would have applied too you a little more. you would have read it and said "of course jhana is better! for a, b, and c reasons!" or the other way around, depending on your disposition. i'm in the same boat as you in that i really don't know, i think they may be identical and i don't have enough info to be very opinionated about it. i feel like you develop the first jhana and learn a great deal of concentration, and then silent illumination can be practiced. but again, i don't really know.

and you're right, the advice too bahiya does sound a lot like silent illumination.

[Dan74]

many chan/zen teachers do not recommend traditional jhana meditation and instead teach silent illumination (in japanese shikantaza, although i think this is a dogen version of it and is a little different).

is one better than the other?

are they technique the same?

is there anything like silent illumination or other zen methods in the pali canon?

did the buddha only teach meditation that leads through the jhanas?

it maybe helpful if you spell out what it is you mean by Shikantaza, as you note that there are other interpretations and I am not familiar with all of the styles it could refer to such as exactly what is the Dogen style.
I had a check on Wiki and see that silemt illumination is a combination of Samantha & Vipassana so yes it is all over the place as the two are joined together in the pali canon quite allot, and the modern interpretation of just siting can be seen as the clear comprehension section mind and Feelings tetrads of the satipatthana sutta.

i know a little about sheng yen's version of silent illumination which is based on hongzhi's work who was an early promoter of the technique. he recommends developing it in stages.

dogen shikantaza is literally just sitting, nothing else. he taught that sitting in the lotus position is itself nirvana. his whole approach too zen is very much it's own thing and doesn't really have much of a counter part in other schools.

I don't think you are doing justice to Dogen here. Have you read him? His teachings are very much to do with uprooting a dualistic mind and this has lots of precedents in Mahayana at least (cf Vimalakirti Sutra for example). I am no scholar of Mahayana and even less of a Dogen scholar but his teachings seem to be misunderstood. Just sitting is very simple, but can you "just sit"?

[johnny]

I don't think you are doing justice to Dogen here. Have you read him? His teachings are very much to do with uprooting a dualistic mind and this has lots of precedents in Mahayana at least (cf Vimalakirti Sutra for example). I am no scholar of Mahayana and even less of a Dogen scholar but his teachings seem to be misunderstood. Just sitting is very simple, but can you "just sit"?

i have read the fukan zazenji and am currently reading moon in a dew drop which is a collection of his works. he is very good! i wasn't speaking ill of him. his zen is very different from most others, that's not a negative thing, it's just true. and i read a section, written by the man himself, that said that sitting in the lotus posture is itself nirvana.

[Dan74]

I don't think you are doing justice to Dogen here. Have you read him? His teachings are very much to do with uprooting a dualistic mind and this has lots of precedents in Mahayana at least (cf Vimalakirti Sutra for example). I am no scholar of Mahayana and even less of a Dogen scholar but his teachings seem to be misunderstood. Just sitting is very simple, but can you "just sit"?

i have read the fukan zazenji and am currently reading moon in a dew drop which is a collection of his works. he is very good! i wasn't speaking ill of him. his zen is very different from most others, that's not a negative thing, it's just true. and i read a section, written by the man himself, that said that sitting in the lotus posture is itself nirvana.

But do you understand what he means by "nirvana"? What is the difference between zazen and nirvana?

Do you think he is saying that when you sit in the lotus posture you are enlightened? And when you get up, you are not?

PS I don't really know what other Zen teachers say about jhanas. Do you have any references? They are not "the be all, end all" of practice in any tradition, I think. The main thing is insight and liberation and jhanas, as I understand, help quieten down fermentations, so that insight can take place. I mean what is koan introspection doing? Isn't it sweeping away fermentations with the koan and keeping the focus alive with inquiry? I have read accounts of deep koan introspection which had many similarities to jhanas. Perhaps the difference is that you are meant to carry on with it 24/7.

What is silent illumination? It's when fermentations have already been silenced to a great extent, so that awareness is spacious and luminous and as Honzhi taught formations and old habits can be seen and swept away.

Such is my provisional understanding but of course I may be wrong. But one thing for sure - this isn't the proper forum for discussing this. ZFI has Zen teachers and senior students and it would be not only more appropriate to discuss it there, but you would get more responses.

[johnny]

I don't think you are doing justice to Dogen here. Have you read him? His teachings are very much to do with uprooting a dualistic mind and this has lots of precedents in Mahayana at least (cf Vimalakirti Sutra for example). I am no scholar of Mahayana and even less of a Dogen scholar but his teachings seem to be misunderstood. Just sitting is very simple, but can you "just sit"?

i have read the fukan zazenji and am currently reading moon in a dew drop which is a collection of his works. he is very good! i wasn't speaking ill of him. his zen is very different from most others, that's not a negative thing, it's just true. and i read a section, written by the man himself, that said that sitting in the lotus posture is itself nirvana.

But do you understand what he means by "nirvana"? What is the difference between zazen and nirvana?

Do you think he is saying that when you sit in the lotus posture you are enlightened? And when you get up, you are not?

PS I don't really know what other Zen teachers say about jhanas. Do you have any references? They are not "the be all, end all" of practice in any tradition, I think. The main thing is insight and liberation and jhanas, as I understand, help quieten down formations, so that insight can take place. I mean what is koan introspection doing? Isn't it sweeping away formations with the koan and keeping the focus alive with inquiry? I have read accounts of deep koan introspection which had many similarities to jhanas. Perhaps the difference is that you are meant to carry on with it 24/7.

What is silent illumination? It's when formations have already been silenced to a great extent, so that awareness is spacious and luminous and as Honzhi taught formations and old habits can be seen and swept away.

Such is my provisional understanding but of course I may be wrong. But one thing for sure - this isn't the proper forum for discussing this. ZFI has Zen teachers and senior students and it would be not only more appropriate to discuss it there, but you would get more responses.

i don't know what he meant, but i think he left many statements like that open and he often wrote in vague and ethereal speech. i have also read that he didn't write in the same standard of japanese as most people of his time, making translation difficult. i have even heard it called "dogenese". some things he said were puns rather than literal statements but it doesn't always come across in translation.

in the pali canon it says that one may go into the forth jhana and then up too the fourth of the formless realms and develop insight into reality, not too mention knowledge of past lives and a slough of supernormal powers (can't remember where, i know it's in visuddimaggha, anyone know where in the canon?). jhana is required according too the buddha. it is indispensable. so if you decide not too develop the jhanas, you may be missing out, at least according too theravada. there are other sections in the canon that talk of developing insight and what not in other ways, i do not know if any allow one too exempt oneself from practicing jhana though.

that's why it matters which one you practice. many zen masters will say you don't need jhana, most theravada say you do.

references too zen masters saying not too enter jhana? no. i've read it in books long ago and can't remember titles, i've seen people say their teachers said things about it on forums and seen it in articles on line, and i heard a teacher at a zen monastery and the abbott say it. i'm positive it is a "thing" in zen that jhana is not often taught or recommended.

maybe try looking around on some zen sites, you won't find many (i've never seen a single one) that talk about jhana, they all talk about zazen which usually sounds like mindfulness of breathing with no stages listed, instead you go see a teacher periodically and they tell you where too go from there (as opposed too the standardized progression of mindfulness of breathing, access concentration, and then the jhanas) or they teach silent illumination (shikantaza). i've read more than ten books on zen and never once came across any techniques for practicing jhana. it's a theravada thing for the most part. other traditions may practice it by default, but they generally don't use the theravada systematized explanation and progression.

EDIT:
if you search specifically for a zen site that teaches jhana, of course you will find it. they are out there. so if you want too just find one that does and conclude that i am misinformed then enter a search like: "zen jhana" and you will find one. but try searching random zen sites, that way you get a fair screening of who teaches what. i'm willing too bet if you search ten random zen sites without using the word "jhana" in the search, and then check each one's instructions on how too meditate, none will mention jhana. does this mean that they discourage it? no, and usually not in today's world where we all try too be understanding and not step on toes, but the fact that they don't teach it implies that they do not see a need too teach it. not that there's anything wrong with that, i really don't know either way. obviously, that's why i made this thread too begin with lol!

[johnny]

oh wait, what am i saying? jhana is frequently listed as exactly the definition of "right concentration"! so it's firmly in the pali canon as a very important step.

[LonesomeYogurt]

oh wait, what am i saying? jhana is frequently listed as exactly the definition of "right concentration"! so it's firmly in the pali canon as a very important step.

If you're going to have a firm base in the Pali scriptures then Jhana is a requirement, unless you're willing to do some textual gymnastics.

Check out Buddhadasa or Ajahn Chah - both are firmly grounded in Theravada but have a Zen approach that many find refreshing.

Here is Buddhadasa's main meditation approach - it is very close to some Zen styles of open, calm awareness.

http://what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Bh ... athing.htm

[twelph]

Here is Buddhadasa's main meditation approach - it is very close to some Zen styles of open, calm awareness.

http://what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Bh ... athing.htm

This is excellent, thank you!

[johnny]

oh wait, what am i saying? jhana is frequently listed as exactly the definition of "right concentration"! so it's firmly in the pali canon as a very important step.

If you're going to have a firm base in the Pali scriptures then Jhana is a requirement, unless you're willing to do some textual gymnastics.

Check out Buddhadasa or Ajahn Chah - both are firmly grounded in Theravada but have a Zen approach that many find refreshing.

Here is Buddhadasa's main meditation approach - it is very close to some Zen styles of open, calm awareness.

http://what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Bh ... athing.htm

whoa! this is really impressive!

lol! textual gymnastics! it's so funny seeing those play out, where you can really see someone trying too circumvent something they just don't want too do! "well if he meant this by this word, then i don't have too do such and such practice! even though he said too do such and such practice 500 times and only said that one word once..."

[Cittasanto]

it maybe helpful if you spell out what it is you mean by Shikantaza,

i know a little about sheng yen's version of silent illumination which is based on hongzhi's work who was an early promoter of the technique. he recommends developing it in stages.

dogen shikantaza is literally just sitting, nothing else. he taught that sitting in the lotus position is itself nirvana. his whole approach too zen is very much it's own thing and doesn't really have much of a counter part in other schools.

Yes but what are you meaning by the term?
you havn't showed anything not read on wiki to show what precisely you are looking for!

[Dan74]

Johnny, perhaps the trouble with Zen books is

1. people may take them as self-contained manuals for practice and substitutes for practicing with a teacher - they are neither
2. in regards to classical texts, there is translation bias in favour of material that is specifically zen rather than the stuff that is shared

Both of these issues can provide a very incomplete and skewed perspective on what Zen practice actually entails.

[Cittasanto]

2. in regards to classical texts, there is translation bias in favour of material that is specifically zen rather than the stuff that is shared

There is also an issue of cultural bias, some of the great Zen teachers in Japan were Vinaya ordained monks in China and later when vinaya ordination disapeared, for one reason or another to be fully replaced by the Boddhisatva Vow, some of the context & meaning of what was said was also lost on translators and students who did not have the specific knowledge & training.

[wildfox7]

Johnny,
I have practiced both jhana and Silent Illumination meditation methods for several years, separately. Different sides of the same street. If you become proficient at both, I think you will share my view that it is the same stuff.

Since you are seeking concise instructions on meditation, you can dismiss the traditional literature, as it never survives translation enough to be useful to modern readers. Dogen has little to say about meditation, in particular. Sounds like you are not ready to go to a teacher of Silent Illumination. As you are already practicing jhana, I will say nothing about that, except to caution to stay with the meditation object and not fall into the phenomena of experiences. This technical point is stressed more in zen instructions than in Theravada. Your mention of zen teachers discounting jhana practice is nothing more than the zen version of the ongoing slapping between 'concentration' and 'insight'. All the jhana teachers that I know of insist and argue that jhana practice excludes 'insight' practice. This is an important technical argument that I decline to speak about, as people are so intractable and take offense at disagreement.

All you need to know about SI can be found in "The Method of No-Method" and Chap. 8 of "Hoof Prints of the Ox", the latter being more concise. Both by Sheng Yen. Each 10 bucks cheap.

Shikantaza is to sit with complete awareness ('concentration' is too strong a word) of your sitting posture, completely still. When you have that down pretty good, you cannot help but notice that the only part of your body still moving is due to the action of breathing. So you watch that, too. Soon you do not feel the body posture any more because you are sitting so still. So you are left with the breathing to notice. Not just at the nose, but the entire body breathing. You have transitioned from Shikantaza to beginning SI.

The disadvantage of practicing from written instructions is overestimating your progress. If both interest you, then commit to one for a year and then the other for a year. No mixing. Habituation is the most important element of any meditation practice. If you have problems or bad days with jhana, go back to anapana for a week. With SI problems, go back to shikantaza or even the "10 breath counts". Forget 'insights', they come on their own.

[pegembara]

Now I would like to explain how to use the method of shikantaza. First, your posture should be upright. Do not lean in any direction. Be clear about your posture, because if you practice shikantaza, just sitting, at the very least you should be conscientious about sitting. It is also important to remain relaxed.
Next, be aware of your body, but do not think of it as yourself. Regard your body as a car you drive. You have to handle the car well, but it is not you. If you think of your body as yourself, you will be bothered by pain, itchiness and other vexations. Just take care of the body and be aware of it. The Chinese name for this method can be translated as "just take care of sitting." You have to be mindful of your body as the driver must be mindful of the car, but the car is not the driver.

After a period of time, the body will sit naturally and cause no problems. Now you can begin to pay attention to the mind. If you were eating, your mind should be the "mind of eating," and you would pay attention to that mind. When you are sitting, your mind should be the "mind of sitting." You watch this sitting mind. Two different thoughts alternate: the mind of sitting and the mind, or thought, that watches the mind of sitting [see viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13376&start=20]. First you watch the body sitting with little attention to the mind. When the body drops away, watch the mind. What is the mind? It is the mind of sitting! When your attention dissipates, you will lose awareness of this sitting mind and the sensations of the body will return. Then you should again watch the body sitting. Another possibility is that while you watch the mind you fall into a dull state, like "Being on the dark side of the mountain in a cave inhabited by ghosts." When you become aware of this situation, your bodily sensations return, and you should go back to watching them. Thus these two objects of attention, the body and the mind, are also used alternately.

In the state where you watch the mind, are you aware of the external environment, sound for example? If you want to hear sound, you will, and if you do not want to hear sound, you won't. At this point, you primarily pay attention to your own mind. Although you may hear sounds, they do not create discriminations.
There are three stages in this practice. You should start at the beginning and progress to deeper levels. First be mindful of your body[kayaupasana]. Then be mindful of your mind[vedana, cittaupasana], and of the two thoughts alternating in it. The third stage is enlightenment. The mind is clear and, as the poem quoted said, "In silence, words are forgotten. In utter clarity, things appear." When you first practice, you will probably be in the first or second level. If you use this method correctly you will not enter into samadhi.

This last point needs clarification. It depends on how we use the term "samadhi." In Buddhadharma, samadhi has many meanings. For instance, Sakyamuni Buddha was always in samadhi. His mind was not moving, yet he still continued to function. This is wisdom. Sakyamuni Buddha's samadhi is great samadhi and this is the same as wisdom. When I said that in the practice of Silent Illumination, you should not enter samadhi, I meant worldly samadhi[trance] where you forget about space and time and are oblivious to the environment. The deeper kind of samadhi, which is the same as wisdom, is in fact the goal of Silent Illumination.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=241704616435
Shikantaza and Silent Illumination, Master Sheng Yen