[Buddha-l] The Body in Buddhist Practice

[Vicente Gonzalez]

S. Lacks wrote:

SL> A few years ago I  spent a fair amount of time meditating with an
SL> experienced Indian meditator from the Advaita Vedanta tradition who could go
SL> into "samadhi" and maintain it effortlessly for hours all the while his posture
SL> was as bad as it gets. His posture was always bad but it did not seem to
SL> keep him from going into these "states" and maintaing them for hours. I know
SL> his effortless states were not considered Chan states, but I do not think
SL> that is relevant to the discussion. I also knew another fellow, rather tall
SL> and heavy, in the Zen tradition whose posture was quite bad but he too could
SL> sit  concentrated for long times. When he got up, his body did not seem to
SL> bother him.

meaning of meditation (bhavana) it's closer to "cultivation of mind".
In the Pali Cannon, Buddha teaches meditation many times without  any
direct reference to be seated.

Ta-hui of Tsao-tsung school (the counterpart of Japanese Soto)  often
attacked seated meditation, and he represent the more popular view of
buddhist practice before Sung. In fact, Ta-hui call the silent
illumination (mo-chao/zazen) an heretic view regarding the authentic
Chan. In these times,  silent illumination was defended by only a few
people, in example Hung-chih. 

But starting Sung dynasty, a less favorable environment for Buddhism
causes an introspective style, and from here the arising of popular
manuals about seated meditation. Some of these manuals influenced
Dogen. Zazen is today the more popular method in Chan/Zen, although
historically it was not in this way. It doesn't mean zazen was not
an ancient practice; just that it was not the only way to focus the
teaching. 

Ta-hui attacks against followers of silent contemplation were in the
fear that they were apart of the world. Note those ancient Chan
masters understood the Mind like an all-embracing totality, therefore
both the individual mind and the immediate perceived reality they are
the Mind. And this Mind should be the object of meditation not just
the inner ambit of the being. So Ta-hui was not in agreement with
ignoring this. The Chan school acquires his name because the
prevalence of dhyana, although it doesn't mean zazen but dhyana as
was understood in Vajrasamashi Sutra and other works.

An historical explanation of these things can be found in chapter 4 of
"Buddhism in the Sung", P. Gregory. There is also a little book of
modern Master Hsing Yun called "Only a Great Rain" explaining the
different approaches in Chinese Buddhist meditation.


SL> Having been around both Chinese and Japanese Chan/Zen centers, I would add
SL> that one sees much more "less than perfect posture" with the Chinese.
SL> Posture and form for that matter is stressed much more in Japanese oriented
SL> Zen centers.  I wonder if the connection between the importance of
SL> good/perfect   posture and meditation  is not another culturally
SL> mediated idea? 

I don't think so, because the stress in a right posture in seated
meditation exists from always when any master talked about seated
meditation. Not only in Zen but in any other Buddhist tradition.
When we call the support of the common pattern of Japanese culture,
truly there is a perfectionist effort to improve the Chinese mo-chao
in the Japanese zazen.  Zazen then becomes a wonderful and subtile
method, and Dogen an enormous figure. I think the true problem remains
in the popular understanding that Chan/Zen belongs exclusively to
Zazen practice, which is an statement of Japanese Soto school.
Zazen is today the best known method but at least in my little
understanding, when somebody is not able to grasp the subtile meanings
of shikantanza and mushotuko it can be an analgesic instead a cure.
Zazen apparently it's a simple teaching but it is not in this way.
Zazen is a deep notion about the nature of self including body and
mind, and it demands perseverance and patience.

This subject was of special interest to me for long time, and from all
what I have read around this, I have found in master Chi-i of Tien-Tai
school the best key to understand the root of this problem. Lacking of
a good written synthesis in Early Chan, in the Chi-i's "The Great
Calming and Contemplation" there are basic points to understand what
happened later in the Chan/Zen practice with the different
approaches.

In the practical side, my humble experience is that mixing both views
becomes the perfect approach. Because one can cultivate the mind
all the day (or at least lot of times across the day) in both
ambits. Today maybe still there is an excessive attention to that
individual inner ambit of Mind, and forgetting the reasonable warns of
Ta-hui. And I wonder if probably it is what many people enjoy when
they know Advaita.
However, similar things are part of Chan/Zen teaching from the
beginning. In example, we find that in the I-hsing san mei of Early
Chan. ("Traditions of meditation in Chinese Buddhism", P. Gregory.).
Also, when we read some modern masters like Hsing Yun, we can check
this point of view still it's alive, although it is not very known in
the West.

In Japan, there was an specialization of Rinzai and Soto. A possible
interpretation of the absence of some Early Chan views maybe is that
those jumped directly from Tendai school to Pure Land.
In example we can read similar approaches in Amidist master Genshin,
who had a Tien Tai background.
Dogen arrived to China when silent illumination was well established
in China, then  mo-chao (Zazen) become his method. That absence in
the Soto school is fully logical.


best regards,