Hi Siska,<br/><br/>Most of my "born Buddhist" friends are Japanese, but
Buddhism is mostly nothing more than a nominal belief in Japan (although its
previous standing can still be seen in the various arts there today).
<br/><br/>Yes, I've heard of samatha and vipassana being taught as one
meditation. I think the sutras support either argument. In the Goenka tradition
the 10-day retreats begin with 4 days of anapanasatti (the breath as object of
meditation) before introducing vipassana at the end of the fourth day. By then
the mind is concentrated, and the hindrances eliminated, enough to begin
vipassana proper. This works for me well.<br/><br/>There are vipassana jhanas,
but it's much less complicated to teach a beginner the jhanic stages thru
samatha meditation. I would be surprised if you haven't entered the first
jhana, even if momentarily, if you've been practicing for a while. Of course,
entering the jhanas by themselves doesn't yield any particular
wisdom nor lead to enlightenment, but its a helluva place to give the mind a
rest! Definitely worth experiencing tho for the power of concentration that is
developed attaining them.<br/><br/>Khanika samadhi is is associated with
vipassana and not samatha. That almost staccato moment to moment to moment
concentration is exactly what leads to the insight of anicca (impermanence). In
fact, I'd say it is impermanence in effect - which is exactly why vipassana
means 'seeing things as they really are'! I can see why you might think this
similar to shikantaza because it's keeping that concentration without
distraction regardless of the object that comes up. The main difference, for me
at least, is that khanika samadhi describes the state of mind during noting or
scanning - something shikantaza doesn't do. <br/><br/>Exactly! 'Seeing as
seeing'. The first time I experienced the same the jolt of adrenaline knocked
me back into the everyday world! Again, that
"newness" and "nothing stored" is anicca in operation and you *experiencing*
it rather than merely understanding it.<br/><br/>Mike <br/>PS I hope I didn't
come across as teaching you something you didn't already know? I'm just excited
that someone else hear also practices Vipassana!).<br/><br/>PPS Just to keep it
Zen related: Vipassana is very precise in its method of instruction and
terminology, whereas Zen can come across, prima facie, as imprecise and vague.
A good example would be the command to "Drop attachments". Vipassana describes
exactly what an 'attachment' is, the physical-mental processes involved in that
attachment, as well as specific practices to "drop" that attachment. Given
Zen's dislike of words and explanations, is simply saying "drop attachments"
really useful? So my questions are: is one tradition superior to the other?
Are they at cross-purposes in the first place? Or are the different approaches
just a question of upaya (skilful
means) for people of different temperaments? Or something else?<br/><br/>Sent
from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
