Question
Hello,
I have just read some messages, including ones about a chair, and I too have
many questions about the zazen position. My understanding of Zen
is still in its infancy. I experience zazen as best I can, but without
a master I am aware I may be following a winding,
imperfect path. But that is not the question for now…
Too often foundations are lost through ages and generations,
rather like customs. We lose the essence of what was once fully
justified, intuitive, and natural. Doesn’t zazen simply mean “seated
Zen”? Couldn’t all these detailed descriptions and rigorous teaching
come from a study of the sitting position most conducive to
meditation and awakening? If so, this study was most likely
influenced by Japanese culture, very diligent, even devoted to that single
task at the time it was carried out. Perhaps that explains
its strict character, painful at first, which so displeases Westerners,
so undisciplined and soft…
Isn’t the ultimate goal to live Zen daily and be what we are
in zazen regardless of whether we are doing zazen? If so, is it so
inconceivable that zazen is only a teaching, a guide to
getting there? There are several branches of Buddhism, each bringing a
teaching both the same and different. Each offers a way of life
in a shared Buddhist spirit. Perhaps meditating on a chair was
not designated by Japanese matriarchs as the teaching most
conducive to meditation and awakening, but didn’t Deshimaru
himself tell a student that if unable to meditate seated
because of disability or injury, a seated or lying position could work?
That what matters is practicing as best one’s condition allows? Otherwise,
Zen clearly could not be accessible to everyone, which seems
to contradict what I think I understand about Zen.
I am very talkative; forgive me. I will finish with this last
question: do you believe zazen is the one and only way to certify oneself?
Thank you.
Michel Wils
Master Kosen’s answer
Watch The Fukanzazengi of the Future!
Kosen