Question
For several years I have practiced shamatha-vipashyana—shi-kan?—in the Tibetan tradition, in the particular context of Vajrayana, with all its highly elaborate formal rituals. Having gotten royally lost in these winding paths full of symbols, I am now moving
toward simplicity of form. So at first glance, the zazen approach seems right. Apparently zazen is less gradual than the Tibetan tradition’s shamatha-vipashyana. The “Tibetan way” is nice, but with this habit of wanting to classify everything into thirty-six stages and umpteen sublevels of meditative absorption, I feel I am chasing something…
Can you enlighten me?
Anonymous
Master Kosen’s answer
You already seem very clear to me.
I did not know vipashyana was Tibetan?
I have many Tibetan friends, especially Master Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, who lent me his temple in Argentina for a month-long zazen retreat with my disciples, and it was thanks to him that I found my temple. We are neighbors, and I visit him whenever I can. When we part, he touches my forehead with his. He is simple and direct and reminds me very much of my master Deshimaru.
Buddha said, “Practice can be seen as sudden or gradual; both are correct.”
Kosen