| | Putthajanna,
I practiced (or attempted to practice) Shikantaza for a few years before I started practicing vipassana. I didn't make much progress, aside from gaining a fair amount of stability of mind. It's quite possible that I just wasn't doing it right. Since Skikantaza means, "just sitting," there's a tendency to interpret that as "just sitting around," in sort of a half-baked slacker sort of way. This is not at all the original intention. Gerry Shishen Wick Roshi said in a Buddhist Geeks podcast episode that it really means, "JUST sitting." I think the distinction is worth noting. In this sense, Shikantaza and be quite rigorous and harsh. It's not easy to JUST sit while aches and pains and bad moods are pelting you with maximum intensity. In that case, I think that samatha or metta practice would probably be better if one needs to "cool down" after an intense period of practice.
Part of what separates Shikantaza from Theravada Vipassana is that they come from very different cultural backgrounds. Dogen (who coined Shikantaza, as far as I know) was of the "You're already enlightened" school, and "just sitting" was both the vehicle to and representation of enlightenment -- which is paradoxical in a sense. It's as if "just sitting" could be interpreted as "just being Buddha", but I could be wrong here. Vipassana uses more of a developmental model, as I'm sure you're aware of. You're not enlightened until you do what needs to be done in a more or less systematic way. This is in pretty stark contrast to the Soto Zen school.
I think that Shikantaza is a great practice, and I think that people can get enlightened by doing it. Vipassana just works better for some people, and it's probably a temperament thing. It certainly works better for me.
Jackson |