Originally Posted by
Tiwala
Is it wrong to assume that in Soto, realization of the true nature of reality is not the enlightenment that it speaks of? I mean, as it appears to me, Soto refers to enlightenment as an action (thus never ending). I feel people get confused when they hear that in Soto, one does not strive for enlightenment while sitting because the sitting itself, in Soto zen speak, (with the total abandonment of resistance and clinging) is itself enlightenment. While most people, reading enlightenment, think of something cerebral, or an experiential/intuitive understanding of some truth. I think this is where the confusion lies, especially since most Buddhism seems to refer to enlightenment as an understanding. I mean, as I understand it, in Soto, there are understandings, realizations, but they are not refered to as enlightenment. Shikantaza, not limited to the physical act of just sitting, is enlightenment.
Actually, in my silly view, there really is no enlightenment. Its just a name, as empty as everything else. Its notions are impermanent, empty, dependently existing. The coming together of these variables in action is where it springs forth from that mysterious springless spring. But because it is empty, while simultaneously not existing, it exists as everything. It is quite beyond any explanation, by its characteristicless 'nature' (to call it such is not so very accurate)
Gassho, Ben