Experiences of samadhi are commonly described as peaceful and pleasant states of deep concentration, entered into with body and mind. Buddhism offers a variety of breath and other physical and mental practices in order to attain these peaceful, often blissful states of deep concentration. Cherished throughout Buddhism, Soto Zen Buddhists likewise treasure such times, when all measures of time drop away. The heart is whole and calm, simple, still and equanimous, often truly blissful, rapturous, as the tensions and borders dividing our little “self” and the “not self” world soften or fully drop away. Such timeless times are precious, a vital aspect of the path.
However, Soto teachings do not limit samadhi only to particular moments, feelings or states, for samadhi is truly boundless! Such unbounded samadhi may baffle those caught in ideas of samadhi as merely concentrated states.
True samadhi is not restricted to peaceful and pleasant moments of deep concentration but, rather, is all moments and all reality, each truly precious, not only the calm and pleasing. Soto ancestors have criticized limited views of samadhi as only peaceful and pleasant states, only times of deep concentration, only experiences to be entered into then departed from, only certain conditions that emerge and are attained, or only a matter of body and mind. True samadhi exists always, is not dependent on whether peace or bliss is experienced or not experienced, cannot be attained or lost, never emerges or departs.
Master Keizan, the great Soto Zen founder, expresses this never entered/never departing samadhi in his Denkoroku (Case 17). There, he tells the tale of Zen Ancestor Rahulabhadra's first encounter with his future disciple, Sanghanandi, who is found engaged in very deep meditation, unmoving for weeks! Sanghanandi finally emerges from his deep concentration state, which Rahulabhadra then criticizes, for true samadhi is not a matter of “entering into” nor “emerging from.” Keizan relates the story this way [based on SZTP translation]:
Samghānandi ... was sitting peacefully, entered into samadhi. The Venerable [Rahulabhadra] and his congregation waited for him. When three seven-day periods had passed, [Samghānandi gradually] arose from his samadhi. The Venerable [Rahulabhadra] asked, “Is your body in samadhi or is your mind in samadhi?” [Samghānandi] said, “Body and mind together are in samadhi.” The Venerable [Rahulabhadra then] said, “If body and mind together are [truly] in samadhi, then how can there be emerging from it or entering into it?”
Rahulabhadra means that, if body and mind are in the true samadhi of all reality (as we always are), there is no body nor mind, no in vs. out, and thus true samadhi is not some state to enter or exit.
The meaning of this somewhat puzzling exchange becomes a clearer if we recall that, in Zen Wisdom, one does not truly come and go from reality even as we come and go in life, there is no “entrance” nor “exit” from wholeness even as we may enter and exit concentration or any other states, there are no “starts” or “finishes” in the timeless-unbroken even as time has starts and finishes, nor does the whole (being so whole) have an “inside” as opposed to an “outside,” nor separate somethings called “body” and “mind,” even as we experience these in practical terms. The wholeness of reality is all of this, all true at once, thus true samadhi sweeps in all these seemingly incongruous views.
For such reason, Keizan comments:
If it is said that body and mind are truly both in samadhi, then how can there be emerging from it and entering into it? If one faces body and mind and cultivates samadhi, then this is still not true samadhi. If it is not true samadhi, then how can there be emerging from it and entering into it? If there is emerging from and entering into, then we must say that this is not samadhi. Do not face the abode of samadhi and seek body and mind. Inquiring into Zen is, fundamentally, the sloughing off of body and mind. What is it that we call “body”? What is it that we call “mind”?
Keizan here reiterates that if body and mind are in true samadhi (we always are), there is no body nor mind, no in vs. out, and thus true samadhi is not some state to enter or exit. If one seeks to cultivate samadhi using body and mind, then that is not true samadhi, and in that case, if it is not true samadhi, how can one claim to be entering and emerging from true samadhi? If there is emerging from and entering into, then we must say that this is not true samadhi. Do not seek samadhi with body and mind, do not seek body and mind in samadhi, but rather, drop off body and mind and the rest.
Keizan returns to this teaching in a later section of Denkoroku (Case 34). True Nature is not anything that can be entered or exited, has no outside as opposed to inside (for it leaves nothing out), is a wisdom beyond discriminating thoughts, perceiving and knowing that nonetheless is all perceiving and knowing, and leaps through both movement and stillness yet is precisely all movement and stillness of this world:
Truly, this place of profound obscurity has no surface or interior; in the border of its ultimate profundity, there is no opening, even when chopped by an axe. Therefore, what levels could there be? … This body is not anything that can be discerned on the basis of movement or stillness. This wisdom is not anything that can be distinguished on the basis of perceiving and knowing. [Yet] because perceiving and knowing, too, are this wisdom, movement and stillness likewise are not other [than it].
This all becomes a bit clearer when Sanghanandi and Rahulabhadra compare entering and exiting samadhi, and samadhi’s emerging or vanishing, to our entering a mine to find gold, and gold emerging from a mine. Sanghanandi first presents a one-sided view, comparing samadhi to gold which is always still, even though there is one’s entering to find it, then its emerging or our leaving:
Although there is emerging and entering, the characteristic of concentration [samadhi] is not lost. Like gold in a mineshaft, the essence of gold is always at rest.
In other words, Sanghanandi says that samadhi is entered and exited, emerges and vanishes, despite which samadhi remains as some unchanging stillness. However, Rahulabhadra rejects such a view. Rather gold is gold [samadhi is samadhi] whether in or out but, because it leaps past both movement and stillness, what entrance or exit is possible, what need to speak of "in" or "out?"
Gold may be in a mineshaft, or gold may be out of a mineshaft, but if gold lacks movement or stillness, what thing is it that might emerge or enter?
In other words, Rahulabhadra says that this is not a matter of being in samadhi or outside samadhi (truly, there is no “in” apart from “out.”) In fact, because samadhi is not limited by movement and stillness, there is no measure of a state of samadhi emerging, of entering such state or of then exiting.
Keizan Zenji expresses approval of this observation by Rahulabhadra:
Indeed, if gold [samadhi] had movement or stillness, or had places it emerged from or places it entered, it would not be true gold [true samadhi]. However [Samghānandi, unfortunately,] still had not penetrated this principle.
Keizan agrees with Rahulabhadra: If samadhi has movement or stillness, or places in-or-out to enter or emerge from, it would not be true samadhi. Sadly, Samghanandi does not understand. Samghānandi goes on to further display his misunderstanding:
[It is said] that gold [samadhi] has movement and stillness, and is a thing that might emerge and be entered. I speak of gold’s [samadhi’s] emerging and entering, but say that in gold [samadhi] there is no movement or stillness.
Keizan expresses disapproval of such a view: Keizan says that Samghanandi tries to split things by saying that samadhi is entered and emerged from even though samadhi is beyond movement and stillness:
If one says that gold lacks movement and stillness, but that it does have emerging and entering, this is still a dualistic view.
Keizan declares that it is dualistic to say that one emerges and enters into samadhi even though samadhi is free of movement and stillness.
Rahulabhadra also disapproves of Samghanandi’s view:
If the gold stays in the mineshaft, then how can what emerges be gold? If the gold emerges from the mineshaft, then what thing is it that remains within?
If gold only stays in the mine, how can that which emerges be gold? And if gold emerges, what is left inside? Rather, it is best to say that there is no inside or emerging, no outside nor entering, then all is gold.
Keizan adds:
From outside, in the final analysis, one is not free to enter. From inside, too, one is not free to emerge. If one emerges, one is completely emerged. If one enters, one is completely entered. What could be in the mineshaft, or emerge from the mineshaft? Therefore, [Rahulabhadra correctly] said, “That which emerges is not gold; what thing is it that remains within?”
This strange statement makes sense as inside is just outside-on the in, so one is already inside when out; outside is not other than inside-on the out, so no way to depart inside. For such reason, when one has emerged outside, there is nothing but outside, when one is inside, there is completely inside, for there was never anything other than this complete no-sided place (that's always been our place too). This is because there is no inside or outside in this whole, just an “inside” which is thoroughly the outside that is “in,” and the “outside” which is fully the inside that’s “out.” So what could be inside the mineshaft of samadhi and then emerge from the mineshaft of samadhi?
Keizan continues to wag his finger at Samghanandi:
Not penetrating this principle, the Master Samghanandi [wrongly] said: “If the gold emerges from the mineshaft, then what remains is not gold. If the gold remains in the mineshaft, then what emerges is not a thing.” These words, truly, are ignorant of the nature of gold. … Truly, although it seemed that he penetrated the principle while in concentration, the Master [Samghānandi] still had views about things and self.
Because he thought that there was mind and body to be employed to enter or exit samadhi, and that samadhi is something that emerges (appears) and also vanishes, has inside versus outside, Samghānandi thus wrongly thought that if samadhi emerges outside then it is not inside, if Samadhi is inside then nothing has emerged. This is because Samghānandi is caught thinking in terms of body and mind, entering and exiting, appearing and vanishing, in vs. out.
For these reasons, it is wrong to say that Soto folks do not cherish samadhi. It is simply that we cherish samadhi that is not inside vs. out, entered or not entered, emerging or not emerging, Nor are body and mind mere tools to reach what cannot be reached. In this world in which we constantly hunt for pleasure and fulfilled desires, the denial of which is the dukkha of disappointment and dissatisfaction, true peace comes from dropping all hunt to the bone, sitting in the fulfillment of sitting. As counter intuitive as this may sound, such true samadhi will emerge in Shikantaza from an attitude of radical goallessness, letting thoughts go, whether following the breath or in “open awareness,” Just Sitting in zazen for sitting’s sake. Seeking samadhi any other way may feed the very hunger and thirst for gain that is the root of dukkha, of divided views and opinions. For us, deep and pleasant samadhi states will emerge in our zazen, or they may not sometimes, but all is samadhi. It is much like profoundly knowing that the moon is always shining, round and full, whether seen or unseen by human eye, whether appearing half or full, and even on so-called "moonless" nights or when hidden by the darkest storms. Thus, the moon always shines as our shining. The achievement of true freedom arises from our radically, to the marrow, giving up all need to achieve samadhi, much like a door that unlocks only when we stop struggling to unlock it. The very act of dropping all need to turn the key leads to the door springing open, and our hearts to open in samadhi. Such samadhi is True Peace.
In Shikantaza, Just Sitting Zazen, we Soto folks drop all notions that we have “entered” or “exited” samadhi, and that samadhi has emerged or vanished, only at those times when we begin or stop feeling peaceful and pleasant. In Shikantaza, we do not run from peaceful and pleasant times of deep concentration (nothing could be further from the truth, for all is welcomed within our mirror-like minds and, in fact, the profound equanimity of Shikantaza is most conducive to such deep concentration happening), but neither do we chase and cling to states of peace and pleasure. That is because we realize true samadhi as having neither “in” nor “out,” as fully the whole of reality, as the timeless times when peace and pleasure are experienced as today’s gift but also, no less, as the times when peace and pleasure are not the gift which life presents some days.
Gassho, J
stlah
)
aprapti 
Comment