"The Fire Sermon" and Shikantaza

[StoBird]

The fire sermon:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....028.nymo.html

Every once in a while a Pali sutta seems to be explaining Shikantaza pretty well.

If you don't mind, I have a question and comment about the fire sermon. It seems to me that it is all about Shikantaza.

I used to be perplexed at why he would say the eye and form and all senses (and sense objects) are on fire and then NOT tell the fire worshippers to put the fires out but to instead stop clinging to the fire. It's because the fire itself is not a good thing and not a bad thing and is in any case unavoidable (burning with greed anger and delusion whether we like it or not: there are always normal, unstoppable, unavoidable human evolved biological tendencies for “unwholesome” emotions, thoughts, desires, aversions etc… in saints and sinners alike, to differing extents, along with good qualities, of course) but how we relate to it seems more important.

The Buddha tells the fire worshippers that everything is on fire but, If I'm correct, he didn't tell them to put the fire out. That suggests a few things to me: one, fire was sacred to the fire worshippers, so saying everything is on fire implies that everything is sacred including all of the unwanted stuff. Second, the Buddha seems to be saying more about how to relate to and hold the fire (inescapable unwanted and wanted stuff that causes suffering when clung to or avoided) than to put it out. And lastly Nirvana means blowing out but with nobody *doing* the blowing (according to one Dharma book I read)

So I take it all to mean that if we sit, feel and hold, radically accepting and allowing, not clinging to anything including not clinging itself, feeling the interconnectedness, wholeness of everything, then we become one with what is sacred (the fire, everything that is necessary but unwanted, or wanted but unable to attain, along with the interconnected flowing dance of the universe) and the flames of greed, anger and delusion blow out on their own accord because we are "estranged" or separate from them but one with all as well, in the good clear sky, far beyond concepts such as

birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.

even when wholeheartedly experiencing such things, if that makes sense. Or something.

Everyone's thoughts? Did I get that right?

Sorry to run long

Gassho,

Tom

Sat

[Kokuu]

Hi Tom

I think that early/traditional Buddhism expains things in a different way to Zen and this, I imagine, is based on ideas around the 12 links of dependent origination with sense contact leading to desire and attachment, which is the burning. Zen more focusses on being intimate with things as they are.

However, I think you are also right that it works to explain Shikantaza in some way, in terms of being able to just experience that sense contact and the burning desire without adding extra fuel to the fire. That is not the goal of Shikantaza, but looking at it like that would not, to me, be wrong, although I would also say that it only captures one aspect of the practice from one angle rather than its entirety.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Jundo]

Just sit, pausing from the action of tossing constant mental fuel on the fire, and the raging inferno cools and settles down to illumination and life giving warmth.

Gassho, J

stlah

[StoBird]

Just sit, pausing from the action of tossing constant mental fuel on the fire, and the raging inferno cools and settles down to illumination and life giving warmth.

Gassho, J

stlah

Put water on it. Get 8 hours of sleep. Eat an apple. Monkey see, monkey do.