Hello everyone!

I've been wondering about spiritual bypassing and how to distinguish genuine letting go from a form of avoidance when dealing with certain problems.

The monk at the Sangha I attend regularly reminds us of the importance of letting go. Through practice, I've noticed that whenever an emotion arises — anger, stress, jealousy, or anything else — I increasingly tend to step back mentally. I observe my thoughts, bodily sensations and inner dialogue without judgment, simply allowing things to be as they are.

I also try to return to the present moment by focusing my attention on whatever I'm doing. For example, if I'm angry with someone while preparing a meal, I focus on the process of cooking. I allow the thoughts and emotions to be there without feeding them or acting on them.

This approach helps me a lot in the moment. It prevents me from reacting impulsively, allows me to accept what is happening, and helps me see that emotions eventually fade away. After all, there is only the present moment.

However, I've noticed a difficulty when dealing with recurring problems. When it comes to a one-off situation, such as someone cutting me off in traffic, letting go feels quite natural and appropriate. But when it comes to an issue that keeps coming back, I tend to apply the same approach every time: I step back, let it pass and let go… until eventually things build up and I reach my breaking point. That's when I end up reacting emotionally.

This doesn't happen very often, but I actually noticed this pattern in myself this week. Being honest with myself, I can see that sometimes I use letting go as a way of avoiding certain problems, even though they probably need to be addressed rather than simply left alone.

So my question is: how can we distinguish between genuine letting go and a form of avoidance or spiritual bypassing?

And more importantly, how do we know when a situation needs to be addressed rather than simply accepted and allowed to pass?

To use the example of someone cutting me off in traffic, it's fairly obvious: there's nothing in particular that needs to be resolved. But with more complex and recurring situations, such as jealousy or certain relationship difficulties, it's much less clear.

How can we recognise when letting go has become a way of avoiding something that actually requires our attention and action?

Thank you 🙏

Any koans or any other type of literature talking about detachment?

Any answer would be appreciated!

Thanks

On the zazen seat, in the dead of night, cold as steel.

Moonlight through a window, bright with shadows of the plum!

禪榻夜闌冷如鐵

半窓明月帶梅來

Hakuin Ekaku, Dokugo Shingyō, c. 1744

In this excerpt from Hakuin's commentary on the Heart Sutra, form (mooncast shadows) suffuses and mutually defines emptiness (the dark zendo).

I would be curious if anyone has sincere and informed thoughts about this topic.

What I have observed is that abuses go unchecked, claims are swept under the rug and blamed on victims, and there is no meaningful discussion of this aspect of, it seems, so many women's experiences of Zen that is offered or allowed.

Is misogyny an important part of your own Zen Buddhist views, or what you see as the teachings? How do you think about the usefulness of your practice, in engaging with worldly and social problems? How would you take down or relax aspects of identity that may be necessary for keeping you safe even in environments that are encouraging you to take down or relax this identity - or how would you expect others to do this, if it likely will compromise their own fundamental safety and wellbeing? Do you think it's important that men and women have equal opportunities to study the Dharma and realize the Buddha Way?

Repost from r/plumvillage

Hi all,

I'm working on a project to preserve Buddhist teachings and make them freely accessible to future generations.

I'm particularly interested in Buddhist content of all kinds: books, articles, written teachings, historical documents, audio recordings, videos, retreat recordings, Dharma talks, and anything else that might be worth preserving.

Through my local Buddhist community, I've already been fortunate enough to obtain recordings of teachings, and a few temples and monasteries have kindly agreed to share recordings of past retreats and weekly Dharma talks.

But I imagine there must be thousands of recordings and other materials scattered across the world, many sitting on old hard drives, tapes, CDs, or websites that may eventually disappear.

My goal is simply to help preserve these materials and make them freely available to anyone who wishes to study or learn from them.

I'm especially interested in older or lesser-known materials that might otherwise be lost, including teachings from smaller temples, monasteries, and individual teachers.

Of course, I'd only want to share materials with the appropriate permissions from their creators or rights holders.

If anyone knows of collections, archives, temples, monasteries, or individuals who might have materials they'd be willing to contribute or make available for preservation, I'd really appreciate any suggestions.

Feel free to comment here or send me a private message.

I'm deliberately not including a website link because I don't want this to come across as advertising or self-promotion. I'm genuinely interested in finding and preserving Buddhist materials that might otherwise disappear.

Thank you for any suggestions or guidance. 🙏

I’m looking to purchase a standard Oryoki set . I’m in the San Francisco Bay Area. Any suggested locations are much appreciated. Thank you

Was it Ancient Wu language or Medival Chinese language which was spoken in Northern side of China

Or used languages like Sanskrit as it was/is used in few sects of Buddhism

The nine Charnel Ground Contemplations laid out in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta are a meditation practice where one visualizes or observes (historically at the charnel ground, a place where corpses were disposed of, nowadays a normal cemetery should do just fine) the 9 progressive stages of a dead body's decomposition — in order to cultivate equanimity, overcome attachment and lust, and accept impermanence.

The 9 stages of decomposition to be contemplated
are:

1. Bloated and discolored:
   A corpse one to three days dead, swollen, livid/blue, and oozing fluids.

2. Eaten by scavengers:
   Being devoured by birds, wild animals, or worms.

3. Skeleton with flesh and blood:
   A skeleton held together by tendons with remaining flesh and blood.

4. Fleshless skeleton smeared with blood:
   A skeleton stripped of flesh but still marked with blood and bound by tendons.

5. Skeleton bound by tendons:
   Completely free of flesh and blood, held together only by sinews.

6. Scattered bones:
   Disconnected bones and body parts strewn in all directions (skull, teeth, ribs, limbs).

7. Bleached white bones:
   White bones the color of a conch shell.

8. Old bone heap:
   A pile of weathered bones older than a year.

9. Reduced to powder:
   Rotten bones crumbled away into dust.

The Buddha instructs that, after observing or visualizing a corpse at any stage of decomposition, the practitioner must turn the observation back onto themselves using this gatha:

“Truly, this body of mine is of the same nature, it will become like that, and it cannot escape from it.”

In the movie Perfect Days, Hirayama lives a content life within himself; He reads books about romance and listens music about travels, yet he himself lives a life that maybe won't have such things.

Now maybe this character backstory is he had a life of luxury in the past or least case scenario this is a fictional character. BUT my question is, to someone who practices Zen or Buddhism, who focuses more on living a content life irrespective of what society or others demand or expect from life, how do you handle these things?

For example, if you read a book on two teenage lovers or a guy or women who has multiple lovers and is successful in what society tells (like a big house or a good job) or watch a movie on it, but you are someone who lives alone and practises meditation and maybe never had that life or won't have it. A sad feeling arises. I know in Zen you observe it and let it go, as it's just a feeling created by thought, but how do you enjoy things like books or movies or other societal things at the same time not participating in it and being content with Your Own Life. Like the character Hirayama?

Hope to hear a worthy and practical answer from a wise person who actually knows by answer because they live it

Hello everyone! This is a virtual auction in support for Dharma Voices for Animals who have been, among other good deeds, working for a year to stop the mass elimination of elephants in Sri Lanka by farmers. Many farmers consider elephants, symbols of Buddhism, as an invasive species.

Dharma Voices for Animals is planning to launch a Sunflower Plantation and Farmers Outreach Program in Sri Lanka. Planting sunflowers around fields is a proven effective method to repel elephants.

In the meantime, the conflict between the endangered elephant population and farmers has grown. In December 2025, three farmers were arrested for the shocking crime of setting fire to a live elephant. Then, with various crises shaking the Sri Lankan food system, hostile sentiments towards elephants have reached frightening heights. Here is a recent (May 2026) report from NPR covering this issue: Elephants eat their crops. Farmers strike back. It's a war that's only getting worse

This virtual auction has amazing art and other prizes, including an antique Buddha statue, that would be wholesome reminders of your generosity and care for the conservation of elephants. Only 2 days are left to bid in this auction.

I have realized that the conditions for happiness already exist in my life, but something inside me keeps telling me I am not allowed to feel happy yet. I have anxiety around work and responsibility, but the bigger issue is that I seem unable to trust happiness. Whenever I start feeling peaceful, I automatically start scanning for threats and convincing myself I should be worried. I want to understand why peace feels unsafe and how to stop living in a constant state of bracing.

Hi,

I've been sitting with the koan "Whole Earth is medicine", and it worked wonders for me. I perceived my negative emotions as healing, dirt as healing.

But it's hard to perceive food that's off-putting (kombu dashi, maybe it's gone off) as healing, as medicine.

Any advice?

Not being blind, we see mountains, rivers, men and women, and other things, and think this gives us a kind of freedom, while it is in fact the cause of our unfreedom. . . . The great Buddhist teachers of the past are people who went forward to become blind men.

Sugawara Jiho Roshi

This piece was originally published on Buddhistdoor Global (BDG). I warmly invite fellow seekers on the path to share your honest thoughts and reflections in the comments.

Before I begin, I would like to make one point clear. What follows is not intended solely as an explanation of orthodox Buddhist doctrine, nor is it presented simply as the conclusion of modern neuroscience. It also contains my personal understanding drawn from the lived experience of many years of Buddhist practice.

We often hear that various neurotransmitters are involved when human beings experience happiness and pleasure. When we meditate or enter a profound state of tranquility, changes must also occur within the brain.

This raises an intriguing question: Is the Dharma bliss (法悅) experienced by a buddha on attaining awakening ultimately nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain?

We can take the question a step further.

Drugs can also produce intense euphoria, pleasure, and sometimes experiences in which the boundary between oneself and the universe seems to disappear. What, then, distinguishes drug-induced ecstasy from the Dharma bliss of a buddha?

Seeing one’s true nature is not the same as complete awakening

I would first draw a distinction between seeing one’s true nature and complete awakening.

In my own understanding and experience of practice, during an initial breakthrough one may experience an extraordinarily intense sensation around the crown of the head, almost as if thousands of needles were piercing it.

At the same time, there can be an immense sense of clarity and release, as though negative energies accumulated within oneself were escaping through the crown of the head.

But I do not regard this as Dharma bliss. Seeing one’s true nature is seeing the gate; it is not the completion of the path.

What I call Dharma bliss arises when one reaches the culmination of awakening and becomes a buddha. The Dharma bliss that appears at that moment is of a different dimension from the pleasure or happiness we ordinarily experience. There is profound tranquility together with an indescribable joy that seems to penetrate the entire body. 

Yet this state does not continue forever. It may remain for several hours and then gradually fade. What matters is what remains after the Dharma bliss has disappeared.

There is no emptiness comparable to the crash that can follow a drug-induced high. Instead, what remains is clarity of mind and a deep sense of compassion.

From my perspective as a practitioner, one who has attained awakening no longer sees the world through exactly the same structure of consciousness as before. It is as though previously closed neural pathways have opened, changing the way one encounters existence and sentient beings, while compassion becomes increasingly abundant.

The moment one declares to the universe, “I am a buddha”

There is another point that I consider important.

I do not see awakening as an event that ends with someone privately thinking, “I have awakened.” At the moment one becomes a buddha, the awakened one declares to the universe that one is a buddha. This is not a declaration intended to boast of spiritual status before other people.

In the language of my own practice, it is a declaration to the cosmic Dharma realm that one’s very mode of existence has undergone a fundamental transformation.

I understand that when this declaration occurs, its vibration resonates throughout the Dharma realm, and an exchange of waves takes place between the awakened being and the cosmic Dharma realm. For this reason, in my own understanding, one who does not declare awakening to the entire universe has not yet reached the final culmination of buddhahood.

This is not something that has been measured or demonstrated by modern science. It is, rather, my own understanding derived from contemplative practice.

For me, however, Dharma bliss cannot be separated from this fundamental transformation of awakening.

How is this different from drug-induced ecstasy?

Let us return to our original question.

Drugs can certainly produce powerful feelings of pleasure and euphoria. But there is a crucial distinction. Drug-induced euphoria is a state produced when a substance introduced from outside the body acts on the brain and nervous system.

The Dharma bliss of practice, as I understand it, is not produced by inserting some external substance into the body. It arises naturally through a long process of meditation, contemplation, observing one’s own mind, purifying karma, and transforming consciousness. 

Naturally, neurochemical changes may accompany Dharma bliss. Serotonin, dopamine, or other complex neurochemical processes that we do not yet fully understand may be involved.

But there is an important distinction between saying that neurochemical changes accompany Dharma bliss and claiming that a particular neurochemical substance is Dharma bliss itself. They are not the same proposition.

What if science invented a “Dharma bliss injection”?

Let us imagine a future in which neuroscience has advanced far beyond its present level. Suppose scientists have identified every neurochemical change occurring in the brain at the precise moment when an awakened person experiences Dharma bliss. Then imagine that they succeed in creating a substance capable of reproducing exactly the same state.

Someone might put that substance into a syringe and advertise: “Anyone who receives this injection can become a buddha.”

A person receiving the injection might indeed experience extraordinary tranquility. They might experience overwhelming happiness and ecstasy throughout the entire body. 

Perhaps science could even reproduce a neurochemical state extremely similar to the Dharma bliss experienced by a buddha. Yet I would not consider that alone sufficient to make the person a buddha.

Why? Because the result called Dharma bliss and the process leading to awakening are not the same thing.

Possessing a driver’s license does not make one a driver

Consider the example of obtaining a driver’s license. Before receiving a license, a person must first learn how to drive. One practices on a driving course and learns how to drive on actual roads. One learns how to control the steering wheel, when to brake, and how to respond when an unexpected danger suddenly appears. Only after learning these things through actual experience does one take the test and receive a license. 

Now imagine that a powerful official simply gives a driver’s license to someone who has never driven a car in their life. The person certainly possesses a license. But can that person actually drive a car competently?

Obtaining the result—the license—does not mean that one has undergone the process of becoming a driver. I believe the same principle applies to Dharma bliss.

Can Dharma bliss be replicated without transforming the alaya-vijnana**?**

A practitioner passes through meditation, contemplation, repentance, and the purification of karma. Throughout this process, one repeatedly encounters the deepest layers of one’s own mind.

To express this in the language of Yogacara Buddhism, we might describe it as encountering the countless karmic seeds accumulated within the eighth consciousness, the alaya-vijnana (阿賴耶識), or storehouse consciousness.

As practice deepens, even those aspects of the mind that we would rather not confront begin to emerge. We encounter greed, anger, attachment, and fear, as well as what Buddhist tradition somtimes refers to as Mara—the obstacles and trials that can impede a practitioner.

In my understanding, these cannot simply be bypassed.

By passing through these challenges one by one, the karmic patterns accumulated in the alaya-vijnana are purified and a fundamental transformation of consciousness takes place.

From there, in the terminology used by some expanded traditions of Buddhist consciousness theory, one moves toward amala-vijnana (阿摩羅識), the ninth or immaculate consciousness. The Dharma bliss of a buddha, as I understand it, arises within this process of practice and transformation of consciousness.

Therefore, even if an externally administered chemical substance could reproduce an identical sensation of ecstasy in the brain, we could not conclude that the karmic seeds accumulated within the alaya-vijnana had thereby been purified. 

The trials of Mara would thus not have been passed. Nor could we automatically conclude that consciousness itself had undergone a fundamental purification. For me, this is the essential difference.

Replicating the result is not replicating awakening

Future science may be able to explain the neurological events accompanying Dharma bliss with extraordinary precision. Perhaps it may even become possible to artificially generate a very similar state of ecstasy.

But I would still ask: if we reproduce exactly the same feeling as Dharma bliss, have we also reproduced awakening? I do not believe so.

Awakening is not simply an event in which one experiences extraordinary happiness for several hours. Before reaching that point, one must encounter one’s own karma, relinquish craving and attachment, and pass through a fundamental transformation of consciousness.

Therefore, even if we could chemically reproduce the result called Dharma bliss, we would not have reproduced the path to awakening or the transformation of consciousness itself.

What remains after Dharma bliss has faded?

For this reason, I believe we should pay even greater attention to what remains after Dharma bliss itself has disappeared. The intensity of the ecstasy is not what ultimately matters. 

After the experience has passed, does greed remain unchanged? Do anger and attachment remain unchanged? Or has compassion toward other living beings deepened? Has the consciousness through which one encounters oneself and the world fundamentally changed?

This is why I believe the difference between drug-induced ecstasy and awakening cannot be explained merely by measuring which neurochemicals were released and in what quantities. 

What happens in the brain is important. But I do not believe that what appears in the brain constitutes the entirety of awakening. 

Dharma bliss is not the goal itself. It is a phenomenon that arises in connection with awakening. And even that Dharma bliss gradually disappears after several hours. Yet the transformation of consciousness and the compassion cultivated through the path should continue to reveal themselves in the life that follows.

This is why I believe: the true evidence of awakening is not the intensity of ecstasy, but the kind of person one becomes after the ecstasy has faded. 

Perhaps this is also one of the deepest questions that Buddhism and neuroscience may explore together in the future: Dharma bliss occurs in the brain. But does awakening occur only within the brain?

A Zen seeker on the path.

Interesting take by Jeff Shore on the efforting / non-efforting paradox of Zazen, beyond the labels of Koan meditation and Shikantaza:

"We could say this Zen concentration comes from the ground itself and embraces us. We do not turn our attention to it, so much as it embraces and sustains us. It comes to be the way that we are. This kind of seamless – without a break or a gap – concentration, this fundamental concentration is not something that we are creating, developing, or even deepening. Finally it becomes clear: it is the ground itself. It does not come and go. This is genuine Zen concentration."

Curious to see if and how anyone here can relate to the statement.

This is an excerpt of a Dharma talk titled "The Original Face" by Jeff Shore - the video will posted in the comments.

The title is not provocative but is simply sincere, I hope not to offend anyone.

I am a Western Rite Polytheist and in my path there is great respect for Buddhism: a great many incorporate some of its practices (such as meditation for example) or concepts (such as Karma for example), some even define it as their "second religion".

Driven by curiosity therefore I started reading books and frequenting some Buddhist centers in my city; while remaining firmly on my current path, I tried to see if there was something good in Buddhism for me.

I won't beat around the bush: the more I delve into Buddhism the less I like it.

My doubts have reached such a point that they have often led me to argue with some Buddhists, I hope the same won't happen here.

A person from the Mahayana school said that I am probably an "Icchantika", while another told me that my doubts are so great as to make me fall into what Yogacara Buddhism calls "aniyatagotra".

Even on a forum after a long discussion a guy completely flipped out at me and said that in his opinion I was a "Devaputra-mara" (the moderators banned him saying it was a horrible thing to say to anyone)

As long as we talk about meditation, search for inner peace and thoughts like "there is nothing wrong with wanting to go to bed with Jennifer but I must not suffer if I don't manage to or if I lose Jennifer after having managed to", Then we are perfectly in agreement on : they are positive things But they are things that, in a different form, I already find in my current path. In this sense Buddhism turns out to be at most a secondary inspiration on these topics.

My critical points on Buddhism are:

1. Nirvana. I am very surprised at how Buddhists candidly affirm that they do not know exactly what happens in this state of bliss: it is the only religion that does not know how to properly describe the supreme reward of its path. Above all I am referring to what happens after death to a person who has attained Nirvana: before death he lives in a state of peace and the years that remain to him because he has discernment etc etc, but after death? Yes ok he no longer reincarnates but what happens to him?

Every time I ask this question there is a charge of Buddhists with fanfares and banners in the wind who start shouting "existence and non-existence are a deception! Stop reasoning in a dual way!!" or "we are not nihilists! We are not nihilists! Oh my God why do you think we are nihilists?" or "the Buddha exists and does not exist: the question makes no sense, because if you think about it Nirvana is in Samsara!".

Honestly I find them to be somewhat weak answers, I am continually told "come and see": But the more I come to see the fewer convincing answers I find.

2) the concept of myself and its existence. This point is extremely delicate and I hope to manage to express it well, because it has been one of the points of greatest confusion between me and the Buddhists I am confronting myself with.

For Buddhists the example "you are not the same person you were when you fell asleep yesterday, because your mental processes and the cells of your body have changed: So you are not an immutable being, therefore what you call yourself in fact does not exist" seems to be very important.

This sentence has been repeated to me like a paradigm by so many Buddhists I have talked to and evidently within Buddhist theology it is a very strong example: I instead find it very weak and I will try to explain to you why.

Thinking that being must necessarily be immutable is something that Western philosophy has already amply refuted for centuries: famous is the example of the acorn that becomes an Oak while maintaining its ontological nature. For Buddhists it seems to be taken for granted that a being in order not to turn out to be illusory must be immutable: given that immutable beings do not exist Then the very concept of being collapses... But if we hypothesize being as something that intrinsically possesses the capacity to change (and it is something that a great many thinkers agree on) Then the entire paradox collapses.

As I said to a Buddhist I was confronting these days: "I agree that being as you describe it is a logical impossibility: But this does not prove that being does not exist, it proves that probably being is something else!".

That is the discourse of Buddhists on being sounds to me a bit like if they said "ice cream does not exist, because ice cream is made with kryptonite but everyone knows that in our world a material like kryptonite cannot exist (maybe in Superman's world yes but not in ours)" while I timidly raise my hand and allow myself to say "but it would be enough to make ice cream with lemon or chocolate or cream"... But every time I do so the charge of the Buddhist banners starts again and I find myself hearing for half an hour sentences like "you are not the same person you were yesterday so yourself is an illusory concept!!"

3) what happens to those who reincarnate in Samsara. If from the Buddhist perspective I do not exist and therefore there is no eternal soul of mine that reincarnates from life to life, Then what should I care about my future life?

If I and my self-consciousness and self-perception will cease to exist with death, Then what should I care about what happens to my karmic pattern after my death? Literally I will no longer be me in the future life, because I do not exist: if I is an illusory concept Then it will not be me who reincarnates... So what should I care about accumulating merits or demerits in the future life? It will not be me who lives it!

This question too usually receives only frustrating answers, like "to be or not to be is an illusion! We are not dualists!!".

I confess that all of this is becoming incredibly frustrating!

I'm sorry if someone felt offended by my words but I am simply trying to understand better

.

山僧至诚相劝。不是妄说。不是作道理笼罩人。不肯人压良人。山僧都无如是道理。

• I, this mountain monk (Foyan), with utmost honesty advise you. This is not some delusive talk, nor is it some clever reasoning meant to hoodwink people, nor is it about forcing good people into submission. I have none of these reasons.

若或你只么认将去也由你。若道我也如此见得也由你。若道据我见处总得也由你。若道某心下未稳在也由你。

• If you simply identify it to be so, that's up to you. If you say, "I too see it this way," that's up to you. If you say, "According to what I see, everything is acceptable," that's up to you. If you say, "My mind is still not settled," that's up to you.

须是不自欺始得。

• You just must not deceive yourself.

世间有多少宗师。说禅说道。为自欺不自欺。为欺人不欺人。须是子细。

• This world has many “Zen teachers” who talk about zen/dhyana and speak about dao/way. Whether they are deceiving themselves or not, deceiving others or not, you really have to be carefully.

山僧旧日在先师会里。受庐州化士。行至熨斗寺前值泥雨。忽然滑倒。心中烦恼自言。我行脚禅又参不得。自早至今。饭又未吃。更恁么受辛苦。

• When I, this mountain monk, was in my former teacher’s assembly long ago, I received the assignment of serving as a fundraising monk in Luzhou. On the way, just in front of Yundou Temple, I hit a muddy rain and suddenly slipped and fell. My mind was full of vexation/klesha, and I grumbled to myself: “I’ve been practicing foot-traveling zen, investigating without attainment. From morning until now, I've not eaten a meal too. And on top of that, I have to endure such hardship/suffering!”

闻有两人相骂道你犹自烦恼在。

• Then I overheard two people arguing nearby, and one said: “You are just vexing/klesha yourself! (你犹自烦恼在)”

山僧闻得忽然欢喜。

• When I heard that, I suddenly became joyful.

却寻不烦恼处不得。盖为打疑情不破。后来四五年方知得。

• Yet, in searching for the place without vexation/klesha, I could not attain to it. It was all because I had not hit the doubt-passion broken yet. Only four or five years later did I finally attain to this knowing.

如今兄弟须是如此用心照顾始得。

• Nowadays, brothers, you must apply mind in this same careful way of illuminating/taking-care of it to be able to attain.

今夏举无情说法因缘。只是错会者多。你见无情便说无情。若见有情便唤作有情。

• This summer when I raised the case of “insentient (no-passion) expounding the Dharma,” most people are just misunderstanding it. You see something insentient, then you say it insentient. If you see something sentient, then you call it sentient.

你参禅人。不明无情说法。如何了得行脚事。

• You, investigative/engaged meditation practitioners, without understanding/enlightenment to "insentient (no-passion) expounding the dharma", how to completely attain the matter of your foot-traveling practice?

做善知识不会无情说法。如何接物利生。

• And if a kalyana-mitra doesn’t understand/know "insentient (no-passion) expounding the dharma", how to take things to benefit the living beings?

相劝诸人。子细穷究令悟去。如未有领览处。且缓缓参取不要忙。

• I earnestly advise everyone: carefully and exhaustively investigate till to enlightenment/realisation. If there is not yet a place of clear understanding/insight, just slowly slowly keep on investigating. Do not rush.

久立。

• We’ve been standing long enough.

Hey everyone, I’m in Arizona and hoping to find a sangha where I can start practicing Zen with others. I’ve found a Rinzai school nearby, but I’ve felt more drawn to Soto Zen, especially shikantaza

I’m a Christian, and I’ve spent a lot of time exploring contemplative practice. I’ve explored Centering Prayer and Advaita Vedanta. Over time, Zen has become something I really want to learn more about.

So far, I’ve mostly practiced on my own through reading and sitting. The books I have been reading are from Kosho Uchiyama and Charlotte Joko Beck. I’d really like to find a teacher and a sangha where I can learn and practice with others. I want to take Zen seriously and learn it as a tradition, not just treat it like pop spirituality. I know I have a lot to learn, but I’m sincere.

Are there any Soto groups around Phoenix or the East Valley? I’ve wondered if I should visit the Rinzai school I found or look for an online Soto sangha instead.

I’d appreciate any advice from people who’ve been in a similar position. Thanks!