It could be fine until strong ideological differences emerge, like those which I've posted few posts before. Maybe the contradictory advice would hinder rather than help? It is like, are you supposed to become better or are you already perfect with Buddha nature and all that? Two contradictory approaches. Practice is based on certain basic assumptions, and if they differ, then the practice would be different - even if it can initially seem to identical.mikenz66 wrote:Personally, I'd rather sit with chan/zen group than have no personal interaction.
Cosmic consciousness The nearest comparison to satori is a glimpse of cosmic consciousness. Here in the Zen context, the most frequent exclamation is “nothingness.” Every thought, every vision, every master, every concept is transformed into nothingness. Before this breakthrough there is high tension. There maybe lights or maybe total darkness. Then abruptly the infinite space turns into nothingness. Or ‘I and the universe are one’ is a common comment http://www.kktanhp.com/a_touch_of_zen.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thats because: Nhat Hanh's approach has been to combine a variety of traditional Zen teachings with methods from Theravada Buddhism, insights from Mahayana Buddhism, and ideas from Western psychology—to offer a modern light on meditation practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nhat_Hanh#Approach" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;mikenz66 wrote: The basics of mindfulness are simply the basics of mindfulness. Thich Nhat Hanh and his followers, for example, seem to me to have a very effective approach to mindfulness that is very compatible with Theravada teachers.
Not every Zen center is like a buffet, and it may or may not be the best approach in all cases.