--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I still believe that it owes a lot to Buddhism... > > > > > > > > That's a stretch. Many translations of the First > > > > Noble Truth have it as "Life is suffering," but > > > > that's not related in any way to God, since they > > > > don't believe in one. > > > > > > To say "life is suffering" implies there is something-- > > > a condition or state--that is *not* suffering. > > > > > > If suffering is said to be a lack, there is something-- > > > a condition or state--in which nothing is lacking. > > > > > > What is it? > > > > ++ State of mind? > > In a way. If (as the Four Noble Truths state) the > cause of suffering is attachment to desire/aversion, > then living in a state of mind that is *not* attached > to achieving the fruits of desire or avoiding the > things one is averse to is a way beyond suffering. > > The "input" to life doesn't change, only one's > ability to greet it with equanimity. Try to force > the square peg of that input into the round hole of > one's desires, and you get suffering. Treat it as > a square peg and be neither attached nor averse, > no suffering. > > Nothing to "achieve," no "obstacles" to remove from > the "path" to non-suffering, nowhere to "go." Same > old same old...just life dealt with as What Is, not > What You'd Like Life To Be. > > Just for fun, compare and contrast this to MMY's > latest U.N. rap, in which he once again presents his > S-V theories and suggests that the problems of the > world can't be solved unless one starts over with > all-new buildings. In the Buddhist view, this > approach to resolving suffering can never work > because it is based upon trying to change the input > of life to avoid suffering, rather than change the > inner being's ability to deals with the input with- > out attachment.
As I understand it, the theory is that S-V buildings facilitate the change in the inner being's ability to deal with the input without attachment. > In the Buddhist view, the richest, most successful > person in the world, living in a perfectly-aligned > S-V house but still attached to his desires, will > be lost in suffering. Whereas the poor person who > lives in a cardboard box, if he is not attached to > his desires, is beyond suffering. But what if living in a perfectly aligned S-V house makes it easier to break the attachment to desires? (I'm not saying it does, just that if one is comparing *views*, it's important to include that aspect of MMY's view.) As I recall, some time ago MMY in an interview made the same point about the poor person; I think the specific context was hunger rather than housing, but the idea was that the poor person who was enlightened would not *suffer* from hunger. Some people found this shocking and outrageous. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
