Marsha: > In LILA, RMP states that "What holds a person > together is his patterns of likes and dislikes." I think that would > hold for Krimel's dog too. I think Buddhism states desire is > the root to suffering. I never used the word evil (I don't much > like the word.), and I'm not a Buddhist, but I do believe that desire > with attachment is the root of suffering. For some things I seem > willing to pay that price.
SA: Marsha, I find what you wrote here, helpful. The quote by RMP is as samsara is, and as nirvana is. Samsara is nirvana, and once this is understood the suffering in samsara can be experienced as bliss. This is the same analogy as eternity experienced now, on this earth, not in some future time or future place. The latter is a yearning, a desire for something that can't be now, thus, a need that can't be fulfilled now - a spiritual need. Yet, this kind of lacking or need is ignorant due to what is needed is right here, right now, so, why the need? Yet, this is base-line spiritual needing. Where one starts from a thinking as if they have zero quality. When one understands they do have quality (spiritual need/sacred need, etc...) and desire to keep this integrity, well this is a good desire. One that is at base-line, zero thinking quality, devoid of absoltuely everything, that would be an empty life distinquished from Spiritual or Quality Emptiness/Nothingness. This would be an emptiness with degenerative notions of ignorant spiritual or quality voidness or baseline spiritual needing (as I refer to it above). There is a difference between degenerative emptiness and generative emptiness as Huineng explains in the Platform Sutra: http://zen.thetao.info/read/platform.htm "Learned Audience, when you hear me talk about the Void, do not at once fall into the idea of vacuity, (because this involves the heresy of the doctrine of annihilation) . It is of the utmost importance that we should not fall into this idea, because when a man sits quietly and keeps his mind blank he will abide in a state of 'Voidness of Indifference'. Learned Audience, the illimitable Void of the universe is capable of holding myriads of things of various shape and form, such as the sun, the moon, stars, mountains, rivers, men, dharmas pertaining to goodness or badness, deva planes, hells, great oceans, and all the mountains of the Mahameru. Space takes in all of these, and so does the voidness of our nature. We say that the Essence of Mind is great because it embraces all things, since all things are within our nature. When we see the goodness or the badness of other people we are not attracted by it, nor repelled by it, nor attached to it; so that our attitude of mind is as void as space. In this way, we say our mind is great. Therefore we call it 'Maha'. Learned Audience, what the ignorant merely talk about, wise men put into actual practice with their mind. There is also a class of foolish people who sit quietly and try to keep their mind blank. They refrain from thinking of anything and call themselves 'great'. On account of their heretical view we can hardly talk to them. Learned Audience, you should know that the mind is very great in capacity, since it pervades the whole Dharmadhatu (the sphere of the Law, i.e. , the Universe) . When we use it, we can know something of everything, and when we use it to its full capacity we shall know all. All in one and one in all." SA continues: Thus, to explain this right off the bat is important to avoid any coming declarations that Void or Empty are nihlistic and such. I'm discussing, as I like to call quietness, the emptiness that includes everything, as Dwai and you mention as Eternity. As for good desiring, here is a quote from wikipedia, for as I mentioned to Krimel, but not in so many words, it would be absurd to think that one would be born and desire not to live. To desire to sit and do nothing, without any empathy or compassion is a degenerative desire. To me, practicing good living involves peaceful orientations and becomes an effort in 'common sense', which I understand what's common to one or many may not be common to the other one or many. The 'common sense' I'm referring to is as the quality analogy, which states you already know what quality is. Here's the quote from wikipedia as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanha "The Buddhist solution to the problem of ta?h? (craving, wanting) is the third of the four noble truths, the cessation (nirodha) of suffering. The cessation of suffering comes from the quenching (nibbuta) of ta?h?, which is not the destruction of ta?h? as much as the natural cessation of it that follows its true and real satisfaction. The problem is not that we desire, but rather that we desire unsatisfactory (dukkha) things, namely sensual pleasures, existence and non-existence. When we have Right Effort, when we desire that which yields satisfaction, then ta?h? is not the obstacle to enlightenment but the vehicle for its realization." SA continues: This last sentence, especially, also points to how samsara is nirvana, which is the same notion as heaven is on earth, etc... Also, as I pointed out in many words, Marsha, your notion of a desire linked with attachment is the degenerative desire and is a good summation of such events. SA ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
