Excellent point on pain and suffering and very clearly explained. I'll update my terminology from now on and draw a clearer distinction between pain and suffering as you point out.


On Oct 14, 2008, at 7:14 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


'Digression' is my middle name!

See my responses embedded below:

>A hammer hitting a toe occurs every day and everywhere in the world,
>resulting in a lot suffering. How does zen address this problem?

Pain is not what Buddhism means when it talks about suffering. Pain is pain. OUCH! Suffering, in the Buddhist sense, is the result of attachment - wanting things. It is this suffering that Buddhism seeks to end. Not pain. OUCH! (Of course if you were not ATTACHED (physically attached) to your toe, then hitting it wouldn't hurt, would it? But, if you were not attached to your toe, would it still be YOUR toe? Maybe you've come up with a new koan. Cool!)

>Many zen masters still remember the origin of zen, which is
>mahayana Buddhism has a root vow of Bodhisatva to save all
>sentient beings in the world. I have trouble seeing that reconciled
>with the non duality.

If you see that all attachments and therefore suffering is illusory, then you have 'saved yourself' (Hinayana), and in doing so you have destroyed the dualism that separates 'you' from 'others' and have therefore already saved 'all sentient beings' (Mahayana), and doing this enables you to realize there were no sentient beings and no saving action that had to be done in the first place (Zen), and that there only ever was, is and will be Just THIS! (zen)

>If causality is illusory, are there rules that govern human behavior,
>such as karma, in place of God, so that man have to think twice, before
>they commit evil deeds?

My experience and opinion is that causality is illusory; so there are no rules that govern human behavior, no karma, and no God. If you think once, much less twice, you are already lost!


Reply via email to