Kris, >The nature of this realized, cessation is effortless.
We're contingent beings in a contingent world. We're born, we grow sick, we grow old, we die. In a contingent world we don't know what's just around the corner ready to befall us. In order to "realise" suffering fully we need to pay mindful attention to what impacts on us - not to just the external stimuli, but also to how we react to them inwardly. Even after Buddha's defeat of Mara, he was still 'visited' by Mara from time to time. life happens moment to moment and no over-riding state of mind/knowledge/understanding/Enlightenment will eradicate the potential to suffer at any time. All we can do is constantly practice mindfulness until our mind isn't so restless and we can be more aware of those first stirrings of the mind to be so reactive. Mike ________________________________ From: Kristopher Grey <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 9 September 2012, 19:24 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: THE BASIC TEACHING OF BUDDHA This points to the simpler reality, suffering being none other than the belief in/attachment to suffering. The nature of this realized, cessation is effortless. KG On 9/9/2012 10:49 AM, mike brown wrote: >Merle, > > >Buddha proposed a simple test for this. If what you follow/believe causes >suffering - drop it. If it doesn't... "go for it"! > > >Mike > > > >________________________________ > From: Merle Lester <[email protected]> >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, 8 September 2012, 22:49 >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: THE BASIC TEACHING OF BUDDHA > > > > > > > what ever gets you there folks..go for it...merle > >On 9/8/2012 2:36 PM, mike brown wrote: > > >> >>Belief has nothing to do with it. Whether Jesus or Buddha was a historical >>person,or not, makes no difference - the Buddhist teachings speak to me >>because they correspond to my experiences time after time. Christianity >>doesn't. Neither does Wicca or Scientology. That doesn't bother me. Does it >>bother you? > >Nope. > >Biblical lingo does not ring to many contemporary ears (particulary thise who think it does and "believe"), as we are not raised with oral traditions and metaphors the refer to yet older metaphors. I certain wasn't - but wasn't raised Neo-Christian fundamentalist either. Pretty atheist environment, very minimal church exposure - handful of visits in a lifetime, most weddings/funerals, only a few services with friends, and that was mixed denominations. > >I other words, I get where you coming from, and probably has less history with such shit. No dog in that fight, I can simply now see the same core is there, just a very different expression. I'm still working on Islam - Sufis help - but I suspect they were around before Islam and just changed the sign on the door (many Muslims also suspect this and persecute them accordingly). > >Buddhism IMWO / TMSE (in my worthless opinion/to my simple ears) has done a better job of adjusting it's voice - a tradition of Upaya along with a reformation/back to basics split every few centuries or so helps - but contemporary particularly Western ears still read the teaching too scientifically/literally. > >But as you say, so what? Buddha had no interest in Buddhism. > >KG > > > > >
