It happens that 'all is unfolding as it must' has recently been a topic
of discussion on a secular science forum, (by analogy to the
inevitability of physical and chemical reactions to proceed according to
initial conditions and experimental protocols) and it is my contention
that the human future is not 'open' at all, but essentially ordained as
a result of human actions in the past and present, albeit 'open', to a
conditional degree, in the longer term, according to the reactions of
humanity to the evolving circumstances in that future.
Accordingly, one may well say that the past must be considered in order
to understand current existence and future possibilities. Still, how is
this:
On 11/27/2012 10:18 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote:
horrific depiction of humanity's depravity ... childhood abuse of a
New York woman ... The systemic horror of the holocaust or Shoa ...
the gifts of law, train schedules, chemistry, and cultural varieties
to butcher millions of precious human lives. this chopping of the
world into us and them trapped the perpetrators and the Jewish people
into gross evil ... divide our glorious reality and hence unleash the
brutality that lurks in human brains ...
which I might call 'counting other people's suffering' different from
'counting other people's treasure', in regard to being here and now?
There is also a personal element
I had some history of abuse as a child.
that personalizes the statement that:
to blindly say that it is all ok
as if (it seems to me) to say, that to believe in 'unfolding as it must'
denies the sanctity of your suffering and that of the noble martyrs of
the holocaust, who were all blameless victims, thus implicitly denying
that there are antecedents to suffering, even though you write:
whatever causes it has
I suggest that 'life is suffering' due to the nature of physical
existence, if for no other reason than that human competition and
exploitation is an essential part of evolution, and is likely to remain
so in spite of (indeed, often /because/ of) efforts to empower
governments and institutions to 'do good', in contrast to personal
charity arising out of karmic relations.
It seems to me that if and when we feel compelled to dwell on suffering
(as, for instance, when it is affecting ourselves and kin) one response
might be to try to understand the contention that, fundamentally, there
ARE NO suffering beings. How can that be so, when we are actually
experiencing the suffering, and the Buddha himself characterized life as
suffering?
So, in response to the moderator's request:
> Please ... begin a thread of discussion.<
*I ask, who said that, "fundamentally there ARE NO suffering beings" and how might that
seeming contradiction with "life is suffering" be resolved?*
RAF
