Welcome again, RAF! It's a good question you raise, and fundamental.
I'll answer, but pls. don't take my word for it! The answer is also fundamental, and not just mine. Still, we don't settle for hand-outs or spoon-feeding in our tradition. Practice and realization is the only way to be clear about something. I'll quote the question(s), and then offer an answer; and, again, the answer is just a point of departure. Anyway, we're just talking. RAF wrote: > I ask, who said that, "fundamentally there ARE NO suffering beings" and how > might that seeming contradiction with "life is suffering" be resolved? The "Life is Suffering" line is the first of the historical Buddha's "Four Noble Truths". Originally, it's: "Life is Dukha". A wagon wheel that is mounted eccentrically on an axle is also "dukha", so "Life is Dukha" may mean that life is "off-center" as lived by beings who are not quite awake. Such a life will always seem unsatisfactory (some translators call that "Suffering"; oh, well) to the being. Well, sure, imagine what would happen to a tire, or a wooden wagon wheel in Buddha's day, and to the wagon, if mounted this way. Such a vehicle would be un-insurable. ;-) This first Noble Truth is followed by the others, which you may see. Zen-practice and -teaching uses POINTERS here-and-there from the Buddha, but does not take him as an authority. Now, you use the words, "the Buddha himself", but the Buddha is not an authority for us. But, you asked the question. Now, on Buddha's death bed, he told us to: "Work out your OWN salvation with diligence". (OK, then; we're well and properly into it now, RAF). When a person works out their salvation, and is saved (becomes awake), that person may then remark on how there really ARE no beings to be seen (I'll say no more). But that realization is not one's own, until one awakens. So it is best to ignore it, and forget that it has ever been uttered, *if one wants to practice*: It's still somebody else's wisdom. Philosophers are free to consider both utterances, and even simultaneously. But I can't recommend it ...Unless the philosopher has awoken in the Buddhist sense, and, then, I think he/she'd be working on much different issues, like giving tender care to beasts and birds. And Humans. So your two part question is more quickly answered by suggesting that the "resolution" is that there is no resolution TO BE MADE -- and no resolution is Reasonable -- because the two points are observations made from different perspectives: the one is from Samsara (the realm of not-awake-ness); and the other is from the point of view of someone who is awake. We can reconcile them both in the same person, but that person must be awake at the time: It's possible for an awake person to remember "how it used to seem". But it's not possible for an un-awake person to imagine how things feel in the awakened condition. I mean, it is completely unimaginable. And there's no use in guessing. Understanding that the utterances are made from different perspectives, we must let each speak for itself: they each tell a different story, and that story is TRUE, from each perspective. The key to our business is that one cannot be on two bases at once. One can see the truth of each utterance, but one must see it from the state that it is made in. The awake person can say what she likes, and always does, because wisdom and compassion arise in her spontaneously, simultaneously. Notice that the "Buddha's" Four Noble Truths are all leading to the culmination of awakening (just read them). The "Truths" are spoken from the state (perspective) of awakening (by Old Man Buddha), and they are meant to assist beings who are not awake (me). From wisdom and compassion, the Buddha spoke these truths along with all the rest of his teaching down his 30 teaching years, in order to help beings to awaken. They are Medicine!, with no expiration-date. And for for an un-awake person to try to reconcile the views from the two perspectives is to flush the medicine down the toilet, ...while still languishing in a coma. I think that wraps it up. --Joe --- In [email protected], R A Fonda <rafonda@...> wrote: > 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?* ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> 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/
