Bill and RAF, Yes Bill also seems to be in agreement here too.
I would again however point out that there is a useful distinction to be made in the the types and degrees of attachments, desires, emotions etc. At the immediate level all these are very natural evolutionary adaptations, natural instinctual responses to challenges to identify and survival. They are useful in the sense that they have aided and actually been essential to the evolutionary survival of the species. Even on this biological level however what is unadaptive and self destructive (in the ordinary not Buddhist sense) is excessive worry, desire, wanting etc. which manifests as clinical depression, anxiety etc. This is clearly dysfunctional even on the non Buddhist level. So one must be clear here about trying to dissolve all one's natural instincts as well as one's sense of self. It is VERY possible to negatively affect one's survival instincts if this goes too far. Without these natural survival instincts one just let's oneself be killed instead of trying to avoid it. From the aspect of total realization this is perfectly OK but still ..... My approach is to leave the basic instincts intact and functional but not to get obsessive about them. In other words what I always say is, "As a human being I naturally have some attachments, BUT I am not attached to my attachments!" Edgar are natural evolutionary adaptive responses On Nov 28, 2012, at 2:37 AM, Bill! wrote: > RAF and Edgar, > > Yes, Edgar and I do agree that the Buddhist reference to suffering is mental > suffering - not physical pain. You could be suffering because of pain, but > then only in the sense that you are hosting a 'pity party' and moaning 'Why > me? Why do I have to have this pain? Why not Edgar?' > > So, in that sense I wouldn't say 'life is suffering' because it is the > ATTACHMENTS in life that cause the suffering, not life itself. I would say > 'attachments bring suffering', but they can be dissolved by realization of > Buddha Nature. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Hi RAF, > > > > One must first clearly define suffering. Bill and I make a distinction > > between physical pain and mental suffering. It's mostly mental suffering > > that Buddhism addresses in saying that suffering is due to attachments, > > desires, and ignorance. Mental suffering can thus largely be released and > > avoided by proper understanding or realization in the Buddhist sense. > > > > But it is incorrect that life IS suffering. Life includes a very complex > > mix of experience including suffering, pain, joy, happiness and a lot of > > other experiences which are clearly NOT suffering. I'm certainly NOT > > suffering right now and I'm most certainly alive. > > > > But physical pain is an intrinsic part of being a flesh based being. Even > > the most enlightened being is still subject to more or less physical pain. > > But not to suffering given proper realization. However from an EP > > perspective suffering responses are rooted in evolutionary adaptations > > which is why we naturally have them and those must be transcended through > > realization. > > > > There is a story about a Chinese monk standing completely blissfully in a > > group of weeping peasants about to be executed. Seeing the monk the army > > commander asked him why he wasn't afraid saying "I could kill you without > > batting an eye." In response the monk replied, "And I could be killed by > > you without batting an eye." The story goes that the impressed commander > > then released him. > > > > Point of the story is that the stressful anticipation of being executed is > > mental suffering which is unnecessary for someone who realizes the true > > nature of things. However should the monk be physically harmed he will > > still experience physical pain... > > > > So speaking just about mental suffering there is an enormous amount among > > almost all beings human, and animal. However this is fundamentally all > > illusion, even though mental suffering is a natural evolutionary response > > designed to help mobilize personal resources to resolve stressful or > > dangerous situations. > > > > So yes there are a multitude of suffering beings. That's the reality of > > existence. Some of this suffering is best addressed by resolving the causes > > of suffering in the everyday world of forms, and some via better > > realization. > > > > However EXISTENCE IS NOT SUFFERING even though the existence of many beings > > unnecessarily includes a lot of suffering. > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 2012, at 12:21 PM, R A Fonda wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
