Chris, I can't answer this for Edgar but I do draw a line between 'physical' and 'emotional' pain. The former is real and the latter is illusory.
The reason I believe this is because when I sit and do dissolve all illusions I still feel physical pain (although I don't perceive it as 'pain' but as Just THIS!) but I don't 'suffer' from emotional pain - like anger, resentment, disappointment, etc... In other words a complete realization of Buddha Nature and a dropping of ALL illusion (like during shikantaza) does not drop feeling (or hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting) but does drop emotional 'pain'. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Chris Austin-Lane <chris@...> wrote: > > Do Bill and Edgar agree that the line perhaps should not be drawn (somewhat > arbitrarily in my mind) between "physical" and "emotional" pain? There is > both some modern studies showing neurologic correlates between physical and > mental suffering (same neurons firing, tho of course we don't understand > the brain well enough to be sure of much yet) and some old Zen stories ("Of > course one cries at the funeral of a beloved senior student.") that > indicate that the line might be better drawn between "necessary" (or > "inherent" or "unavoidable") pain and added on pain. > > Having a hurt leg and having someone close to you die are not really that > different in many ways - you can think "Why Me" or you can just yell "X is > dead!" "My fucking leg hurts!" or more "Zen"nish (tm) "Awwwrgggh!" - or > just feel the variety of emotions the body/mind generate as the natural > response arise and dissipate. > > To me the advantage of framing it as necessary pain vs. added on pain is > that making the line drawn between physical pain and mental pain makes it > harder to experience something like say a stinging rebuke in public as just > another cloud going through the sky of experiencing - the response to > social rejection in primates is just as real and valid as the response to a > burn on the foot - we can be one with the response without creating an > "identity" for ourselves in the response. But some pain-oriented neurons > are surely firing in both cases. And I actually think these are the more > important things to experience with allowing them to create an idea of self > - sure being able to fall off my bike (not skateboard, and not a trick, > just a stupid fall) with equanimity makes for a better experience, but even > more so does being able to be criticized in a group with equanimity. But I > assure you denial of the response, denial of the moment of social > awkwardness is not the path. > > Often I am tempted to pretend not to perceive the slight - to be all "who > is it that could get offended" but that is a bull shit pushing away the > sensory reality, for a social primate such as myself. I am offered the > chance to feel pain, absorb it into the breath, and perhaps respond in some > non-defensive, non-cowardly way (perhaps a raised eyebrow, and a tilted > head - which will give the speaker a chance to moderate the moment and reel > their reactivity back a bit - getting defensive or just ignoring it less > often allows that sort of connection-enhancing interaction). Or perhaps > just continue on with the thing at hand ignoring it, right action can't be > scripted. > > > Thanks, > > --Chris > chris@... > +1-301-270-6524 > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Bill! <BillSmart@...> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
