Bill, The important point in your post below is to realize that during your shikantaza you are still dwelling partially in the world of forms because you still dualistically discriminate what you note below...
Edgar On Nov 28, 2012, at 9:00 PM, Bill! wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
