Edgar, Your first two sentences below are wrong. The last sentence is however correct.
...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > Your first two paragraphs are wrong. Of course there are degrees of > attachments, and of course there are degrees of attachment to the self... > > The rest is correct... > > Edgar > > > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 8:42 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > There are no degrees of attachments. You either have them or you don't, > > and if/when you have them you are either aware of them or you're not. > > > > The key or anchor of all attachment is the illusion of self, and the above > > statement applies to the illusion of self (and all illusions) too. You > > either have an illusion of self (or anything else) or you don't, and > > if/when you do you have illusion you are either aware that it is an an > > illusion or you're not. > > > > IN MY OPINION and in the case of humans the arising of natural instincts, > > the discriminating mind, the intellect and all that implies most especially > > including the resultant illusions (including the illusion of self) is > > indeed as you imply a result of evolution, and as such presumably evolved > > because they provided a better survival rate for individuals and > > consequently for their species. > > > > This has nothing specifically to do with Buddha Nature. Buddha Nature > > predates the evolutionary development of the human intellect. > > > > I do agree somewhat with the gist of your last several paragraphs below in > > that zen practice (Remember zen? - This forum's topic?)is a continuing > > process of first becoming aware of Buddha Nature and subsequently > > integrating that awareness into daily life - which includes all the > > illusory products of the human intellect including such things as self, > > instinct, logic, etc... > > > > That's what it looks like from this side of the fence anyway...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > >> > >> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
