Edgar, No! No! No!
I clearly stated below (well I guess not clearly enough)that when Buddha Nature manifests such as when sitting shikantaza there is NO duality, NO discrimination, NO forms, ONLY EXPERIENCE [sensual] - just Buddha Nature which I sometimes refer to as Just THIS! While sitting shikantaza there is only experience - nothing more. No thoughts, no illusions. When I am sitting shikantaza and a bell is struck I experience 'that'. Buddha Nature IS 'that'. It's only later, like now, that I'd refer to 'that' as a sound, or a smell, or a touch. When sitting shikantaza that experience is not differentiated into what we dualistically call our 5 senses. It's just one thing. It's Buddha Nature and has no name, no form. This I believe is the experience (Buddha Nature) that you evidently have never had. That's the only explanation I can conceive of that leads you to believe state is not possible, or that this state includes illusions, or discrimination - the world of forms. And yet you insinuate you've worked on and passed the Mu koan, but how could you if you have never experienced this? ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > "hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting" are all dualistic discriminations > (forms) of the formless unity of Buddha Nature (ontological energy). > > Therefore your shikantaza is NOT complete because it still experiences > discrimination... > > No problem with that, it just proves my point that forms DO manifest Buddha > Nature... > > Edgar > > > > On Nov 29, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar, > > > > When engaging in shikantaza there is no world of forms. What did I say > > below about shikantaza that you see as dualistic and makes you think > > otherwise? > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
