Joe, I 'see'; I empathize with you, but I do not agree.
IMO to label something as 'real' that I know through experience is not just because it 'feels' real, or just because I 'think' that doing so is the compassionate thing is contraindicated in zen practice. IMO compassion is not kindness, politeness or avoidance of confrontation. Compassion is the acting out of the realization we are all one. Suffering is illusory, and it is imposed by a self on itself. You can sympathize with people who suffer and that will bring you much kudos in some circles; or you can assure people who suffer that they do not have to suffer - and show them the way out of suffering by example. And for me that example does not include labeling things 'real' that are illusory. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > I'm with you. > > One perspective is from delusion, and that is the perspective of Practice; > the other perspective is the numinous, or that from the Absolute (there's > little we can say about it! But see about Alan Watts, below). > > Both these perspectives and experiences from there are real. But one of them > is the experience as seen or sensed from the state of attachment to a > personal self. The other as seen from the absolute is real, and of course is > not attached to a self, nor to anything. > > I call both experiences "real", even though the first is illusion or from the > perspective of delusion. I do this so as not to minimize the importance of > Suffering, and the need to open to wisdom and compassion. Do you see? Even > if you do not agree. > > If we lived in isolation, attachment to a self would be OK. But we live with > many beings, and in fact our lives DEPEND on many, so compassion must attain > and retain primary position and be held in the highest importance. This can > be done naturally by effective practice beginning in the illusory realm. > Originally, this was the Buddha's discovery! Luckily no Copyright, unlike > putative corporate claims on certain Human genes. > > I think we're clear about this. You may not care for calling illusory > experience "real". Again, I term it/them so under the hypothetical that > there were *NO* other beings. This gives suffering its proper importance, as > real, and as devastating. > > On a light and yet deep note: Remember old Alan Watts. I recall in one of > his taped talks what he called "...the Absolute": > > "The 'which' than which there is no WHICHER". > > I often remember this, with a smile. On Halloween I try to work it into a > joke somehow ...however I can; fortunately for hearers, Halloween comes > around just once a year. > > --Joe > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > Joe, > > > > IMO... > > > > If you use the word 'sense' to mean 'experience' than there is only one > > 'sense' and that is Buddha Nature. > > > > Our discriminating mind does divide up our experiences into five > > categories. Thinking is not a sense because it is not an experience. It > > does give the illusion of experience, but it's not experience. > > > > ...Bill! > ------------------------------------ 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/
