What Buddha said to that mother is find some mustard seeds from a house where there had been no tragedies. Finding none, she regained her connection to the reality around her.
Recall all, to encounter the absolute is not yet awakening. Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Apr 16, 2013 7:36 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Bill!, > > As I see it, you are correct but only from one side of the coin (the > Absolute). But this denies what it is to be human. We also operate from the > relative, even those of us who are awake to the illusion of a self. Can you > honestly say that you wouldn't suffer in the event of a personal tragedy > involving a loved one (God forbid)? Does knowing that suffering is an > illusion do anything other than slightly ameliorate the suffering (by not > wallowing in the hurt, perhaps)? Imagine saying to a mother who has list a > child that the suffering she feels is an just an illusion. Is that > compassionate, even though it is true in the absolute sense? That pain is > very much "real" because it *is* experienced in the relative. Time and > again Zen masters have warned against operating from the absolute only > (Hyakujo's Fox). I sometimes feel you display a kind of unbalanced, macho > realist/absolutism that misses the mark of what Compassion truly is. > > Mike > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone > > ------------------------------ > * From: * Bill! <[email protected]>; > * To: * <[email protected]>; > * Subject: * [Zen] Re: Hello > * Sent: * Tue, Apr 16, 2013 2:12:51 PM > > > > 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! > > > > > >
