my understanding is suffering cannot be eliminated..how the hell can that come about..the very nature of life is suffering... point to me who does not what does not..be it animal mineral or vegetable.. the notion of happy happy is absurd.. we can come to terms with suffering we can embrace and realise that compassion and eternal universal love can lift us from suffering and soar us high above the treetops to the heavens above just as the eagle flies we too can fly..
merle some strawberries are sour i have noted in my many years of eating strawberries...this i refer to as the "chop suey" of life...sweet and sour... And yet you are the one who started this conversation. It has been my understanding that the primary message of Buddhism was addressing suffering. What it is and how to stop it. The Buddha was not searching or teaching ways to survive crises but to end suffering. I can agree that survivability might be enhanced by being fully in the moment but I see no certainty of it. In my readings of Zen the moment of Death is often addressed with an awareness and often a smile. The strawberry is so sweet. suey ________________________________ From: Joe <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 4:27:50 PM Subject: [Zen] Re: Someone Else's Opinion on What is Real and What is Not... Hi, William, The crisis is and was the one you raised earlier, about killing some beast or other. Thought and pondering at that scene would be inexcusable, while acting in accord with need, informed by your intimacy and full presence and awareness of conditions, would give you an opening to hunt another day. Coming back to practice, practice enables habits to drop, so we can be present fully. You can still use what you've learned, but you won't be bound by it. That is all. And that is the point. I won't engage in useless historicizing, not in a Zen discussion forum, anyway. If we're not already clear about how practice works, then the next step is clear: practice. There may be pointers on it here at the Forum. A real teacher face to face is the best teacher though, many here would agree. --Joe > Email <brintala@...> wrote: > > You've modified your original position from a statement of our genetic inheritance to surviving a crisis. That quite a bit different. However from your current position are you saying that the people who died from the bombings in Boston were "burdened and unable to act spontaneously" while those who survived were "acting spontaneously and were unburdened"? Or is there some other type if crisis? > If two people, one who was unburdened and acting spontaneously and had never > encountered a tiger in the wild and the other who hunted tigers daily, were > to suddenly be faced with one, who would survive this crisis?
