Merle, Sorry, but that's the God-awful truth. Buddhism is all about the relief of suffering. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism>
Buddhism is a religion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion> indigenous to the Indian subcontinent <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent> that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha> , who is commonly known as the Buddha, meaning "the awakened one". The Buddha lived and taught in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent> sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE.[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#cite_note-1> He is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhi> or enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_beings_(Buddhism)> end their suffering (dukkha <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha> ) through the elimination of ignorance (avidyÄ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avidy%C4%81_(Buddhism)> ) by way of understanding and the seeing of dependent origination (pratÄ«tyasamutpÄda <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da> ) and the elimination of craving (taá¹hÄ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%E1%B9%87h%C4%81> ), and thus the attainment of the cessation of all suffering, known as the sublime state of nirvÄÅa <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana> .[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#cite_note-2> I've highlighted the parts to which I want to draw your attention that pertain to the question at hand. And before someone jumps all over me on this I want to point out that this is BUDDHISM, not zen. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Merle Lester wrote: > > > >  rubbish..you can dissolve into the now.. > > life is suffering..nothing to do with attachments.. > > like to see you bill when you have a physical aliment.. > > sure you can whisk it away for a moment or two..try mental suffering...that cannot be dissolved > > the promise of buddhism is release from suffering.. > > right..maybe > > yes it is a way of viewing suffering however you cannot escape it.. > > rather you accept it > > so how come buddhist monks are the first to set fire to themselves when they see injustices done? > >  that would be mega suffering and don't tell me they don't suffer as the flames engulf them > > have you ever truly suffered bill?.. or seen loved ones suffering? > >  as you eat your stir fried chicken do you not realise the suffering that was impose on this creature that you might live and live to suffer? > > acceptance is the key word in my books > >  acceptance,  compassion and universal love > >  if that is not buddhism then well i'll be blown over by a stick > >  merle > > >  > Merle, > > Suffering can be entirely eliminated and William is right that this is the promise of Buddhism. > > This is Buddhism 101: > > - Life is suffering > - Suffering is caused by attachments > - Attachments are caused by/enabled by identification with your self > - The self is illusory > > So, like a big house of cards when you dissolve the illusion of self you take away the anchor for attachments causing them to fall away which eliminates suffering. > > And how do you come to recognize the self as illusory? My suggestion is you do zazen (zen meditation) staring with counting your breaths. When you stop your intellect from producing illusions (and most especially the illusion of self) you experience Buddha Nature. > > And then Voila! Just This! > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: > > > > > > > > my understanding is suffering cannot be eliminated..how the hell can that come about..the very nature of life is suffering...à> > 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 > > àwe 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 > > > > àsome 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... > > > > > > à> > And yet you are the one who started this conversation.àIt has been my understanding that the primaryàmessage of Buddhism was addressing suffering.àWhat it is and how to stop it. The Buddha was not searching or teaching ways to survive crises but to end suffering.àI 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.àsuey > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Joe desert_woodworker@ > > 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... > > > > à> > 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 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? > > >
