Bill, I agree.
Do you disagree with that? Edgar On May 2, 2013, at 2:50 AM, Bill! wrote: > 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... > > 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 <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... > > > >  > > 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? > > > >
