Hi Bill, Putting yourself back years ago, when you first encountered Zen or Budfhism or let's just say This Practice, would you be able to realise Just THIS, if your teacher only said: Just THIS?
Siska Sent from Samsung tabletBill! <[email protected]> wrote:Siska, This is Buddhism 101 and Zen (Buddhism) 101. It's not zen 101. Zen 101 is much simpler. In zen 101 you don't talk about illusions, attachments, self or suffering. zen 101 is Just THIS! ...Bill! --- In [email protected], siska <siska_cen@...> wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > You normally distinguish zen from Budhism. > > If below is Buddhism 101, would you say the same for zen 101? > > Siska > > > > Sent from Samsung tabletBill! <BillSmart@...> 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...ÃÂ > > 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 > > ÃÂ 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 > > > > ÃÂ 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... > > > > > > ÃÂ > > And yet you are the one who started this conversation.ÃÂ It has been my > > understanding that the primaryÃÂ message of Buddhism was addressing > > suffering.ÃÂ What it is and how to stop it. The Buddha was not searching > > or teaching ways to survive crises but to end suffering.ÃÂ 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.ÃÂ 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... > > > > ÃÂ > > 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? > > >
