Rod, I will put an end to your suffering right now:
Right this moment, as we speak, you are incapable of perceiving true suchness. With me so far? So long as you cannot perceive suchness, you need to listen to the beings who can. Abandon your own understanding of what is the 'right motivation', your own understanding that 'you are already a Buddha', etc. All these are completely wrong. And they are completely useless. Focus on the teaching, and on the practice. Don't try to be too smart for your own good. Don't go with the newfangled theories proposed by the latter day gurus (the "I'm okay, you're okay" drivel). Learn all you can about Two Truths. Therein lies the keys of being able to perceive unborn suchness. Once you get there, then we can talk. Alex --- Rod Scholl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex, > > I hesitate to dismantle your ideas by pointing out > their fallacies, but they are so glaring it is > tempting. But I once spent an hour doing that for > you when you first arrived, to which you missed the > post due to self-involvement, or just ignored it. > Either way, I recevied your message. However, > you've stated your erroneous approach so succinctly, > the oppurtunity would be a shame to ignore: > > I'm glad you state your position on suffering, > buddhahood and practice so clearly, Alex. Do you > see that the way you describe it, Buddhahood is a > goal to be acheived by practice, and thus the > practice is motivated? This is not 'right > motivation'. You are already a Buddha. If the > criteria for buddhahood was 'eliminated suffering' > as you say, than to check for dharma transmission > one could simply whack the applicants thumb with a > hammer! "In summer we sweat." Non-attachment to > suffering will let it fall away as I think you know. > But I think you then expect it not to arise due to > this non-attachment. When one can let it fall away, > one can also let it arise. > > When you call my posts "ad hominem" attacks, it is a > funny accusation. It is indicative of what I think > you fail to see. The use of any ideas or knowledge > is NOT to form a good idea, or logical idea, or even > a consistent idea, to which to conform one's > behavior. Behavior supercedes ideas, and makes > ideas (not the other way around). Thus it is your > behavior by which you are judged. Indeed, it was by > behavior that you said you'd judge the better > teacher when they come along (you used 'complaining > less' as a criteria). Thus any post which failed to > be somewhat 'ad hominem' would be caught up in > ideas, rather than the immediate. > > Rod Scholl ===== No karma was produced during the composition of this letter __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/WwRTUD/SOnJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Livelihood Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
