--- Thanks for the clarification Alex. I certainly understand natural interest in spirituality/philosophy. I might not go so far as to say the elephants are losers though. Rabbits cannot stay in their hole forever, inevitably we must go out for food and water, and it would be nothing for an elephant to stomp our little bunny brains out. Moral of story: Never underestimate your opponets.
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Alex Bunard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's an excellent question. Why practice and how > does that benefit me? > > There is a Buddhist saying to the effect that the > elephant does not tread along the rabbit's path. The > elephants lack the ability to hide inside the rabbit's > hole. Naturaly, rabbits hold that because of that > inability, and because of the elephants' demonstrated > inability to gracefully track down the rabitts' paths, > elephants are big fat losers. > > The reason I practice is because I am naturally drawn > to it. Same as I am naturally drawn to playing the > guitar. Or, same as I'm naturally drawn to women with > busty figure. Ever since I was very young I've > discovered that I like playing guitar and I like busty > women and I like practising Buddhism. It's just in my > bloodsteam. > > I realize this means nothing to someone who is not > naturally drawn to such a thing. Same as watching > football on TV means nothing to me, although I have > friends who are, from a very young age, naturally > drawn to that. But, because watching Superbowl is not > in my bloodstream, I never ever practice it. Why waste > time? > > As with anything we do while being naturally drawn to > it, the benefits are immeasurable. My Buddhist > practice benefits me in the sense that I immensely > enjoy doing it. It makes me happy, simple as that. > Need I say more? > > --- ventouxboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Your explanation of Buddhism was an eye opener. > > To boil it down > > to the focus on basic human existance leaves me a > > little cold > > though. While I undestand the anecdote, the guy on > > the hill was were > > he was(if he had been thinking about a lost dog, he > > wouldn't of been > > there), my question is Is that it? Is that all we do > > with our gift? > > Just sit there and waste oxygen? Certainly, > > according to Zen, > > nothing more is required. > > The issue boils to the following: > > As you probably already know, there are people who > suffer from an eye catharact. If we hold up a blank > piece of paper in front of them and ask them what do > they see, such people may tell us that they see a > piece of paper with some black lines on it. > > That perception is refuted and invalidated by the > non-faulty perception. Common consensus (meaning, > people with non-faulty perception) refutes the black > lines (as reported appearing on the blank piece of > paper). > > Similar to this, a phenomenon that appears to the > untutored perception (read: to the regular folks) gets > interpreted in a certain way. That way falls within > the confines of what's known as 'common consensus'. > > Typicaly, a phenomenon will get interpreted as 'really > existing' (for example, I may interpret a perceived > blank piece of paper in front of me as really > existing, meaning I may perceive it as being separate > from everything else, as possessing its own unique > identity, as being substantial). Then, I may light a > match and burn that same piece of paper, and then > conclude that this piece of paper has now truly ceased > to exist. > > However, that same phenomenon, when presented to the > Buddha, will get interpreted totally differently by > him. In a nutshell, the Buddha will flatly reject my > interpretation, and will promptly inform me that I am > merely imagining things (same as we would inform the > persons who suffer from an eye catharact disease that > they are merely imagining the black lines). > > Now, same as the persons with an eye catharact are not > in the position to falsify our contention that there > are no black lines on the paper, common folks' > perception is not qualified to refute the vision of > the Fully Enlightened One. We're just not qualified to > make any judgment on the Buddha's vision. We cannot > ever refute him. > > So when you interpret proper Zen attitude as merely > wasting oxygen, you are passing judgment on something > you are not qualified, at this point, to comment on. > There is much, much more there than meets your eye. > Just because you may not be capable right now of > envisioning it, doesn't mean it's not there. > > > Alex, from what I've read so far, your > > knowledge of Buddhism > > far exceeds mine. But my concept of Zen is based on > > living a > > spiritual life on the physical plane. Take the > > concepts inherent to > > Zen, gain understanding from them, but return to the > > world to do > > some good. I guess that's not mandatory, but I > > choose to pass along > > kindness and understanding(read empathy) with no > > judgement, > > expectation, or strings attached. > > Here is what Chandrakirti had to say on this topic: > > "Victorious Lord, as long as worldly beings have not > gone to supreme peace, > As long as space itself does not disintegrate, > What entry into supreme peace could be for you, > Whom Wisdom has brought forth, Compassion nursed? > > All those who feed on noxious food (the world obscured > by ignorance) > You make your dearest friends, with love more > anguished than > A mother feels whose dearest child has swallowed > poisoned food, > And thus you do not pass, Supreme Protector, into > peace." (Madhyamakavatara) > > > As you can see, the fundamental principle, the real > seed of Buddhahood, is love, compassion. Everything an > enlightened protector ever does is governed by > compassion stronger, more anguished than even mother's > love for her dying child. > > Once you see the true nature of phenomena, you cannot > help but love the whole world dearly. And it is then > impossible for you to settle into final peace, knowing > that the beings are choking on the noxious food of > ignorance. > > However, that does not automatically mean that you > turn into a rabid do-gooder, a frothing-at-the-mouth > activist, an 'engaged Buddhist' (as some of the North > American Mickey Mouse Buddhist practices proclaim). > > Enlightened Buddhist practice goes beyond the concept > of merchandise, it transcends the concept of a > bargain. Most activities in the workaday life of a > regular Joe can be divided into 3 categories: > > 1. making money > 2. saving money > 3. networking so that the chances of making/saving > money are maximized > > Buddhist practice does not fit into any of the above 3 > categories, and as such is viewed as being socially > subversive. It doesn't keep the economy going, it > doesn't strenghten the consumer confidence, it does > not serve to spread democracy. > > > So my question to you then is my original one, > > Why practice? How > > does this benefit you? Guy > > In the light of the above, my answer is: there is no > greater happiness than being in the position to > practice compassion. > > Alex > > > ===== > No karma was produced during the composition of this letter > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Would you Help a Child in need? It is easier than you think. Click Here to meet a Child you can help. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O2aXmA/I_qJAA/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/
