--- In [email protected], mike brown, ED wrote: > ED: Mike, how will you proceed to convince the other 99.9% of humans that their experience of reality is incorrect?
MIKE: I'd start by removing "their experience" from the question. ED: Why? I don't get it; please say a few more words. ED: Mike, what do you mean by "seeing through those attachments"? MIKE: Well, I think it's fair to say that we all have attachments in one way or another. I realised just how deep and profound my attachment to my girlfriend was on my last retreat. The reason I didn't suffer (much) with it was due to my understanding of the nature of it (especially its impermanence). WIKI: "The Three marks of existence, within Buddhism, shared by all conditioned things, namely: impermanence (anicca); suffering or unsatisfactoriness (dukkha); non-self (anatta)." "According to Buddhist tradition, a full understanding of these three can bring an end to suffering (dukkha). The Buddha taught that all things conditioned by causes are impermanent (anicca) and suffering (dukkha) while he said not-self (anattâ) characterises all dhammas meaning there is no "I" or "mine" in the conditioned as well as the unconditioned (i.e. Nibbana.)" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence> ED: Does the Buddha call for an understanding that is a 'direct' experiencing of the three marks of existence, or does the Buddha imply that an intellectual understanding would suffice? ---In [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , Bill, Mike, ED wrote: BILL: There is nothing 'wrong' with living with the illusion of self and having attachments. MIKE: Bill, there's nothing morally wrong with that illusion, but it's wrong in the sense that it is an incorrect interpretation of reality. ED: Mike, how will you proceed to convince the other 99.9% of humans that their experience of reality is incorrect? BILL: Buddhism 101 teaches that attachments are the cause of sufferring. MIKE: Not just that there are attachments per se, but not seeing thru those attachments. ED: Mike, what do you mean by "seeing through those attachments"? BILL: 'Happiness' is a dualistic concept. If you create 'happiness' then you also create 'sadness' or sufferring. MIKE: True, but again this is not the whole story. The more we drop the 'defilements' of craving, aversion, bad conduct etc. the more the mind is freed to show its inherent purity. It's not wrong to say that Happiness (as do Equanimity, Bliss, Compassion etc.) arises when this eventuates (as opposed to the dualistic 'happiness' of, say, buying a new car). ED: Bill, 'happiness' is a feeling or experience, not a concept. Happiness and unhappiness cannot be created, but are a consequence of our thoughts, words and deeds and their interactions with the external world. BILL: If you're okay with that then you have no strong incentive to take up zen. Zen (lower-case 'z') does not prosletize. Buddhism and Zen Buddhism might, but zen does not. MIKE: People prosletize. Zen Buddhism, arising out of Buddhism, takes what the Buddha said seriously: "Don't just believe and follow what I say, but find out the truth of what I say for yourselves." ED: Bill, it appears that you (dualistically) regard 'not proselytizing' as preferable to proselytizing. ED, There is nothing 'wrong' with living with the illusion of self and having attachments. Buddhism 101 teaches that attachments are the cause of sufferring. 'Happiness' is a dualistic concept. If you create 'happiness' then you also create 'sadness' or sufferring. If you're okay with that then you have no strong incentive to take up zen. Zen (lower-case 'z') does not prosletize. Buddhism and Zen Buddhism might, but zen does not. ...Bill! > Bill, > > Within limits, what's the problem with having attachments which make one > happy. All non-human living entities and 99.9 percent of humans are > under the illusion of self. > > So what? > > --ED > > ED, > > > > 'Gratifying the self' is another phrase for 'having attachments'. It > also implies the person is still under the illusion of 'self'. > > > > ...Bill
