Re: [Zen] Re: THE BASIC TEACHING OF BUDDHA

[Kristopher Grey]

In the course of relating with each other we may talk of such shared 
experiences, and think we know this, nothing more. Within this, what are 
known as 'comfortable silences' where nothing need be said and it is 
very peaceful and comforting are indeed wonderful experiences.

I was speaking to a simpler recognition. To sit together in silence, and 
assume silence is somehow being shared with each other, is a rather 
funny belief, no?

Don't know.

KG



On 9/8/2012 5:31 PM, Merle Lester wrote:

 KG silence can be shared.
.establishing a silent relationship is the most beautiful of all...no 
words need to be spoken
 there is harmony and peace...merle
Either way, makes me out to be a thief. ;)


Silence cannot be shared, so we interrupt it with talking so as not to 
appear rude.


KG



On 9/8/2012 1:13 AM, Bill! wrote:
Kris,

When you say it I prefer 'Suchness'.

...Bill!

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Kristopher Grey <kris@...> 
<mailto:kris@...> wrote:
>
> "More" or less, misses the point again.
>
> There is nothing to do to realize this. There is only this 
experiencing.
> 'You' and your 'experience(s)' of objects/events are but aspects of
> this, arising and passing. Nothing could be simpler.
>
> Some realize this some don't. Doesn't change this. How could it 
[rhet]?
> I realize you may only see and/or express this otherwise. Such is the
> nature of appearances. Suchness ("Just this" if you prefer).
>
> KG
>
>
> On 9/8/2012 12:11 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> > Kris,
> >
> > More important than whether or not either of these personages 
actually
> > existed or how accurate the [translated] 3rd-person accounts of what
> > they did and what they said is that YOU EXPERIENCE what they are 
said
> > to have experienced.
> >
> > And you can do that. I'm confident 10's of thousands or many more 
than
> > that have.
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> 
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> 
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Kristopher Grey <kris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/7/2012 7:39 AM, mike brown wrote:
> > > > There is a *big* difference between these stories of Buddha and
> > > > Christ. With Buddha's story it makes no difference whether you
> > believe
> > > > Buddha was a real man or not...
> > >
> > > So one you accept more readily because you believe it to likely be
> > > allegorical, the other you reject because you believe it claims 
to be a
> > > factual historical account? Surely you can see the irony in this.
> > >
> > > Every consider both/neither? That it doesn't mater whether 
EITHER of
> > > these are stories of actual/factual others or not - as they 
only point
> > > to selfless realization, and reintegration/embodiment? That 
they're
> > only
> > > expressions of the way, and are not offering anyone else's
> > > stories/practices/promises as things to cling to or reject? 
People take
> > > that upon themselves.
> > >
> > > KG
> > >
> >
> >
>