On Nov 27, 2012 11:37 AM, "R A Fonda" <rafo...@frontier.com> wrote:
Ahh, a writing partner! Thank you. I will respond in detail for a few rounds at least. And welcome. > > > > It happens that 'all is unfolding as it must' has recently been a topic of discussion on a secular science forum, (by analogy to the inevitability of physical and chemical reactions to proceed according to initial conditions and experimental protocols) and it is my contention that the human future is not 'open' at all, but essentially ordained as a result of human actions in the past and present, albeit 'open', to a conditional degree, in the longer term, according to the reactions of humanity to the evolving circumstances in that future. Are you experienced as being a free person? That's all that matters. in the moment, I am free - the apparent contradiction between causes and experienced freedom is the heart of zen. Cling too tightly to either pole and you are a fox. > > Accordingly, one may well say that the past must be considered in order to understand current existence and future possibilities. Understanding can only be provisional. As a statement of physics, the only honest statement is that the detailed relationship between determinism and our subjective experience is still an open question. >Still, how is this: > > On 11/27/2012 10:18 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: >> >> horrific depiction of humanity's depravity ... childhood abuse of a New York woman ... The systemic horror of the holocaust or Shoa ... the gifts of law, train schedules, chemistry, and cultural varieties to butcher millions of precious human lives. this chopping of the world into us and them trapped the perpetrators and the Jewish people into gross evil ... divide our glorious reality and hence unleash the brutality that lurks in human brains ... > > which I might call 'counting other people's suffering' different from 'counting other people's treasure', in regard to being here and now? There is also a personal element >> >> I had some history of abuse as a child. > My suffering, others suffering, it's there to be known or pushed away or clung to. In this listserv, the question of suffering came from the conversation about truth and beauty . This contradiction between beauty and reality is another example of an apparent duality that is the heart of zen in my path. Edgar brought up the holocaust as an example of the validity of this duality, and I respond because in my path suffering has to be seen clearly. > that personalizes the statement that: > >> to blindly say that it is all ok > > as if (it seems to me) to say, that to believe in 'unfolding as it must' denies the sanctity of your suffering and that of the noble martyrs of the holocaust, who were all blameless victims, thus implicitly denying that there are antecedents to suffering, even though you write: I argue against blindly saying things are ok. When Frankl found peace looking at the sky during the holocaust, it was not out of blindness. it is a conscious assertion of good in the face of horror. My suffering was not holy, but through the presence of loving witnesses it was possible to learn the basic goodness of our lives using even the pain as a teacher. I am not arguing that the people murdered were blameless- no one can sit zazen for long and believe in blameless people. it is a useless combination of words, born of our brains tendency to reject reality when we expected something other than what we have. >> >> whatever causes it has > > I suggest that 'life is suffering' due to the nature of physical existence, if for no other reason than that human competition and exploitation is an essential part of evolution, and is likely to remain so in spite of (indeed, often because of) efforts to empower governments and institutions to 'do good', in contrast to personal charity arising out of karmic relations. Just as thoughts can be added on top of experience, just as upset can.beadded on top of upset, one may add extra pain and cruelty on top of our fates of illness, age and death. That addition is when we miss our chance. I promise that being open to the freedom that surrounds us can allow us to respond better to people caught up in cruel behavior. They are doing the best they can but your ability to manifest freedom and connectedness improves their best. Sometimes that will be maintaining some dignity in the death camp. More likely these days it will be something else. > > It seems to me that if and when we feel compelled to dwell on suffering (as, for instance, when it is affecting ourselves and kin) one response might be to try to understand the contention that, fundamentally, there ARE NO suffering beings. How can that be so, when we are actually experiencing the suffering, and the Buddha himself characterized life as suffering? To dwell on suffering is missing the point as much as to avoid dwelling on it. The freedom zen offers is that there are no selfs not that there is no pain. Cut away your self but do not close your eyes to the pain here. When in front of abuse, is equanimity the response of turning reality into nothing, as a child will do for protection, or is it seeing the reality eyes open and responding out of the fullness? For me, an adult, seeing the fuller picture grants freedom to act appropriately; pushing away suffering or pain as some extraneous unreality shatters wholeness and squanders freedom. > > So, in response to the moderator's request: > > > Please ... begin a thread of discussion. < > > I ask, who said that, "fundamentally there ARE NO suffering beings" and how might that seeming contradiction with "life is suffering" be resolved? In precisely the same path that Dogen's contradiction of all being fundamentally Buddhas vs. better to practise. The answer is right here inescapable: one must totally embrace the question of a boy and laugh or I don't know, grin sheepishly. Life is suffering! Yes! There are no separate little people suffering alone! Yes! Complete and acceptable as is! Yes! Needs to spend a bit of time not doing in order to live as we can live! Yes! > > > RAF > > > > >
