Moving from a selfish practice to practice for all

[A.J.]

I think you misunderstand a bit. Zen folks are always seeing life by several perspectives, each true in its way.

Trungpa did harm to others, and others were harmed. Trungpa should be criticized for doing harm, and the victims would be right to feel hurt, trauma, depression, injury. We should offer them empathy and wish for their healing.

However, Dukkha is something different from harm. It is our fundamental refusal of what is from a Buddhist view.

For example, if I have cancer, the cancer does me harm, I wish to fight the cancer and heal the ill body and pained mind because I do not wish to die. I may even be afraid of death sometimes in a most human way. Cancer is my enemy.

But on another level for Buddhists, cancer is just cancer, sickness is just sickness, pain is just pain, even death is just death. There is no Dukkha.

People often confuse Dukkha with "suffering" in its ordinary meaning.

Gassho, J

STLah

Ah, I see the distinction you are making.
In the Pali Canon do you think it is possible that dukkha includes all forms of suffering in existence because of the soteriological framework around enlightenment, the arhat and the ultimate goal of no longer being on the wheel of Samsara?
Did the meaning of dukkha change along with the new bodhisattva ideal in the Mahayana?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

Ah, I see the distinction you are making.
In the Pali Canon do you think it is possible that dukkha includes all forms of suffering in existence because of the soteriological framework around enlightenment, the arhat and the ultimate goal of no longer being on the wheel of Samsara?
Did the meaning of dukkha change along with the new bodhisattva ideal in the Mahayana?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

In South Asian Buddhism, there was more emphasis that this world is hopeless and we need to make a full escape from all birth within it.

In Mahayana Buddhism, and especially Zen, there was more emphasis that one can make an escape from this world, and from birth and death, while still in this world, living and dying, and right up to our necks in it.

I think that the definitions of Dukkha in South Asian Buddhism were not necessarily uniform, nor are the definitions in Mahayana for that matter. However, the emphasis in Zen certainly came to be the resistance and disappointment in our minds to conditions, rather than the conditions themselves including the physical and even mental pain that may entail. Being sad or afraid is not so much a problem in Zen Buddhism, especially if not in truly harmful excess such as depression, and is not itself Dukkha. One can be sad yet beyond sadness at once, afraid yet beyond all fear at once.

Gassho, J

(And I fear that I used more than my 3 sentences).

[A.J.]

I think you misunderstand a bit. Zen folks are always seeing life by several perspectives, each true in its way.

Trungpa did harm to others, and others were harmed. Trungpa should be criticized for doing harm, and the victims would be right to feel hurt, trauma, depression, injury. We should offer them empathy and wish for their healing.

However, Dukkha is something different from harm. It is our fundamental refusal of what is from a Buddhist view.

For example, if I have cancer, the cancer does me harm, I wish to fight the cancer and heal the ill body and pained mind because I do not wish to die. I may even be afraid of death sometimes in a most human way. Cancer is my enemy.

But on another level for Buddhists, cancer is just cancer, sickness is just sickness, pain is just pain, even death is just death. There is no Dukkha.

People often confuse Dukkha with "suffering" in its ordinary meaning.

Gassho, J

STLah

... come to think of it I think I get your distinction but I might need more clarification.
Let's say someone punches a Buddhist in the face:
is the impact suffering (but not dukkha) and the internal reaction (aversion, resentment, animosity, whatever) dukkha but not quite the same as sheer suffering?

Thanks for entertaining my questions.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

In South Asian Buddhism, there was more emphasis that this world is hopeless and we need to make a full escape from all birth within it.

In Mahayana Buddhism, and especially Zen, there was more emphasis that one can make an escape from this world, and from birth and death, while still in this world, living and dying, and right up to our necks in it.

I think that the definitions of Dukkha in South Asian Buddhism were not necessarily uniform, nor are the definitions in Mahayana for that matter. However, the emphasis in Zen certainly came to be the resistance and disappointment in our minds to conditions, rather than the conditions themselves including the physical and even mental pain that may entail. Being sad or afraid is not so much a problem in Zen Buddhism, especially if not in truly harmful excess such as depression, and is not itself Dukkha. One can be sad yet beyond sadness at once, afraid yet beyond all fear at once.

Gassho, J

(And I fear that I used more than my 3 sentences).

Some of these terms seem slippery. What I like about the Zen emphasis in your example on sadness is that it is more of a fully fledged way of facing what's there rather than making it into something else.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

In South Asian Buddhism, there was more emphasis that this world is hopeless and we need to make a full escape from all birth within it.

In Mahayana Buddhism, and especially Zen, there was more emphasis that one can make an escape from this world, and from birth and death, while still in this world, living and dying, and right up to our necks in it.

I think that the definitions of Dukkha in South Asian Buddhism were not necessarily uniform, nor are the definitions in Mahayana for that matter. However, the emphasis in Zen certainly came to be the resistance and disappointment in our minds to conditions, rather than the conditions themselves including the physical and even mental pain that may entail. Being sad or afraid is not so much a problem in Zen Buddhism, especially if not in truly harmful excess such as depression, and is not itself Dukkha. One can be sad yet beyond sadness at once, afraid yet beyond all fear at once.

Gassho, J

(And I fear that I used more than my 3 sentences).

My original comment on this thread had more to do with the idea of dukkha as mental afflictions that people can't help but spill all over other people. Misery loves company, for instance. The idea being that if one were more liberated from that sort of dukkha one would be less beholden to spreading it everywhere.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

... come to think of it I think I get your distinction but I might need more clarification.
Let's say someone punches a Buddhist in the face:
is the impact suffering (but not dukkha) and the internal reaction (aversion, resentment, animosity, whatever) dukkha but not quite the same as sheer suffering?

Thanks for entertaining my questions.

I would say that the situation is, first, a broken nose and physical pain. There may even be some aversion, resentment, animosity, fear etc. that begins to arise in the victim's animal brain as a result, as a natural reaction. Hopefully, the well-trained Buddhist can learn to head that off and turn away from such angry reaction before it starts to boil out of control.

But Dukkha is something more basic, and that is an underlying refusal to accept the situation and conditions themselves. I can be rolling on the floor in pain with a bloody nose, I can even feel some anger and fear welling up in my animal "fight or flight" mind as just a circumstance (hopefully not to run to excess) ...

... but simultaneously can also just be in total acceptance and flowing with the situation at the same time, and even in touch with an aspect beyond puncher and punched, pain or no pain, anger or no anger at once. There is nothing to fight, no other place to fly too, even as I am in the midst of fight or flight response.

In such case, there is no Dukkha. Furthermore, such realization may actually help head off the arising anger and fear of the mind.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Jundo]

My original comment on this thread had more to do with the idea of dukkha as mental afflictions that people can't help but spill all over other people. Misery loves company, for instance. The idea being that if one were more liberated from that sort of dukkha one would be less beholden to spreading it everywhere.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

I would say that we can choose to harm others or not harm others. I can want to cause another harm, whether a broken nose, feelings of sadness or feelings of Dukkha.

But our "Dukkha" is a most personal matter. I am ultimately the creator of my own Dukkha, even if somebody else is the creator of my broken nose.

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

I would say that the situation is, first, a broken nose and physical pain. There may even be some aversion, resentment, animosity, fear etc. that begins to arise in the victims animal brain as a result, as a natural reaction. Hopefully, the well-trained Buddhist can learn to head that off and turn away from such angry reaction before it starts to boil out of control.

But Dukkha is something more basic, and that is an underlying refusal to accept the situation and conditions themselves. I can be rolling on the floor in pain with a bloody nose, I can even feel some anger and fear welling up in my animal "fight or flight" mind as just a circumstance (hopefully not to run to excess) ...

... but simultaneously can also just be in total acceptance and flowing with the situation at the same time, and even in touch with an aspect beyond puncher and punched, pain or no pain, anger or no anger at once. There is nothing to fight, no other place to fly too, even as I am in the midst of fight or flight response.

In such case, there is no Dukkha. Furthermore, such realization may actually help head off the arising anger and fear of the mind.

Gassho, J

STLah

Alright, I think I get your idea.
Just trying to figure our where exactly dukkha begins in your view by playing off a stark example.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

I would say that we can choose to harm others or not harm others. I can want to cause another harm, whether a broken nose, feelings of sadness or feelings of Dukkha.

But our "Dukkha" is a most personal matter. I am ultimately the creator of my own Dukkha, even if somebody else is the creator of my broken nose.

Gassho, J

STLah

So then, in effect, liberation from personal dukkha does absolutely nothing for other beings?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Hokin]

Wonderful Thread, really.
I have been dealing with this same kind of koan-like questioning pretty much as of late, especially...and find all the advises I have read from you all so far very helpful! Thank you beautiful Sangha!
I just feel I have nothing more to add that hasn't yet been wistfully stated by you all, so I appreciate your deep and useful counselling and will look forward to keep them at heart and let them flow through day-by-day sincere and wholehearted practice (on-and-off the zafu), always surely starting from here and now. There are always beings whom we can try benefit, even if with a little kind thought, a smile, a comforting word or gesture..a heartfelt wish and ready/steady openness to be and make/do better and better. We are one in multiplicity, we are multiplicity in one!

Gassho.
Hokin.
ST.

[Jundo]

So then, in effect, liberation from personal dukkha does absolutely nothing for other beings?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

Yes, hopefully when freed from Dukkha between our own ears, and better guided by a heart of wisdom and compassion, we will live more gently, avoiding intentional harm to others.

However, whether the others feel Dukkha is between their own ears, especially in the face of the harm we might do to them and other outside conditions.

Unfortunately, Dukkha is a creation of the "small self." Freedom from Dukkha is seeing past and not being imprisoned by the excesses of the small self. However, it is up to the small self to get past its self itself. Outside conditions, teachers, teachings etc. cannot remove Dukkha, nor can outside harm and harm doers create it, for only the self can drop itself.

Gassho, J

[A.J.]

Yes, hopefully when freed from Dukkha between our own ears, and better guided by a heart of wisdom and compassion, we will live more gently, avoiding intentional harm to others.

However, whether the others feel Dukkha is between their own ears, especially in the face of the harm we might do to them and other outside conditions.

Unfortunately, Dukkha is a creation of the "small self." Freedom from Dukkha is seeing past and not being imprisoned by the excesses of the small self. However, it is up to the small self to get past its self itself. Outside conditions, teachers, teachings etc. cannot remove Dukkha, nor can outside harm and harm doers create it, for only the self can drop itself.

Gassho, J

So how do various references in Zen ritual that refer to practicing for all beings fit into that point of view? I'm sure I've heard instances where people in Zen temples made it sound like the practice that they were doing in that place was itself for the whole world.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

Yes, hopefully when freed from Dukkha between our own ears, and better guided by a heart of wisdom and compassion, we will live more gently, avoiding intentional harm to others.

However, whether the others feel Dukkha is between their own ears, especially in the face of the harm we might do to them and other outside conditions.

Unfortunately, Dukkha is a creation of the "small self." Freedom from Dukkha is seeing past and not being imprisoned by the excesses of the small self. However, it is up to the small self to get past its self itself. Outside conditions, teachers, teachings etc. cannot remove Dukkha, nor can outside harm and harm doers create it, for only the self can drop itself.

Gassho, J

Also, based on this what is the point of the bodhisattva ideal? Might as well be an arhat.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

So how do various references in Zen ritual that refer to practicing for all beings fit into that point of view? I'm sure I've heard instances where people in Zen temples made it sound like the practice that they were doing in that place was itself for the whole world.

...

Also, based on this what is the point of the bodhisattva ideal? Might as well be an arhat.

Yes, we practice to rescue the sentient beings, not merely for ourselves. To rescue the sentient beings in an ultimate sense is to help them realize how to be free of the "Dukkha" which they are creating between their own ears.

The way to free the sentient beings is to show them that there never were any "sentient beings" in need of saving from the beginingless-beginning, nor anything lacking. except for the self-created sense of separate "self," the self-created measures of division and lack, and self-created frictions and disappointments of "Dukkha" which the separate self creates between its own ears.

Arhats can do what arhats do, but Bodhisattvas practice to liberate the sentient beings.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Jundo]

As to the difference between "Dukkha" and physical harm or revulsion, I stumbled on a truly stomach turning story yesterday about the Korean Master, Wonhyo, more than our "pooh and peaches":

VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED for the SENSITIVE

In 661 he and a close friend - Uisang - were traveling to China where they hoped to study Buddhism further. Somewhere in the region of Baekje, the pair were caught in a heavy downpour and forced to take shelter in what they believed to be an earthen sanctuary. During the night Wonhyo was overcome with thirst, and reaching out grasped what he perceived to be a gourd, and drinking from it was refreshed with a draught of cool, refreshing water. Upon waking the next morning, however, the companions discovered much to their amazement that their shelter was in fact an ancient tomb littered with human skulls, and the vessel from which Wonhyo had drunk was a human skull full of brackish water and human remains. Upon seeing this, Wonhyo vomited. Startled by the experience of believing that a gruesome liquid was a refreshing treat, Wonhyo was astonished at the power of the human mind to transform reality.

The body vomits, this is natural. A mental and physical revulsion is felt, this is natural.

However, one can so come to accept and flow with this experience ... drinking when drinking, being mistaken when mistaken, thinking it a gourd when thinking it a gourd, just vomiting when vomiting, just feeling revulsion when feeling revulsion ... that there is no Dukkha.

Perhaps you think that a fully enlightened Buddha would neither vomit nor feel revulsion?

Okay, it is noon ... I'm off to lunch.

Gassho, J

STlah

PS - In fact, when I was in India, I encountered some Shavist holy men who train themselves to do just that ... but I don't think that one needs to be so in order to escape Samsara. That is the kind of extreme which, it is said, the ascetic Buddha rejected.

https://youtu.be/9xsnsEYYK7c