Moving from a selfish practice to practice for all

[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

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

[Tom A.]

This is starting to make sense: closing the gap that creates dukkha naturally minimizes the "self" or the inner needy child (or putting on the oxgyen mask), making it easier to respect reality as it is, here and now (helping others with their masks).

Outside of Zazen, the subtle trap is to only see "pretty," "good" or "high value" people, experiences or things because of expecting to win or gain things or praise, as if expecting to be awarded for every mask put on a childs face. Though even then, I suppose we just accept the feeling of wanting to help only that which we will gain from and continue to put masks on faces.

Gassho,
Tom

Sat/lah

[gaurdianaq]

Going along with Shinshi's analogy of "You can't be a lifeguard if you don't know how to swim" another great analogy comes from airliners.

You must put your own oxygen mask before helping someone else with there's. If you pass out from lack of oxygen you can't help others. (That being said, once you have your mask on you should do what you can to help others)


Evan,
Sat today!

[Horin]

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

Yes, I think there are folks that tend to say "so what, it's just illness. It is what it is, who cares?" Although this is true on a certain level, as you said, with this perspective we are ignorant to another level, and dismiss that aspect of being a human that suffers from certain circumstances. So it's neither only the one nor the other. It's neither getting lost into nihilism nor into the total entanglement of finding oneself a victim to the circumstances. But out of the "it is what is" and the level of dukkha and suffering, we can act and try to make a situation better, help people, and find compassion and practice the way of the bodhisattva

Gassho

Horin

Stlah

Enviado desde mi PLK-L01 mediante Tapatalk

[Jundo]

To a large extent I think that is true and is a useful belief psychologically. Nevertheless I can't completely buy the idea that people don't influence other people. Therefore if your practice makes you a better influence on those around you then all the better.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

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

[A.J.]

I would say that sentient beings each suffer their own Dukkha, and outside life (including outside sentient beings) are just conditions. Dukkha arises when an individual resists conditions as they are, wishing that they be some other way ... including that outside beings be some other way. Yes, I might be a pain in the ass to somebody, but whether that somebody chooses to feel resistance to my actions is between their own ears.

Gassho, J

STLah

For instance, you've mentioned the atrocities committed by Chogyam Trungpa before. It would be wrong to say that the harm was only in the heads of the victims.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

I would say that sentient beings each suffer their own Dukkha, and outside life (including outside sentient beings) are just conditions. Dukkha arises when an individual resists conditions as they are, wishing that they be some other way ... including that outside beings be some other way. Yes, I might be a pain in the ass to somebody, but whether that somebody chooses to feel resistance to my actions is between their own ears.

Gassho, J

STLah

To a large extent I think that is true and is a useful belief psychologically. Nevertheless I can't completely buy the idea that people don't influence other people. Therefore if your practice makes you a better influence on those around you then all the better.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Tom A.]

There is a great article that pertains to this discussion in this issue of ‘Dharma Eye’ titled “How to Live Here and Now – The Connection With a 1.5 Personal Pronoun”: https://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/dharma/pdf/45e.pdf

Gassho,
Tom

Sat/lah

[Shinshou]

Some people are naturally strong and have big muscles; likewise, some people are naturally selfless and take the worst parking spot. If one is not naturally muscular, the only way to build muscles (if you want them) is to work from the outside in and exercise them. It's no different with character traits like selflessness: if you don't have it naturally, just do it whether you want to or not and it will gradually become a "natural" part of you.

Just my experience -
Shinshou (Daniel)
Sat Today

[Bion]

I would say that sentient beings each suffer their own Dukkha, and outside life (including outside sentient beings) are just conditions. Dukkha arises when an individual resists conditions as they are, wishing that they be some other way ... including that outside beings be some other way. Yes, I might be a pain in the ass to somebody, but whether that somebody chooses to feel resistance to my actions is between their own ears.

Gassho, J

STLah

What many of us fail to understand is that there is no exterior cause for our emotional suffering. Someone doesn’t offend us, we choose to interpret words or actions and assign them a certain moral or emotional value, and then decide the intention behind them and how we “feel” about them. We react to ourselves and our senses but blame the result on external conditions.


Sat Today

[Jundo]

I don't have a tip so much as a thought.
If an individual were to be free from dukha then it's unlikely they would spread dukha to those they are around.
Perhaps since humans are interconnected to be centered in your self (in a Dhammapada sense) is not the same as being self-centered.

I would say that sentient beings each suffer their own Dukkha, and outside life (including outside sentient beings) are just conditions. Dukkha arises when an individual resists conditions as they are, wishing that they be some other way ... including that outside beings be some other way. Yes, I might be a pain in the ass to somebody, but whether that somebody chooses to feel resistance to my actions is between their own ears.

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

I don't have a tip so much as a thought.
If an individual were to be free from dukha then it's unlikely they would spread dukha to those they are around.
Perhaps since humans are interconnected to be centered in your self (in a Dhammapada sense) is not the same as being self-centered.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Kokuu]

My practice is selfish (judging my zazen on focus, worrying if it is "working", no compassion in real life, would never give away my zazen "progress" to others) for my own liberation despite all vows I say daily. What tips do others have for really being a selfless student and not minding taking the last place in the queue

Hi Sam

My personal suggestions based on thing which has helped me are two-fold

1. Compassionate activity, including volunteer work, the more physical the better, although that may be harder in the current pandemic restrictions.

2. Compassion practices such as the Metta Verses. Use daily for most benefit.


Neither of these is focused on getting you enlightened, which is part of the reason for suggesting them.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[shikantazen]

Thank you sangha. Such beautiful replies and wisdom everyone.

Gassho,
Sam
ST