So are you saying that this is your experience and the benefit of "going for it"? If your child or loved one got diagnosed with terminal cancer, for example, you'd be okay with it and not suffer at all because of it? — praxis

I will tell you from experience because I have lost a son. It was his death that prompted me to embark on a very serious philosophical journey that morphed into my Zen Path.

Those who truly "go for it" are generally people who have come out of a very serious life episode (as did I). In a Zen sense, when something really bad happens, you want to be with that 100%, not only so you can react in the most efficacious manner (i.e.,see what's taking place with the greatest clarity), but just as important, you want to let go as soon as possible because the real suffering in life is many times not from the event itself, but instead, the emotional reaction to the event.

So, by building "your center," you have the strength to withstand whatever comes your way, deal with it the most effective way possible, and then move-on (which is the solution to all life's issues).

Come to think of it, Buddha's weltanschauung wouldn't have been able to accommodate a single divine being as the be-all and end-all of goodness because, it seems quite obvious on hindsight, Buddhism's central tenet is that life is suffering; how then can there exist an all-good god and even if such a god exists, he must surely be powerless to come to our aid or both [ref:Epicurean dilemma]. — TheMadFool

Keep in mind that The Buddha developed his teachings because he realized that only the truly exceptional could realize the truth, i.e., attain clarity, immediately. So the religion was an intellectual path pointing to the practice and the goal of realization.

Although I am anything but a Buddhist scholar, suffering and its cause is the primary teaching, as to provide motivation for those to practice (meditate) and overcome.

As an aside, some of the most serious mediators are Christian mystics, so the two can be quite compatible. God, like any other idea, takes no precedence.

Supposedly, chopping wood and carrying water is entirely exempt of suffering. Is that your experience???
— praxis

I am not a Zen teacher so I have no "credentials" to be explaining this kind of thing
— synthesis

I hope you’re not suggesting that only a teacher (religious authority) can speak for your own experience. — praxis

In Zen, there is "understanding," and there is "UNDERSTANDING." It is often advised to allow those with the later "certified" understanding to do the teaching. IOW, a Zen master is one who has had the teaching passed to them by another master. I have not been through this process. It doesn't mean I can not share my experience, only that if you are really interested in Zen, you should seek a teacher.

Zen is simply every day life. Nothing more, nothing special. It is viewing life with clarity which gives rise to wisdom. That's all. Chopping wood, carry water is everyday life, nothing more.
— synthesis

A nice simple balanced life. :love: — praxis

Perhaps, but first it is about confronting your stuff, working through it, and then ...

The place you want to get to is where you become ok with whatever presents. Bad comes, ok. Good comes, ok. Let each go. It is attaching to either that produces the suffering in life.

Life is very difficult and full of suffering. Zen is not a way to rid yourself of the difficulty, only the suffering.

People can do whatever they like. There are some who are incredible generous, but what's this have to do with my assertion that the main thing going on in this world (especially collectively) is scamming to steal other folks labor value?
— synthesis
So you have no trouble with asserting such, but you have trouble with considering that man can do damage to the planet? — baker

Let's say that man blows-up the planet and all that's left is space dust.

Everybody's problems are solved, right? Why worry about such a thing? I assure you that The Universe will find a way to move forward sans planet Earth.

Nothing for something no more exists than does something for nothing.

Somebody is paying the freight.

Even if somebody gives you something for "free," it is not really free, not only literally, but in all the other ways that makes the recipients of free stuff dependent.
— synthesis

How do people get rich? I can't quite put a finger on it but there must exist an asymmetry in the exchange between, say, buyer and seller, for such a thing as profit to be real. — TheMadFool

People get rich two ways...either they are working very hard at an endeavor that is rare and pays very well or they are taking somebody else's labor value.

If you make a pair of shoes and find somebody who needs/wants your product, then they must pay for the cost of the materials, overhead, and your labor. Your labor (profit) will be determined by what the market feel is a fair price for what you have created over your costs.

The point of this is that people have figured out how to make much more profit from simply manipulating the system than actually being productive. This is something for nothing on a grand scale. But the concept itself is omnipresent in Western society and completely accepted. As a matter of fact, people are admired and congratulated the more the scam the system.

Supposedly, chopping wood and carrying water is entirely exempt of suffering. Is that your experience??? — praxis

I am not a Zen teacher so I have no "credentials" to be explaining this kind of thing, but let me tell you this much. The reason Zen is so confusing (intellectually) is because it is not an intellectual practice. Everything you realize is through your meditation practice. So, essentially, there is only one lesson in Zen, meditate.

The intellectual part of the practice is telling you to do this in a thousand different ways. There is no other message. Zen is simply every day life. Nothing more, nothing special. It is viewing life with clarity which gives rise to wisdom. That's all. Chopping wood, carry water is everyday life, nothing more.

Corporations are inherently dangerous to the health of humanity and need to be kept on a short leash. — Pantagruel

I believe that all corporate charters should be revoked immediately. Afterwards, only non-profit corporations should be given 10 year charters like the good old days.

It's been known for a couple of centuries that if you allowed corporations to gain power, the results would be fugly.

That’s a funny way of putting it. It suggests that those willing to “go for it” are out of balance (forsaking a nice simple balanced life), and makes me think that the those going for it are merely attempting to get where others are naturally. — praxis

Seeking a nice simple, balanced life intellectually is a whole different situation than realizing it non-intellectually. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the former, but the later holds something very different for those willing to do the work necessary to make it back to the beginning.

I've been a dedicated Soto Zen student for the past 30+ years and came to it from a very intense philosophical crisis. What attracted me to Soto Zen (in particular) was its tie to the Tang dynasty's Chan masters (through Soto's founder, Dogen Zengi, who brought Zen from China to Japan in the 13th century), of which many seem to enjoy. I would highly recommend his writings if you pursue a sitting practice. Anyway, these Chinese masters had a "shit or get off the pot" style of teaching which appeals to many serious students.

Why sitting? It's what The Buddha taught so who's to argue? One of his rationales was that sitting produces pain and pain is our greatest teacher (learning the nature of pain).

I have found the practice life-altering, but if you do pursue it seriously, you will be on your own.

If you're saying that people can be full time mums or dads and work and do everything they need to do and be totally committed to this then you have a much friendlier idea of commitment. Which I welcome. I have not seen this in any of meditation communities I have known over the years; Hindu or Buddhist in derivation. — Tom Storm

When you are a mom or dad, that is your primary job. Before or after that responsibility, you might have the opportunity to pursue full-time practice. Even that being the case, "going for it," is not very much about where you practice (although it can be). It is about your commitment to the practice (as I am sure you must be well aware). Those truly committed to practice are very, very rare indeed.

In my experience also, very few people have the available resources to do this. — Tom Storm

I don't know what your experience is, but it's generally not a matter of resources, instead, a matter of priority.

There are so few people who really delve deeply.

About fifteen years ago, I took two years off and devoted myself to full-time meditation practice. I became a resident at a Zen center in Northern California (there were eight of us). Of the all the people who do this sort of thing (very, very few), a minuscule amount of the them are actually willing to do what it takes to go for it.

In my experience, most people just want to live a nice, simple, balanced life (and who can blame them).

Just joking, but pornographers never used the telegraph, as far as I know, but they did pick up on the potential of photography pretty quickly. It took them something like a century to devise phone porn -- the "1-900 XXX xxxx" call-in numbers introduced in the 1980s — Bitter Crank

I am sure the first telegraph message was something like...

"Can I meet you behind the barn tonight?" :)

Exactly. I wouldn't mind if you were saying we can't have any effect, and still doing all the things to remediate pollution, etc. — Pantagruel

My friend, I have never met anybody who likes pollution or did not take reasonable measures to do what they can to help in that regard.

Are you thinking that there are legions of people going around and aimlessly polluting?

The thing I want to bring forward is that people have MANY itches, scratched with art, politics, fashion, music, fiction, drama, and so on. Religion "works" because it offers rituals, a world-view, social activity, and so on. Clearly it isn't a unique necessity because lots of people scratch the ritual/world-view/social itch with other activity. — Bitter Crank

Although keep in mind that when a new form of communication is introduced, it is pornography, politics and religion that are the BIG THREE initial users.

All of these concerns appear to have a significant following.

Maybe that is the nature of space time. Who knows! — Paul S

Had it been The Buddha's way, he would have just whacked you over the head!

I think that most people seem to be satisfied with what religion has to offer and do not wish to take it further (or are not aware that there is any further to take it). After all, who among us would not give just about anything to enjoy a very simple life gainfully employed, with a wonderful spouse, a great kid or two, in a really nice community?

Is this your qualified, scientific opinion? Final answer? Sounds like an excuse to piss in the pool to me. — Pantagruel

Perhaps, like many, you have dedicated yourself to saving the planet and find my observation not to your liking, but there's not much I can about that.

You should read science's predictions over the past fifty years and you may begin to realize just how much science knows about this sort of thing.

I like to think of it as cyclically infinite despite any finite properties. What do you think? — Paul S

Consider the following...

Everything that has mass in the Universe is unique in that it occupies it's own unique space and is affected by differing forces (no matter how tiny the difference). If we can agree on this, then what exactly does "two" mean? How can there (technically) be two of anything? And if this is the case, mathematics, although an interesting and utilitarian system, has no basis in reality what-so-ever.

So considering finite and infinite are sort of like debating the exact size of a Unicorn's horn.

The reason I say this is because many people adopt the religious beliefs which they are brought up with as children. That seems to make it all seem too relative and I am in favour of understanding the religious quest on a universal level of meeting the human need for understanding and truth. — Jack Cummins

Religion is pro-family and pro-community, which is why it has thrived so long in human society. Even anti-family and anti-community statist societies like Communism have a difficult time stamping-out religion because the state can not replace a moral high-ground with authoritarian decrees enforced with totalitarian measures.

Although a religious-like fervor has recently manifested (in the Western Left) into a religious-like movement, those folks will discover what the poor souls of the Soviet Union and Maoist China did when the honeymoon ended and high hopes were replaced by the tips of bayonets and worse..

So no: we don't "need" religion. — Bitter Crank

Technically, we only "need" water, food, shelter, and beer, so the fact that religion has sprung up in nearly every culture suggests that such practices scratch a universal human itch. And it makes sense on all kinds of levels as have been pointed out by those partaking in this discussion who appear to have considerably most ambition to write about it than do I at this moment.

I am sort with George Carlin on this one whereas I don't really believe that man can cause much harm to the planet.
— synthesis

Then maybe you should go and live in a landfill. — baker

The arrogance of man, thinking that he can be a threat to the planet.

A few decades (or perhaps centuries) after we have departed, we (and everything we have produced) will have been mixed back into the Earth, as (eventually) there will be not a trace that we were ever here...just the way it should be.

The thing is, Jack, it's really isn't. We just make it that way.

An individual's belief is an intensely personal thing. How can anybody possibly understand another's life experience to the point where their fundamental spiritual and religious beliefs might make any sense to them what-so-ever? After all, people can't even understand their own feelings in this regard!

My intention is to discuss ideas. People need to help themselves.

The most effective communicators are those that keep their message as simple as is possible.

But you are speaking to intellectuals on a forum set up by such people to talk about stuff.
Where are you going with this thought? — Valentinus

The more complex thinking becomes, the further from the truth you get. Look at every institution in the West for examples galore. Do you believe the Law or Medicine can't be written in language accessible to all? It applies to everything.

The answer to every problem is quite simple. What's not simple are all the interests that are taking a cut of the action. That sort of thing.

Sounds more like a principle of action than a result of consideration. — Valentinus

Absolute Simplicity is Absolute Truth.

Begin the process of intellectualization, and you move further and further from the truth.

How do you think that we can go to the heart of this issue authentically, but without being bound to intellectualisation? — Jack Cummins

If it is a discussion of religion, then it is intellecualization, as is any discussion on any subject-matter. And please don't get me wrong here, Jack, because I believe that religion is an extremely important topic (perhaps the most important of all), but once you start to pick it apart, it goes south like everything else intellectual.

The truth of the matter is always quite simplistic, so I might ask you to disentangle your question because I am not sure exactly what you are after.

However, I am aware that ideas about religion, including the philosophy questions about the existence of God are so bound up with our lives as human beings. I wonder how this all connects together and even if the need for religious experience is innate. — Jack Cummins

Religion being the intellectualization of spirituality (the definition I go with), is a collective mechanism in place to point individuals in the correct direction in order to initiate their own journey. It was never meant to be taken literally as a blueprint.

For those who do go off on their own, it is deeply rewarding, but so many times people seem to get caught up in the orthodoxy of written words, practices, and other attachments that only serve to confuse, distract, and depress.

If the answers were intellectual, believe me, everybody would have known about it long, long ago. The initial buzz created by the very idea of an higher moral order which gives purpose and meaning to life must be sustained by personal exploration which nourishes future spiritual growth. Otherwise, the buzz will depart (like all things) and you will be left like most who seem to think that religion is just a bunch of hooey.

People can do whatever they like. There are some who are incredible generous, but what's this have to do with my assertion that the main thing going on in this world (especially collectively) is scamming to steal other folks labor value?

Given that some corporate criminals are still trying to perpetrate the lie that climate change isn't happening, the same would certainly happen in such a case. It would surely lead to an environmental catastrophe. — Pantagruel

I am sort with George Carlin on this one whereas I don't really believe that man can cause much harm to the planet. Where the climate is no doubt changing, nobody really knows the extent to which we are contributing to such. If you look at all predictions over the last 50 years, it's kind of laughable.

Climate is something that has cycles within cycles within cycles for reasons that we will probably never know. It's a 5B year old ecosystem of which we have scant data from the last several decades. That's not much help.

If we do increase our energy consumption by 1000x perhaps this will have an effect but it seems to me that oceans and atmosphere can handle what man throws at them. If not, oh well, the planet will have to find a way to rid itself of our presence.

All off that freely-consumed energy would end up spilling back into the biosphere, with devastating consequences. — Pantagruel

Well, if Einstein was correct and E=MCxC, there should be no lack of energy available. I would think that technology should solve the energy issue reasonably well in the near future.

What do you mean by energy spilling back into the biosphere?

Of course they can give it away. But it's not free.

This entire idea of "free" is one of the greatest ruses of all-time. There is no such thing as "free." Is the air free? No, it just is. Anything that has economic value must be paid for by somebody.

If something has value, then somebody is paying for it. Even the banking community cannot create something for nothing as they work their magic through the dilution of value (monetary inflation).

If your labor is creating value for somebody else, you paid for it. Value cannot be created out of thin air.

Nothing wrong with sitting in a room by yourself, but then again, there's nothing wrong with doing anything else as long as your are respectful of others rights.

To each their own.

No doubt about it.

What is your opinion of a person who takes this idea, if I may call it that, and flips it on its head and is interested in obtaining nothing for something? Altruism is still a thing right? — TheMadFool

Nothing for something no more exists than does something for nothing.

Somebody is paying the freight.

Even if somebody gives you something for "free," it is not really free, not only literally, but in all the other ways that makes the recipients of free stuff dependent.

Just the same (and no matter what's going on), you have to play the cards you're dealt, right?

Forward movement is the way.

I'm 75; just how old do I have to get? — Bitter Crank

You must have a young spirit! :)

Not for nothin' do they call it techofascism. Coming soon to a bankrupt empire near you. — fishfry

Unfortunately, it's been going on for a long, long time, perhaps the first wizards being the BOE in 1696 as the first central bank. Another wonderful example is when the USG told Americans in 1936 that their social security numbers would never be used for any other reason than for social security (old age pensions).