user11571: In the book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, I read the following statement:

This is the basic teaching of Buddhism. Pleasure is not different from difficulty. Good is not different from bad. Bad is good; good is bad. They are two sides of one coin.

How does this make sense? Does this mean that every good action (for example trying to reduce suffering) is somehow also bad? Or at least destined to fail? 

user43: When we are young and naive, we may have a very simplistic, polarized view of Good and Bad. Whoever is on our side, close to us, with us - is good, and whoever is on the other side is bad.
Then as we grow up we start developing a more sophisticated view of the world, in which we try to understand the different sides in every argument. Democrats vs Republican, India vs. Pakistan, Muslim vs Buddhist, Commerce vs Spirituality, Brexit or Stay, and so on - all these different dualities... We try to understand them as well as we can, identify pro's and con's and take the Good side, based on our own values and how their attributes match with our beliefs.
Then as we keep growing and start participating in situations ourselves, we may get into more complex scenarios, when the good may not always be good, and the bad may not always be bad. A drug dealer may use the money to help the poor. Buddha might have hurt his wife and child when he left home to pursue Enlightenment. Wolves hunt on hares - the murder of the hare is tragedy for the hare family, but is a hunting victory for the wolf family. There are all these different situations when good and bad are intermixed, depend on each other, and are two sides of the same coin.
There are however things that are invariaby good, regardless of which interpretative context you're in. In Buddhism traditionally, confusion is always bad, and clarity is always good. Suffering is always bad and peace is always good.
If you think about it a bit more however, you can see that even this may not always be true. Confusion may be saving someone who's not yet ready to know the truth, from getting hit by the reality they wouldn't be able to handle. Suffering may be a price we pay for progress, for growth, for helping others who are not always easy to help. So in Mahayana, even these old polarities of Confusion/Clarity and Suffering/Peace are not as black-and-white anymore. They too are conditional and subject to contextual interpretation.
Clarity that understands and appreciates both Clarity and Confusion, without rejecting either, without mixing them up, is the real Clarity. Being at Peace with Suffering is the real Peace.
Sentient beings have a tendency for reification, they tend to read-in solidity where there is none. "Right view with taints" already understands that clarity and peace are good, but still reifies them, still falsely assumes they can be solid, specific and tangible. "Right view without taints" is just analysis of factors. Now we are arriving at real clarity and peace.
Everything is perfect as is and no one needs saving, and yet, if I can, I'd like to try and help people move towards this peace and clarity - through the path of wisdom and tolerance.

user10304: These days, 99.9% of the books, if ever got printed out, are better used for toilet paper than for reading. (So f*** arrogant!! - I take the blame, ok :)
I've never read this book, just "scanning"; the title and what you quoted, what in Wikipedia about the author (I read that page when answering this post). This book useless but will waste my useful time if I read - Will never read.
Good is good, bad bad. Period. Trying to sex up words is clever scheme to induce interest of the reader though. But it harmed the mind, instills extra delusions and hinderances - corrupting the true Buddha Dharma, especially by claiming: "This is the basic teaching of Buddhism."   
What truly useful, the wisdom, from real Buddhist teaching, is, "in good there is seed of bad, in bad seed of good." The ordinary can only see the good in good, bad in bad; the wise also the bad in (not "is"!!!) good, good in bad. Like the Chinese Yin-yang diagram Taiji, the black dot in the white, the white in the black - change. I-change (易經: I-Ching, how pre-telling the ancients able to pick the name, encompassing East and West). So, when the stock market swells, the vision it dipped; when bursted, foreseeing the boom. When life at the high, caution, time for downslope; at low, be alert, time for ascending soon; always keep your cool. Then you take the right action, with right attitude. This is what I called usefulness, real wisdom; not sexing-up words.
However, the pinnacle of comprehending, when qualified to utter: "good is bad, bad good, no difference", is when one able to truly dwelling in the state of Emptiness. Another word, Enlightened, Buddha-ed. But then the virtue is, silence. Period.
When one dwelling in Emptiness in real, he is able to transform - transform the physcial phenomena. A Chinese real Mahayana doctrine, "心能轉物, 即同如來" (When your citta/mind can turn the matter, you same as the Buddha), but is not learnt by other culture, yet.  

Dwelling in Emptiness thus able to transform - legitimate to utter "good is bad, bad is good": 
Mahisasakas Vinaya recounted a very ardent Upāsikā she cut piece of flesh from her leg (market closed) to make soup in urgency for a sick Bhiksu who needed meat as medicine. When the Buddha visited her family she dying, she excused not shown for didn't want to worry him. Yet the Buddha insisted, her husband had to carry her out. Just right at seeing the face of the Buddha, she lapped on her feet, recovered. Her leg and all reverted to as before like nothing happened. This the power of Emptiness the Buddha demonstrated, the meat cut from the leg was no difference from not cut - good is bad, bad good. The Vinaya recounted another, the Buddha himself washed an old sick Bhiksu who spilled his defecations and vomits all-over his body and room; dirty is clean, clean dirty, no difference. If those who uttered that kind of words, get qualified first, please! Else what gives that sitting on the "dharma platform" to teach? Why not a street sweeper also teaching "dharma" but you? Since, street sweeper and "dharma teacher" are, no difference, right?

In this respect, I think one first learning the Theravadin teaching far safer than parroting the Mahayana or Zen one. The Chinese Canon placed Agamas (counterpart to the Pali Nikayas) as the First Section out of the Twelves, means its importance, had to be learnt first. Otherwise fiddling with those Mahayana terms in ambiguous abstruseness can only induce the readers to in$till your pocket/ego and your "dharma Hall ~ of Fame"; but not instilling any real Buddha Dharma to their minds.                          

user111: From a Theravada perspective, there is absolute good and absolute bad. The 2 can exist mutually exclusively.
Suffering is absolutely bad and the mind states that lead to suffering are absolutely bad. 
Nibbana is absolutely good and the mind states that lead to Nibbana are absolutely good.
There is no suffering in Nibbana and there's no Nibbana in suffering. They arise/exist without requiring the presence of eachother.

11571: <p>In the book <em>Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind</em>, I read the following statement:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This is the basic teaching of Buddhism. Pleasure is not different from difficulty. Good is not different from bad. Bad is good; good is bad. They are two sides of one coin.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>How does this make sense? Does this mean that every good action (for example trying to reduce suffering) is somehow also bad? Or at least destined to fail? </p>
 43: <p>When we are young and naive, we may have a very simplistic, polarized view of Good and Bad. Whoever is on our side, close to us, with us - is good, and whoever is on the other side is bad.</p>

<p>Then as we grow up we start developing a more sophisticated view of the world, in which we try to understand the different sides in every argument. Democrats vs Republican, India vs. Pakistan, Muslim vs Buddhist, Commerce vs Spirituality, Brexit or Stay, and so on - all these different dualities... We try to understand them as well as we can, identify pro's and con's and take the Good side, based on our own values and how their attributes match with our beliefs.</p>

<p>Then as we keep growing and start participating in situations ourselves, we may get into more complex scenarios, when the good may not always be good, and the bad may not always be bad. A drug dealer may use the money to help the poor. Buddha might have hurt his wife and child when he left home to pursue Enlightenment. Wolves hunt on hares - the murder of the hare is tragedy for the hare family, but is a hunting victory for the wolf family. There are all these different situations when good and bad are intermixed, depend on each other, and are two sides of the same coin.</p>

<p>There are however things that are <em>invariaby</em> good, regardless of which interpretative context you're in. In Buddhism traditionally, confusion is always bad, and clarity is always good. Suffering is always bad and peace is always good.</p>

<p>If you think about it a bit more however, you can see that even this may not always be true. Confusion may be saving someone who's not yet ready to know the truth, from getting hit by the reality they wouldn't be able to handle. Suffering may be a price we pay for progress, for growth, for helping others who are not always easy to help. So in Mahayana, even these old polarities of Confusion/Clarity and Suffering/Peace are not as black-and-white anymore. They too are conditional and subject to contextual interpretation.</p>

<p>Clarity that understands and appreciates both Clarity and Confusion, without rejecting either, without mixing them up, is the real Clarity. Being at Peace with Suffering is the real Peace.</p>

<p>Sentient beings have a tendency for <em>reification</em>, they tend to read-in solidity where there is none. "Right view with taints" already understands that clarity and peace are good, but still reifies them, still falsely assumes they can be solid, specific and tangible. "Right view without taints" is just analysis of factors. Now we are arriving at real clarity and peace.</p>

<p>Everything is perfect as is and no one needs saving, and yet, if I can, I'd like to try and help people move towards this peace and clarity - through the path of wisdom and tolerance.</p>
 10304: <p>These days, 99.9% of the books, if ever got printed out, are better used for toilet paper than for reading. (So f*** arrogant!! - I take the blame, ok :)</p>

<p>I've never read this book, just "scanning"; the title and what you quoted, what in Wikipedia about the author (I read that page when answering <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10430/what-is-direct-seeing/22301#22301">this post</a>). This book useless but will waste my useful time if I read - Will never read.</p>

<p>Good is good, bad bad. Period. Trying to sex up words is clever scheme to induce interest of the reader though. But it harmed the mind, instills extra delusions and hinderances - corrupting the true Buddha Dharma, especially by claiming: "<code>This is the basic teaching of Buddhism.</code>"   </p>

<p>What truly useful, the wisdom, from real Buddhist teaching, is, "<strong>in good there is seed of bad, in bad seed of good.</strong>" The ordinary can only see the good <em>in</em> good, bad <em>in</em> bad; the wise also the bad <strong>in</strong> (not "<strong>is</strong>"!!!) good, good <em>in</em> bad. Like the Chinese Yin-yang diagram Taiji, the black dot in the white, the white in the black - change. I-change (易經: I-Ching, how pre-telling the ancients able to pick the name, encompassing East and West). So, when the stock market swells, the vision it dipped; when bursted, foreseeing the boom. When life at the high, caution, time for downslope; at low, be alert, time for ascending soon; always keep your cool. Then you take the right action, with right attitude. This is what I called usefulness, real wisdom; not sexing-up words.</p>

<p>However, the pinnacle of comprehending, when qualified to utter: "good is bad, bad good, no difference", is when one able to truly dwelling in the state of Emptiness. Another word, Enlightened, Buddha-ed. But then the virtue is, silence. Period.</p>

<p>When one dwelling in Emptiness in real, he is able to transform - transform the physcial phenomena. A Chinese real Mahayana doctrine, "心能轉物, 即同如來" (When your citta/mind can turn the matter, you same as the Buddha), but is not learnt by other culture, yet.  </p>

<hr>

<p><em>Dwelling in Emptiness thus able to transform - legitimate to utter "good is bad, bad is good"</em>: 
Mahisasakas Vinaya recounted a very ardent Upāsikā she cut piece of flesh from her leg (market closed) to make soup in urgency for a sick Bhiksu who needed meat as medicine. When the Buddha visited her family she dying, she excused not shown for didn't want to worry him. Yet the Buddha insisted, her husband had to carry her out. Just right at seeing the face of the Buddha, she lapped on her feet, recovered. Her leg and all reverted to as before like nothing happened. This the power of Emptiness the Buddha demonstrated, the meat cut from the leg was no difference from not cut - good is bad, bad good. The Vinaya recounted another, the Buddha himself washed an old sick Bhiksu who spilled his defecations and vomits all-over his body and room; dirty is clean, clean dirty, no difference. If those who uttered that kind of words, get qualified first, please! Else what gives that sitting on the "dharma platform" to teach? Why not a street sweeper also teaching "dharma" but you? Since, street sweeper and "dharma teacher" are, no difference, right?</p>

<hr>

<p>In this respect, I think one first learning the Theravadin teaching far safer than parroting the Mahayana or Zen one. The Chinese Canon placed Agamas (counterpart to the Pali Nikayas) as the First Section out of the Twelves, means its importance, had to be learnt first. Otherwise fiddling with those Mahayana terms in ambiguous abstruseness can only induce the readers to in$till your pocket/ego and your "dharma Hall ~ of Fame"; but not instilling any real Buddha Dharma to their minds.                          </p>
 111: <p>From a Theravada perspective, there is absolute good and absolute bad. The 2 can exist mutually exclusively.</p>

<p>Suffering is absolutely bad and the mind states that lead to suffering are absolutely bad. 
Nibbana is absolutely good and the mind states that lead to Nibbana are absolutely good.</p>

<p>There is no suffering in Nibbana and there's no Nibbana in suffering. They arise/exist without requiring the presence of eachother.</p>
