Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
Bill!, It's been over three years. Did you forget again? ~Panda --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, BillSmart@... wrote: Panda, Sorry! I did forget. I'll start digging today! .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pandabananasock Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:31 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Dear Bill I hope you have not forgotten to dig up that material you have been working on regarding time/causeeffect. What it something I said?? Really though, if you are still willing to share, I'd still love to take a look! P-P-P-Panda __ NOD32 3224 (20080627) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
Pandabananasock, Okay, okay...I'll look for it again. Sorry for the delay...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, pandabananasock pandabananasock@... wrote: Bill!, It's been over three years. Did you forget again? ~Panda --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, BillSmart@ wrote: Panda, Sorry! I did forget. I'll start digging today! .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pandabananasock Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:31 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Dear Bill I hope you have not forgotten to dig up that material you have been working on regarding time/causeeffect. What it something I said?? Really though, if you are still willing to share, I'd still love to take a look! P-P-P-Panda __ NOD32 3224 (20080627) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
Bill and Chuck, Wash your bowls is as good as any non-logical statement, I guess. However, `ordinary mind is the Way` seems to allow for logic to be used as a means to showing the Truth. Furthermore, the gates to the Dharma are countless which also seems to imply that nothing (including logic/knowledge/science) should be rejected as a means to illustrating the Truth. Indeed, the Buddhist sutras use many logical statements/stories to point to the Way. That`s why I prefer the Zen `method` of asking someone a logical question and just before they give an answer cup your hand over their mouth. I think the space/silence just before we speak transcends logic and directly connects us to our Original Face. In a nutshell, I believe this is what (somewhat) separates Zen from Buddhism - the direct over the (sometimes) conceptual. Mike. __ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Chuck, NOW YOU’RE GETTING IT! Welcome to zen. I’m excited at your reactions so I’ve imbedded my responses in a copy of your posting below: If “ALL LOGIC AND SCIENCE is based on ILLUSIONS and BELIEFS” then your logic is as well. It’s a bit like saying, “This statement is false,” the statement turns back on itself in a very confusing way. I do indeed use logic, and I use it very, very well. It is illusory, however; I know that. I also use my imagination and I dream at night. I know all these are illusory no matter how real they seem. I’ll admit that sometimes I do get lost in the beauty and elegance of logic, but it is illusory. I hope you are acquainted with the zen story (koan?) about a Buddhist scholar that visited a zen master to talk about zen. A Cup of Tea Nan-in received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he could restrain himself no longer. It is overfull. No more will go in! Like this cup, Nan-in said, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup? Most of my posts are just games in which I try to use words and logic to describe zen. What I’m doing with you right now, and what I do in most all of my posts, is use logic and words to fill up your already overflowing cup. I hope by doing so some of the tea will spill out and scald your hand and WAKE YOU UP! I hope this post of yours is at least you yelling ‘ouch’. Logic is a system of thought devised by people that rigidly defines the relationship between symbols. It is true by definition. It really tells you nothing about the word (world?). It works independently of content. I assume in the paragraph above you’ve made a typo (God knows I make a lot of them myself) and when you typed ‘word’ you meant ‘world’. This is an important paragraph so I’ll take it a phrase at a time: Logic is indeed a system of thought devised by people, and it does define relationships between symbols, which were also devised by people. So far all we’ve defined is a fantasy system (Logic) that operates in conjunction with associated fantasy objects (Symbols). This is what I call illusory. What would you call it? I can’t really argue with your statement that “It is true by definition”, because whoever creates the illusion can set the rules of the illusion and make whatever definitions they want. The quality ‘true’ in the definition above however has to be taken be taken in context. ‘Logic is True’ only applies within the context of the illusory system - like ‘Go to Jail, Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200’ only applies in the fantasy world of Monopoly - and not anywhere else. Logic can only be applied in a world of duality – which is an illusion. As you said, Logic doesn’t really tell you anything about the WORLD, but it does tell you a lot about how people choose to interact with the world. They mainly observe it as a subject/object duality (I’m Me and I’m Here, and Everything Else is Not Me and is Out There.) Symbols need to be invented to stand-in for the illusory, dualistic objects, otherwise the Me/Not-Me duality just would not work. Try doing Logic or Boolean transforms using only an A – All A is A. Some A is not A. A and A or A and not A is A (or not). You just got to have duality for Logic. It’s all part of the Monopoly rules and instructions. If logic is an illusion what process could you use to discover the fact, certainly not logic. ☺ THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION YOU’VE ASKED, and actually the only one that matters. The Logical Answer is: zazen. Zazen is the process that helped me realize that ‘self’ and all other duality-based concepts are illusions. Logic is what I am using now to try to express that realization. It is not the only way to express that realization. I do at times try to use other ways, but in this exclusively text-base medium Logic seems the most appropriate. The Non-Logical Answer is: Wash your bowls! Chuck …Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 9:07 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Chuck, I assume you’re asking if Logic is dependent upon the belief in Cause Effect. This is a Good question, and one which addresses a possible overstatement in my post – even my revised post. I haven’t thought about this aspect in depth yet enough to answer you. I don’t have an opinion right now as to whether Logic comes before the belief in Cause Effect or vice versa, but both of these definitely precede and are the basis for science. If your question is asking if Logic is illusory, then the answer is definitely yes. Logic is a product of Subject/Object Duality, which is the real culprit here
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
A REPOSTING TEST to get rid of ‘weird’ characters…Bill! Chuck, NOW YOU’RE GETTING IT! Welcome to zen. I’m excited at your reactions so I’ve imbedded my responses in a copy of your posting below: If “ALL LOGIC AND SCIENCE is based on ILLUSIONS and BELIEFS” then your logic is as well. It’s a bit like saying, “This statement is false,” the statement turns back on itself in a very confusing way. I do indeed use logic, and I use it very, very well. It is illusory, however; I know that. I also use my imagination and I dream at night. I know all these are illusory no matter how real they seem. I’ll admit that sometimes I do get lost in the beauty and elegance of logic, but it is illusory. I hope you are acquainted with the zen story (koan?) about a Buddhist scholar that visited a zen master to talk about zen. A Cup of Tea Nan-in received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he could restrain himself no longer. It is overfull. No more will go in! Like this cup, Nan-in said, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup? Most of my posts are just games in which I try to use words and logic to describe zen. What I’m doing with you right now, and what I do in most all of my posts, is use logic and words to fill up your already overflowing cup. I hope by doing so some of the tea will spill out and scald your hand and WAKE YOU UP! I hope this post of yours is at least you yelling ‘ouch’. Logic is a system of thought devised by people that rigidly defines the relationship between symbols. It is true by definition. It really tells you nothing about the word (world?). It works independently of content. I assume in the paragraph above you’ve made a typo (God knows I make a lot of them myself) and when you typed ‘word’ you meant ‘world’. This is an important paragraph so I’ll take it a phrase at a time: Logic is indeed a system of thought devised by people, and it does define relationships between symbols, which were also devised by people. So far all we’ve defined is a fantasy system (Logic) that operates in conjunction with associated fantasy objects (Symbols). This is what I call illusory. What would you call it? I can’t really argue with your statement that “It is true by definition”, because whoever creates the illusion can set the rules of the illusion and make whatever definitions they want. The quality ‘true’ in the definition above however has to be taken be taken in context. ‘Logic is True’ only applies within the context of the illusory system - like ‘Go to Jail, Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200’ only applies in the fantasy world of Monopoly - and not anywhere else. Logic can only be applied in a world of duality – which is an illusion. As you said, Logic doesn’t really tell you anything about the WORLD, but it does tell you a lot about how people choose to interact with the world. They mainly observe it as a subject/object duality (I’m Me and I’m Here, and Everything Else is Not Me and is Out There.) Symbols need to be invented to stand-in for the illusory, dualistic objects, otherwise the Me/Not-Me duality just would not work. Try doing Logic or Boolean transforms using only an A – All A is A. Some A is not A. A and A or A and not A is A (or not). You just got to have duality for Logic. It’s all part of the Monopoly rules and instructions. If logic is an illusion what process could you use to discover the fact, certainly not logic. ☺ THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION YOU’VE ASKED, and actually the only one that matters. The Logical Answer is: zazen. Zazen is the process that helped me realize that ‘self’ and all other duality-based concepts are illusions. Logic is what I am using now to try to express that realization. It is not the only way to express that realization. I do at times try to use other ways, but in this exclusively text-base medium Logic seems the most appropriate. The Non-Logical Answer is: Wash your bowls! Chuck …Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 9:07 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Chuck, I assume you’re asking if Logic is dependent upon the belief in Cause Effect. This is a Good question, and one which addresses a possible overstatement in my post – even my revised post. I haven’t thought about this aspect in depth yet enough to answer you. I don’t have an opinion right now as to whether Logic comes before the belief in Cause Effect or vice versa, but both of these definitely precede and are the basis for science. If your question is asking if Logic is illusory, then the answer is definitely yes. Logic
Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
Jody W. Ianuzzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A chair is just a chair. JODY JODY is just JODY Have I been smoking the wacky tabacky again? Maybe I had some of the meds from the kids. I take their meds sometimes. They look the same to me whether or not they take their meds. Mostly stuff to calm them down. It helps me a lot more to calm down when I am around them. Thank God for summer, but in another 6 weeks it will be back to the grindstone with the 'tards. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Bill, Does that include this logic? From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 8:33 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill *** After a Good Night’s Sleep I’ve Revised this Posting in Green Font and Re-sent Al and Chuck, ALL LOGIC AND SCIENCE is based on ILLUSIONS and BELIEFS: an ILLUSION of subject/object (observation), an ILLUSION of time (separate sequential actions (digital)), and a BELIEF in cause effect (an illusory relationship between selected sets of separate sequential actions). Without these illusions and beliefs there is no logic, and without logic there is no science. The Buddhist doctrine of Dependent Origination is also an BELIEF based on the same a similar illusory relationship between separate sequential actions, but it is believed that there is only one Action (like the Big Bang) that is a continuous action (analog) and that the relationships are manifested in the changing form of the one of the one Action . Karma is a more complex illusion which is based on the belief of Dependent Origination, and then adds the concepts that the relationships can propagate qualities (good/bad, or some kind of quality), and these qualities can be associated with the actor (presumably the ‘self’ associated with the changes in the Action) and even accumulate. One way to accommodate this would be if Dependent Origination allows for sets of actions (instead of just one Action), and each set might be associated with a ‘self’, but this is just speculation on my part. Have you had enough tea for today? If so, wash your teacups! Chuck said he’ll return to counting his breathes. If so, his teacup should be empty by now. Al, cut up your Master Card! …Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 10:47 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Al, Again, I think you are right. It is difficult for us not to wonder about these things, however, doing so serves no real purpose. Nothing is more futile than arguing matters of faith. I’ll return to counting my breaths J Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill Al, Both these kinds of issues cannot be determined and require a certain amount of faith and belief (less so in science). This is why Buddha remained silent when asked metaphysical questions of this kind. Answering them makes no difference to human suffering and Buddhism, after all, is only for the purpose of ending suffering - not deciding whether the universe was created etc. In India, when Buddhism became more interested in discussing these kinds of issues it died. Mike. - Original Message From: Al [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 6 July, 2008 6:57:50 AM Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill From: Chuck Gierhart When you ask this question about a blade of grass, the Pacific Ocean or a rock, no answer is possible. You can describe how these things interact with their environment or the benefit we derive from them but thatâ?Ts not the same as a purpose. To ask what purpose these things have is a loaded question. The question itself implies that a supreme being create them for a purpose. So you think that Zen is Atheism? That everything is a product of blind luck and evolution? That one single cell amoeba kept evolving over billions of years into incredibly complex strands of DNA for millions of completely unconnected creatures? Isn't Evolution an act of faith? Isn't the belief in no intelligent higher power also a religion? _ Not happy with your email address? Get the one you really want http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html __ NOD32 3244 (20080705) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Chuck, I assume you’re asking if Logic is dependent upon the belief in Cause Effect. This is a Good question, and one which addresses a possible overstatement in my post – even my revised post. I haven’t thought about this aspect in depth yet enough to answer you. I don’t have an opinion right now as to whether Logic comes before the belief in Cause Effect or vice versa, but both of these definitely precede and are the basis for science. If your question is asking if Logic is illusory, then the answer is definitely yes. Logic is a product of Subject/Object Duality, which is the real culprit here. It is the basis for the illusion of Self and everything else that follows. …Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:39 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Bill, Does that include this logic? From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 8:33 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill *** After a Good Night’s Sleep I’ve Revised this Posting in Green Font and Re-sent Al and Chuck, ALL LOGIC AND SCIENCE is based on ILLUSIONS and BELIEFS: an ILLUSION of subject/object (observation), an ILLUSION of time (separate sequential actions (digital)), and a BELIEF in cause effect (an illusory relationship between selected sets of separate sequential actions). Without these illusions and beliefs there is no logic, and without logic there is no science. The Buddhist doctrine of Dependent Origination is also an BELIEF based on the same a similar illusory relationship between separate sequential actions, but it is believed that there is only one Action (like the Big Bang) that is a continuous action (analog) and that the relationships are manifested in the changing form of the one of the one Action . Karma is a more complex illusion which is based on the belief of Dependent Origination, and then adds the concepts that the relationships can propagate qualities (good/bad, or some kind of quality), and these qualities can be associated with the actor (presumably the ‘self’ associated with the changes in the Action) and even accumulate. One way to accommodate this would be if Dependent Origination allows for sets of actions (instead of just one Action), and each set might be associated with a ‘self’, but this is just speculation on my part. Have you had enough tea for today? If so, wash your teacups! Chuck said he’ll return to counting his breathes. If so, his teacup should be empty by now. Al, cut up your Master Card! …Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 10:47 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Al, Again, I think you are right. It is difficult for us not to wonder about these things, however, doing so serves no real purpose. Nothing is more futile than arguing matters of faith. I’ll return to counting my breaths J Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill Al, Both these kinds of issues cannot be determined and require a certain amount of faith and belief (less so in science). This is why Buddha remained silent when asked metaphysical questions of this kind. Answering them makes no difference to human suffering and Buddhism, after all, is only for the purpose of ending suffering - not deciding whether the universe was created etc. In India, when Buddhism became more interested in discussing these kinds of issues it died. Mike. - Original Message From: Al [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 6 July, 2008 6:57:50 AM Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill From: Chuck Gierhart When you ask this question about a blade of grass, the Pacific Ocean or a rock, no answer is possible. You can describe how these things interact with their environment or the benefit we derive from them but thatâ?Ts not the same as a purpose. To ask what purpose these things have is a loaded question. The question itself implies that a supreme being create them for a purpose. So you think that Zen is Atheism? That everything is a product of blind luck and evolution? That one single cell amoeba kept evolving over billions of years into incredibly complex strands of DNA for millions of completely unconnected creatures? Isn't Evolution an act of faith? Isn't the belief in no intelligent higher power also a religion? _ Not happy with your email address? Get the one you really want http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html __ NOD32 3244 (20080705
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Bill, Not exactly. If “ALL LOGIC AND SCIENCE is based on ILLUSIONS and BELIEFS” then your logic is as well. It’s a bit like saying, “This statement is false,” the statement turns back on itself in a very confusing way. Logic is a system of thought devised by people that rigidly defines the relationship between symbols. It is true by definition. It really tells you nothing about the word. It works independently of content. If logic is an illusion what process could you use to discover the fact, certainly not logic. J Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 9:07 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Chuck, I assume you’re asking if Logic is dependent upon the belief in Cause Effect. This is a Good question, and one which addresses a possible overstatement in my post – even my revised post. I haven’t thought about this aspect in depth yet enough to answer you. I don’t have an opinion right now as to whether Logic comes before the belief in Cause Effect or vice versa, but both of these definitely precede and are the basis for science. If your question is asking if Logic is illusory, then the answer is definitely yes. Logic is a product of Subject/Object Duality, which is the real culprit here. It is the basis for the illusion of Self and everything else that follows. …Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:39 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Bill, Does that include this logic? From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 8:33 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill *** After a Good Night’s Sleep I’ve Revised this Posting in Green Font and Re-sent Al and Chuck, ALL LOGIC AND SCIENCE is based on ILLUSIONS and BELIEFS: an ILLUSION of subject/object (observation), an ILLUSION of time (separate sequential actions (digital)), and a BELIEF in cause effect (an illusory relationship between selected sets of separate sequential actions). Without these illusions and beliefs there is no logic, and without logic there is no science. The Buddhist doctrine of Dependent Origination is also an BELIEF based on the same a similar illusory relationship between separate sequential actions, but it is believed that there is only one Action (like the Big Bang) that is a continuous action (analog) and that the relationships are manifested in the changing form of the one of the one Action . Karma is a more complex illusion which is based on the belief of Dependent Origination, and then adds the concepts that the relationships can propagate qualities (good/bad, or some kind of quality), and these qualities can be associated with the actor (presumably the ‘self’ associated with the changes in the Action) and even accumulate. One way to accommodate this would be if Dependent Origination allows for sets of actions (instead of just one Action), and each set might be associated with a ‘self’, but this is just speculation on my part. Have you had enough tea for today? If so, wash your teacups! Chuck said he’ll return to counting his breathes. If so, his teacup should be empty by now. Al, cut up your Master Card! …Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 10:47 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Al, Again, I think you are right. It is difficult for us not to wonder about these things, however, doing so serves no real purpose. Nothing is more futile than arguing matters of faith. I’ll return to counting my breaths J Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill Al, Both these kinds of issues cannot be determined and require a certain amount of faith and belief (less so in science). This is why Buddha remained silent when asked metaphysical questions of this kind. Answering them makes no difference to human suffering and Buddhism, after all, is only for the purpose of ending suffering - not deciding whether the universe was created etc. In India, when Buddhism became more interested in discussing these kinds of issues it died. Mike. - Original Message From: Al [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 6 July, 2008 6:57:50 AM Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill From: Chuck Gierhart When you ask this question about a blade of grass, the Pacific Ocean or a rock, no answer is possible. You can describe how these things interact with their environment or the benefit we derive from them but thatâ?Ts not the same
Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
From: Chuck GierhartYou ask, Isn't the belief in no intelligent higher power also a religion? I can only say that not believing in something for which there is no evidence is not religion. Believing that everything happened purely by accident is as much a faith as anything else. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
From: Chuck Gierhart Evolution is not an act of faith. It is an act of observation. It's story is told in the fossil record and your RNA and DNA. The head of the Human Genome Project is a devout Christian and true believer in stem cell research. by David Ewing Duncan (published online February 20, 2007)(http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/interview-francis-collins) Francis Collins is changing the way we think about DNA. First he helped decode the human genome. Now he oversees a research empire at the National Human Genome Research Institute (part of the sprawling National Institutes of Health), leading the race to find disease-causing sequences hidden in our genes, doling out hundreds of millions in grant money each year, and defending controversial science in the charged politics of Washington, D.C. A devoted Christian, Collins defends evolution and embryonic stem cell research in his new book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006). He dismisses religious extremists and scientist-atheists as equally shrill and believes that both sides push their beliefs on a public who prefers that science and religion remain separate. In college Collins found biology boring and trained as a chemist, only to become a physician and then a famed gene hunter at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, where he identified the gene for cystic fibrosis and helped find the gene for Huntington's disease. He blazed into the public eye in the late 1990s during the bruising competition to sequence the human genome; he ran the $3.7 billion public effort while J. Craig Venter conducted a parallel effort using private funds. After much scientific mudslinging, the two sides declared a tie in 2000 and were feted jointly at the White House. Moving beyond mere code breaking, Collins has been focusing on the recently completed International HapMap Project, a genomic atlas of clusters of disease-causing snippets of DNA. The project catalogs human variability and identifies patterns of genes that are linked to health and disease. DISCOVER contributing editor Duncan spent an afternoon with Collins in his offices at the NIH. Collins, a lanky man in well-worn beige jeans and a flannel shirt, has an aw-shucks breeziness about him-an ease that belies his status as one of the most powerful scientists in the world. In your book, you stake a middle ground between the view that there is only science and the idea that an intelligent being directs human affairs. How do you strike a balance? We live in an unfortunate time when the Richard Dawkins crowd says religion is silly, and other people say evolution is silly. Most people don't agree with either extreme. The dominant position in the past for most working scientists was a middle ground: You use the tools of science to understand how nature works, but you also recognize that there are things outside of nature, namely God, for which the tools of science are not well designed to derive truth. The middle-ground position is that there is more than one way to find truth, and a fully formed effort to try to answer the most important questions would not limit you to the kinds of questions that science can answer, especially the eternal one: Why are we all here, anyway? You're a born-again Christian who suggests that therapeutic cloning could be acceptable. Some other devout people consider it fundamentally immoral. What do you see differently? There is a difference between doing research on an embryo that was generated by sperm and egg coming together, which is the way human beings are created, versus the very bizarre laboratory phenomenon of taking a nucleus from a skin cell or the udder cell of a sheep and putting it into an environment that takes it back in time to its stem cell state. In public discourse, they're both called embryos. Even though the somatic cell nuclear transfer approach is a very different biological phenomenon, in many people's minds it has been all blurred together. As a result, we've really missed out on a chance for a much more thoughtful, nuanced discussion, and we're still trying to recover from that. What kind of reaction has your book provoked? I didn't know quite what to expect, but the response has been amazing. Most of the large volume of letters and e-mails I have received have been encouraging and positive, both from the scientific community and from the religious community. A few scientists have written that it is inappropriate for a scientist to write about harmony with faith, because they think that faith already has too much power in the United States. A few conservative Christians have been stridently critical about my endorsement of theistic evolution. Most heartwarming have been a few dozen very personal messages from individuals who had been struggling with whether they were forced to make a choice between science and faith and were relieved to hear that it is possible to embrace both. What did you think you
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
*** After a Good Night’s Sleep I’ve Revised this Posting in Green Font and Re-sent Al and Chuck, ALL LOGIC AND SCIENCE is based on ILLUSIONS and BELIEFS: an ILLUSION of subject/object (observation), an ILLUSION of time (separate sequential actions (digital)), and a BELIEF in cause effect (an illusory relationship between selected sets of separate sequential actions). Without these illusions and beliefs there is no logic, and without logic there is no science. The Buddhist doctrine of Dependent Origination is also an BELIEF based on the same a similar illusory relationship between separate sequential actions, but it is believed that there is only one Action (like the Big Bang) that is a continuous action (analog) and that the relationships are manifested in the changing form of the one of the one Action . Karma is a more complex illusion which is based on the belief of Dependent Origination, and then adds the concepts that the relationships can propagate qualities (good/bad, or some kind of quality), and these qualities can be associated with the actor (presumably the ‘self’ associated with the changes in the Action) and even accumulate. One way to accommodate this would be if Dependent Origination allows for sets of actions (instead of just one Action), and each set might be associated with a ‘self’, but this is just speculation on my part. Have you had enough tea for today? If so, wash your teacups! Chuck said he’ll return to counting his breathes. If so, his teacup should be empty by now. Al, cut up your Master Card! …Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 10:47 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Al, Again, I think you are right. It is difficult for us not to wonder about these things, however, doing so serves no real purpose. Nothing is more futile than arguing matters of faith. I’ll return to counting my breaths J Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill Al, Both these kinds of issues cannot be determined and require a certain amount of faith and belief (less so in science). This is why Buddha remained silent when asked metaphysical questions of this kind. Answering them makes no difference to human suffering and Buddhism, after all, is only for the purpose of ending suffering - not deciding whether the universe was created etc. In India, when Buddhism became more interested in discussing these kinds of issues it died. Mike. - Original Message From: Al [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 6 July, 2008 6:57:50 AM Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill From: Chuck Gierhart When you ask this question about a blade of grass, the Pacific Ocean or a rock, no answer is possible. You can describe how these things interact with their environment or the benefit we derive from them but thatâ?Ts not the same as a purpose. To ask what purpose these things have is a loaded question. The question itself implies that a supreme being create them for a purpose. So you think that Zen is Atheism? That everything is a product of blind luck and evolution? That one single cell amoeba kept evolving over billions of years into incredibly complex strands of DNA for millions of completely unconnected creatures? Isn't Evolution an act of faith? Isn't the belief in no intelligent higher power also a religion? _ Not happy with your email address? Get the one you really want http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html __ NOD32 3244 (20080705) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com image001.gifimage002.gif
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Al, I know there is a danger looking at zen as a completely loose, 'roll you own', no rules type of practice. That's not exactly what I'm advocating, although I can certainly see where someone could think that. My comments to your very important post are imbedded below: One of the problems that I have had had with Christianity is that every minister has their own theory, and they claim everyone else is going to hell. I'm not really impressed with Christianity either, although I hadn't noticed the multiple-theory condition you mention. I definitely agree with you and am also very put-off by the 'everyone else is going to hell' part. Zen doesn't have that air of superiority. If you want to practice zen, fine. If you don't want to, fine. If you only want to practice at 50%, fine. At least that's what I've always seen in legitimate zen communities. At least the Catholics usually stick to one dogma, but I find the services to meaningless. Catholic Mass is non-stop song and dance. It is like a variety show from the 1970s. Traditional Catholicism is a great example of a RELIGION. It's full of pomp and circumstance, scripture and rules. Zen, at least as I have been taught and practice it, is not a religion. So then I go to Buddhism/Zen, and find it is more or less the same shit, different day. Everyone wants to create their own Nirvana, Samsara, etc. I really think you need to SEPARATE zen from Buddhism. Buddhism is a full-blown RELIGION. As it is taught and practiced in most places, it is probably even more ritualistic than Catholicism. Zen is not defined by any of the ritualization, sutras, rules, commandments, precepts of either Buddhism or Christianity, or any other religion. In fact zen sees all of these things as illusions - maya. These are all examples of the type of things you have to get rid of to shake off the illusion of self. Zen is simply letting go of your illusion of self, and then working on integrating that realization into you life. Your theory may sound right to you, but when you die and hit the void, Heaven, etc., or whatever it is, I would rather show up with something that has its basis in recognized scripture. I'd rather show up with something that comes from within me than some writings or ideas that came from someone else - even Gautama Buddha. It is like going to Disney World with Master-Card and Visa as opposed to bringing a pad of I-O-U-s and hoping Disney will accept it. I like your analogies, and really enjoy playing with you in that realm. What is a Master-Card but a plastic, third-party IOU? Disney might accept it, but you're still going to owe the issuer of the card. I'd rather show up at Disney Land with cash-in-hand - and that to me is like conviction from personal experience. .Bill! __ NOD32 3237 (20080702) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
Even if it were possible to trace every event/phenonema right back to the Big Bang - a belief in God is neither required nor a logical result of doing so. To a Buddhist, conceptual thinking in relation to phenonema is transcended and a more material, empirical method can be employed (zazen springs to mind in this sense). If you take a look around the room where you are now you`ll see lots of phenonema (actually, everything you see is phenonema). Same with all your senses. Can you give meaning to all you see, hear, touch etc? Does the feel of your bum on the seat have meaning? Does the taste of your last cigarette/meal/drink have meaning? Does the sound of the air-conditioner have meaning? You probably wouldn`t even notice these small (insignificant?) sensations unless they were pointed out because, quite frankly, we`d go insane if we noticed all thse things and attached meanings to them. However, the more noticeable phenonema we tend to give meanings to: a faimily member dies on Christmas Day, a comet is visible on your child`s birthday etc. Again, a theist will colour these (selected) events with a supernatural twist, but in Buddhism they are all `just` events. We can`t call it senseless stupidity because that judges the events too subjectively. Even less so are they unconnected. This is what interdependent origination is trying to point out. To give every phenonema a meaning doesn`t make sense because each phenonema is conditioned and interconnected in an infinite number of ways. According to Buddhism, you can`t take one event and give it some divine/supernatural meaning (although we try) and isolate it from a preceding conditional event. All lines drawn this way are purely arbitary and just a convenient way to label the meaningless `meaningful`. This doesn`t result in cold detachment, but gives the observer/experiencer of phenonema a better sense of equaninimity. After all, Buddhism isn`t interested in metaphysical explainations, but in ending suffering only. Mike. - Original Message From: Al [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, 3 July, 2008 7:15:53 PM Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill From: mike brown to give any phenonema a sense of purpose would require giving that phenonema a sense of purpose right back to the Big Bang. So there. Which is exactly what a belief in God means. You are saying that in the Buddhist concept it is all just senseless stupidity and mindless unconnected events? __ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Mike, It is appropriate to look at a man-made object or symbol and ask “What is this thing’s meaning or purpose?” It makes sense to ask this question about a chair, a poem or a computer because these things were conceived of and created my people. That’s where their meaning or purpose came from. When you ask this question about a blade of grass, the Pacific Ocean or a rock, no answer is possible. You can describe how these things interact with their environment or the benefit we derive from them but that’s not the same as a purpose. To ask what purpose these things have is a loaded question. The question itself implies that a supreme being create them for a purpose. Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 2:01 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill Even if it were possible to trace every event/phenonema right back to the Big Bang - a belief in God is neither required nor a logical result of doing so. To a Buddhist, conceptual thinking in relation to phenonema is transcended and a more material, empirical method can be employed (zazen springs to mind in this sense). If you take a look around the room where you are now you`ll see lots of phenonema (actually, everything you see is phenonema). Same with all your senses. Can you give meaning to all you see, hear, touch etc? Does the feel of your bum on the seat have meaning? Does the taste of your last cigarette/meal/drink have meaning? Does the sound of the air-conditioner have meaning? You probably wouldn`t even notice these small (insignificant?) sensations unless they were pointed out because, quite frankly, we`d go insane if we noticed all thse things and attached meanings to them. However, the more noticeable phenonema we tend to give meanings to: a faimily member dies on Christmas Day, a comet is visible on your child`s birthday etc. Again, a theist will colour these (selected) events with a supernatural twist, but in Buddhism they are all `just` events. We can`t call it senseless stupidity because that judges the events too subjectively. Even less so are they unconnected. This is what interdependent origination is trying to point out. To give every phenonema a meaning doesn`t make sense because each phenonema is conditioned and interconnected in an infinite number of ways. According to Buddhism, you can`t take one event and give it some divine/supernatural meaning (although we try) and isolate it from a preceding conditional event. All lines drawn this way are purely arbitary and just a convenient way to label the meaningless `meaningful`. This doesn`t result in cold detachment, but gives the observer/experiencer of phenonema a better sense of equaninimity. After all, Buddhism isn`t interested in metaphysical explainations, but in ending suffering only. Mike. - Original Message From: Al [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, 3 July, 2008 7:15:53 PM Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill From: mike brown to give any phenonema a sense of purpose would require giving that phenonema a sense of purpose right back to the Big Bang. So there. Which is exactly what a belief in God means. You are saying that in the Buddhist concept it is all just senseless stupidity and mindless unconnected events? _ Not happy with your email address? Get the one you really want http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
From: Chuck Gierhart When you ask this question about a blade of grass, the Pacific Ocean or a rock, no answer is possible. You can describe how these things interact with their environment or the benefit we derive from them but thatâ?Ts not the same as a purpose. To ask what purpose these things have is a loaded question. The question itself implies that a supreme being create them for a purpose. So you think that Zen is Atheism? That everything is a product of blind luck and evolution? That one single cell amoeba kept evolving over billions of years into incredibly complex strands of DNA for millions of completely unconnected creatures? Isn't Evolution an act of faith? Isn't the belief in no intelligent higher power also a religion? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Buddhism, as far as I know, in all of its many forms, does not believe in a supreme being or a soul. I think that blind luck and evolution is as good of an explanation for everything as anything. Evolution is not an act of faith. It is an act of observation. Its story is told in the fossil record and your RNA and DNA. You ask, Isnt the belief in no intelligent higher power also a religion? I can only say that not believing in something for which there is no evidence is not religion. Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:58 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill From: Chuck Gierhart When you ask this question about a blade of grass, the Pacific Ocean or a rock, no answer is possible. You can describe how these things interact with their environment or the benefit we derive from them but thatâ?Ts not the same as a purpose. To ask what purpose these things have is a loaded question. The question itself implies that a supreme being create them for a purpose. So you think that Zen is Atheism? That everything is a product of blind luck and evolution? That one single cell amoeba kept evolving over billions of years into incredibly complex strands of DNA for millions of completely unconnected creatures? Isn't Evolution an act of faith? Isn't the belief in no intelligent higher power also a religion?
Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
Chuck, True, but is the purpose of a chair inherent in object itself or is it given? A chair to an Amazonian pygmy would have a different purpose than it would to you or I. All objects/phenonema are empty of meaning. I think the `water pitcher` koan demonstrates this well. Mike. __ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
There may be some confusion here. I believe we are using “purpose” in two ways. There is purpose in the sense of “use” or the purpose we put something to. In that sense, your example of the pygmy holds. For each of us the chair may serve a different purpose or use. On the other hand, there is purpose in the sense of an explanation of why this thing was created. No matter who asks the question, the answer is simply a matter of fact. The chair was created so a person could sit on it. The monk’s bowl was created to hold rice. Its purpose is to hold rice. The purpose a thing is put to varies. The purpose something was create to serve, does not. I agree with you. Meaning is in people heads not in objects themselves. Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:23 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill Chuck, True, but is the purpose of a chair inherent in object itself or is it given? A chair to an Amazonian pygmy would have a different purpose than it would to you or I. All objects/phenonema are empty of meaning. I think the `water pitcher` koan demonstrates this well. Mike. _ Not happy with your email address? Get the one you really want http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Chuck, This is a very good question and a key to my beliefs. The self is an illusion (maya), so no beings actually have a self. Karma is also maya, and is only applicable to beings that have the illusion of self. Since an enlightened being does not have the illusion of self, so also does not have the illusion of karma. .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 10:01 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Bill, Is it the case that enlightened beings do not have a self and unenlightened beings do? Or is it the case that no being has a self and only enlightened beings are fully aware of the fact? Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:41 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Chuck, Regarding enlightenment and karma: Karma can be explained simply, and as you have stated in the post below, as the 'consequences of one's actions'. An enlightened being has no self, so does not act nor is acted upon. Also, having no self, there is nothing to which the karma could be assigned or accumulate. Just/Unjust, Good/Bad or any other dualistic labels are not applicable to karma. If you are subject to karma, karma just is (Al, justice?). If you are not subject to karma, then just bow, turn around and leave. .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:25 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Bill, Regarding enlightenment and karma, I suspect that it is not so much that an enlightened being is exempt from karma, but rather that they act so skillfully that their behavior does not create it. I do not pretend to understand how it is possible for the consequences of one's actions to have only neutral consequences. Perhaps it depends on one's intentions. I also suspect that karmic consequences can only be viewed as anomalous (Would unjust be a better word?) when limited to a certain temporal frame of reference. Buddhists claim that consequences of actions taken in other lives may manifest in this life, hence good things can happen to (seemingly) bad people and visa versa. I guess this means that we will never have enough information to label anything that befalls anyone as just or unjust . . . it just is. Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:56 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Chuck, Thanks for your post. I have read extensively on the Buddhist doctrine of Dependant Origination. On the surface it seems to contradict what I believe, but on deeper level it may be a way to ameliorate or explain away karmic anomalies. My interest on this topic is twofold, one zen/Buddhist-related and one not: . The zen/Buddhist-related slant focuses on karma, and my interpretations of teachings that a fully-enlightened being is not subject to karma. . The other slant focuses on what I believe are anomalies in predictability and probability theory which have I have observed in my professional life in which I do descriptive and predictive data analysis. Thanks again for your suggestion. .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 6:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill I cannot help with time, but you may want to look at the doctrine of dependant origination on the subject of cause and effect. From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:36 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Panda, Send an email to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] so I can get your email address, and I'll send you something on this.Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pandabananasock Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:31 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Dear Bill I hope you have not forgotten to dig up that material you have been working on regarding time/causeeffect. What it something I said?? Really though, if you are still willing to share, I'd still love to take a look! P-P-P-Panda __ NOD32 3224 (20080627) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __ NOD32 3233 (20080701) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __ NOD32 3237 (20080702) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __ NOD32 3237 (20080702) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Al, This is my theory. (We don't need no stinkin' badges!) .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:26 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] self is an illusion (maya), so no beings actually have a self. Karma is also maya, and is only applicable to beings that have the illusion of self. Since an enlightened being does not have the illusion of self, so also does not have the illusion of karma. Is this just your personal theory, or does it have a basis on some scripture? __ NOD32 3237 (20080702) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
-From: BillSmart@ This is my theory. Dear Bill, One of the problems that I have had had with Christianity is that every minister has their own theory, and they claim everyone else is going to hell. At least the Catholics usually stick to one dogma, but I find the services to meaningless. Catholic Mass is non-stop song and dance. It is like a variety show from the 1970s. So then I go to Buddhism/Zen, and find it is more or less the same shit, different day. Everyone wants to create their own Nirvana, Samsara, etc. Your theory may sound right to you, but when you die and hit the void, Heaven, etc., or whatever it is, I would rather show up with something that has its basis in recognized scripture. It is like going to Disney World with Master-Card and Visa as opposed to bringing a pad of I-O-U-s and hoping Disney will accept it. Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
.a more meaningful response: Al, This is my theory. (We don't need no stinkin' badges!) I can't site any sutra chapter and verse, but I've been taught that an enlightened being has 'escaped the wheel of life and death', which means to me has transcended karma. Also I've been taught that a 'bodhisattva' is defined as an enlightened being who has 'escaped the wheel of life and death', but has chosen to stay in this life in human form to help others. Another reference, and the one which started me thinking about all this - at least from the zen perspective, I'd already thought about it a lot from the rationalistic perspective - is the 10 Ox Herding Verses/Drawings. The last verse/drawing shows the fully enlightened being (a buddha or bodhisattva) returning to the village holding a jug of wine and carrying a fish he presumably caught. This to me depicts a being no longer subject to karma such as drinking alcohol or eating meat which are prohibited in most Buddhist sects. .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:26 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] self is an illusion (maya), so no beings actually have a self. Karma is also maya, and is only applicable to beings that have the illusion of self. Since an enlightened being does not have the illusion of self, so also does not have the illusion of karma. Is this just your personal theory, or does it have a basis on some scripture? __ NOD32 3237 (20080702) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Chuck, Regarding enlightenment and karma: Karma can be explained simply, and as you have stated in the post below, as the 'consequences of one's actions'. An enlightened being has no self, so does not act nor is acted upon. Also, having no self, there is nothing to which the karma could be assigned or accumulate. Just/Unjust, Good/Bad or any other dualistic labels are not applicable to karma. If you are subject to karma, karma just is (Al, justice?). If you are not subject to karma, then just bow, turn around and leave. .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:25 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Bill, Regarding enlightenment and karma, I suspect that it is not so much that an enlightened being is exempt from karma, but rather that they act so skillfully that their behavior does not create it. I do not pretend to understand how it is possible for the consequences of one's actions to have only neutral consequences. Perhaps it depends on one's intentions. I also suspect that karmic consequences can only be viewed as anomalous (Would unjust be a better word?) when limited to a certain temporal frame of reference. Buddhists claim that consequences of actions taken in other lives may manifest in this life, hence good things can happen to (seemingly) bad people and visa versa. I guess this means that we will never have enough information to label anything that befalls anyone as just or unjust . . . it just is. Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:56 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Chuck, Thanks for your post. I have read extensively on the Buddhist doctrine of Dependant Origination. On the surface it seems to contradict what I believe, but on deeper level it may be a way to ameliorate or explain away karmic anomalies. My interest on this topic is twofold, one zen/Buddhist-related and one not: . The zen/Buddhist-related slant focuses on karma, and my interpretations of teachings that a fully-enlightened being is not subject to karma. . The other slant focuses on what I believe are anomalies in predictability and probability theory which have I have observed in my professional life in which I do descriptive and predictive data analysis. Thanks again for your suggestion. .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 6:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill I cannot help with time, but you may want to look at the doctrine of dependant origination on the subject of cause and effect. From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:36 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Panda, Send an email to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] so I can get your email address, and I'll send you something on this.Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pandabananasock Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:31 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Dear Bill I hope you have not forgotten to dig up that material you have been working on regarding time/causeeffect. What it something I said?? Really though, if you are still willing to share, I'd still love to take a look! P-P-P-Panda __ NOD32 3224 (20080627) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __ NOD32 3233 (20080701) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __ NOD32 3237 (20080702) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
From: mike brown to give any phenonema a sense of purpose would require giving that phenonema a sense of purpose right back to the Big Bang. So there. Which is exactly what a belief in God means. You are saying that in the Buddhist concept it is all just senseless stupidity and mindless unconnected events? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Bill, Is it the case that enlightened beings do not have a self and unenlightened beings do? Or is it the case that no being has a self and only enlightened beings are fully aware of the fact? Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:41 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Chuck, Regarding enlightenment and karma: Karma can be explained simply, and as you have stated in the post below, as the 'consequences of one's actions'. An enlightened being has no self, so does not act nor is acted upon. Also, having no self, there is nothing to which the karma could be assigned or accumulate. Just/Unjust, Good/Bad or any other dualistic labels are not applicable to karma. If you are subject to karma, karma just is (Al, justice?). If you are not subject to karma, then just bow, turn around and leave. .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:25 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Bill, Regarding enlightenment and karma, I suspect that it is not so much that an enlightened being is exempt from karma, but rather that they act so skillfully that their behavior does not create it. I do not pretend to understand how it is possible for the consequences of one's actions to have only neutral consequences. Perhaps it depends on one's intentions. I also suspect that karmic consequences can only be viewed as anomalous (Would unjust be a better word?) when limited to a certain temporal frame of reference. Buddhists claim that consequences of actions taken in other lives may manifest in this life, hence good things can happen to (seemingly) bad people and visa versa. I guess this means that we will never have enough information to label anything that befalls anyone as just or unjust . . . it just is. Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:56 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Chuck, Thanks for your post. I have read extensively on the Buddhist doctrine of Dependant Origination. On the surface it seems to contradict what I believe, but on deeper level it may be a way to ameliorate or explain away karmic anomalies. My interest on this topic is twofold, one zen/Buddhist-related and one not: . The zen/Buddhist-related slant focuses on karma, and my interpretations of teachings that a fully-enlightened being is not subject to karma. . The other slant focuses on what I believe are anomalies in predictability and probability theory which have I have observed in my professional life in which I do descriptive and predictive data analysis. Thanks again for your suggestion. .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 6:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill I cannot help with time, but you may want to look at the doctrine of dependant origination on the subject of cause and effect. From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:36 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Panda, Send an email to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] so I can get your email address, and I'll send you something on this.Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pandabananasock Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:31 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Dear Bill I hope you have not forgotten to dig up that material you have been working on regarding time/causeeffect. What it something I said?? Really though, if you are still willing to share, I'd still love to take a look! P-P-P-Panda __ NOD32 3224 (20080627) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __ NOD32 3233 (20080701) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __ NOD32 3237 (20080702) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Panda, Send an email to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] so I can get your email address, and I'll send you something on this.Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pandabananasock Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:31 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Dear Bill I hope you have not forgotten to dig up that material you have been working on regarding time/causeeffect. What it something I said?? Really though, if you are still willing to share, I'd still love to take a look! P-P-P-Panda __ NOD32 3224 (20080627) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
Re: [Zen] Dear Bill
Don't send any naked pictures showing the cause and effect of time on your body (Young Bill versus Old Bill).
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
I cannot help with time, but you may want to look at the doctrine of dependant origination on the subject of cause and effect. From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:36 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Panda, Send an email to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] so I can get your email address, and I'll send you something on this.Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pandabananasock Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:31 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Dear Bill I hope you have not forgotten to dig up that material you have been working on regarding time/causeeffect. What it something I said?? Really though, if you are still willing to share, I'd still love to take a look! P-P-P-Panda __ NOD32 3224 (20080627) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Chuck, Thanks for your post. I have read extensively on the Buddhist doctrine of Dependant Origination. On the surface it seems to contradict what I believe, but on deeper level it may be a way to ameliorate or explain away karmic anomalies. My interest on this topic is twofold, one zen/Buddhist-related and one not: . The zen/Buddhist-related slant focuses on karma, and my interpretations of teachings that a fully-enlightened being is not subject to karma. . The other slant focuses on what I believe are anomalies in predictability and probability theory which have I have observed in my professional life in which I do descriptive and predictive data analysis. Thanks again for your suggestion. .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 6:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill I cannot help with time, but you may want to look at the doctrine of dependant origination on the subject of cause and effect. From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:36 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Panda, Send an email to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] so I can get your email address, and I'll send you something on this.Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pandabananasock Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:31 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Dear Bill I hope you have not forgotten to dig up that material you have been working on regarding time/causeeffect. What it something I said?? Really though, if you are still willing to share, I'd still love to take a look! P-P-P-Panda __ NOD32 3224 (20080627) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __ NOD32 3233 (20080701) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com image001.gifimage002.gif
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Bill, Regarding enlightenment and karma, I suspect that it is not so much that an enlightened being is exempt from karma, but rather that they act so skillfully that their behavior does not create it. I do not pretend to understand how it is possible for the consequences of one's actions to have only neutral consequences. Perhaps it depends on one's intentions. I also suspect that karmic consequences can only be viewed as anomalous (Would unjust be a better word?) when limited to a certain temporal frame of reference. Buddhists claim that consequences of actions taken in other lives may manifest in this life, hence good things can happen to (seemingly) bad people and visa versa. I guess this means that we will never have enough information to label anything that befalls anyone as just or unjust . . . it just is. Chuck From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:56 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Chuck, Thanks for your post. I have read extensively on the Buddhist doctrine of Dependant Origination. On the surface it seems to contradict what I believe, but on deeper level it may be a way to ameliorate or explain away karmic anomalies. My interest on this topic is twofold, one zen/Buddhist-related and one not: . The zen/Buddhist-related slant focuses on karma, and my interpretations of teachings that a fully-enlightened being is not subject to karma. . The other slant focuses on what I believe are anomalies in predictability and probability theory which have I have observed in my professional life in which I do descriptive and predictive data analysis. Thanks again for your suggestion. .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 6:34 PM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill I cannot help with time, but you may want to look at the doctrine of dependant origination on the subject of cause and effect. From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:36 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Panda, Send an email to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] so I can get your email address, and I'll send you something on this.Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pandabananasock Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:31 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Dear Bill I hope you have not forgotten to dig up that material you have been working on regarding time/causeeffect. What it something I said?? Really though, if you are still willing to share, I'd still love to take a look! P-P-P-Panda __ NOD32 3224 (20080627) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __ NOD32 3233 (20080701) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
RE: [Zen] Dear Bill
Panda, Sorry! I did forget. I'll start digging today! .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pandabananasock Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:31 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Dear Bill I hope you have not forgotten to dig up that material you have been working on regarding time/causeeffect. What it something I said?? Really though, if you are still willing to share, I'd still love to take a look! P-P-P-Panda __ NOD32 3224 (20080627) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
