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: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 9:07 PM To: [email protected] 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: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Bill, Does that include this logic? From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 8:33 PM To: [email protected] 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: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 10:47 AM To: [email protected] 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: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:34 PM To: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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 __________ NOD32 3245 (20080707) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
