I have to admit, I was pulling for you on this one. Although I
may not have grasped the full meaning of all of the posts, It seems
to me the jist of it was full of zen. Especially zen buddhism where
we acknowledge that we are here as a result of causality. Don't we?
We may not try to rationalize or analyze those causes, but we do
acknowldege they have brought us to this point, don't we? Like the
theories of interdependence and interbeing, as have been mentioned
before. I know the great JM has also mentioned something about
events happening now are a result of causes, and those causes are a
result of causes of causes. Am I on the right track? Dumb it down a
bit for me if I'm not!
Anyway, I'm sure that a lot can be related to zen, when we want it
to. But when the discussion does not go our way, we can say it does
not. IMHO causality has a lot to do with zen. Even though I believe
that anlayzing the 'rules' that apply to causes of causes may lead
you away from True Zen, these rules most definitely exist and this
is most certainly a forum for that discussion.
You had him on the ropes and he tapped! I'm sure he'll come back
stronger like the true champion he is.
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> I have no essential disagreement with your statements below as you
> seem to agree that you find it useful to follow the rules of
> causality when dealing with other people. Thus you do agree that
> those rules govern the realm of illusion, which of course is
> by your many successful actions within that realm without your
> to say a word.
> I do find it amusing that you who denies the utility and even the
> reality of rational discussion should then go on to criticize me
> not engaging in a rational discussion!
> Zen reminds us that when we start getting our hackles up a little
> there is a lesson there waiting to be learned - something more we
> need to recognize and release.
> On Oct 15, 2008, at 1:06 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Edgar,
> > My responses are embedded below:
> > >Maybe you say they are illusory, but you still follow and live
> > according
> > >to the rules of causality 24/7 and have been all your life,
> > perhaps
> > >when sitting in zazen. Why is that if they aren't valid rules?
> > Events are illusory. Relationships between events are illusory
> > rules applying to those relationships (causation) are illusory.
> > These are a
> > part of a collection of illusory concepts which is called time
> > analogous
> > to the collections of concepts called plane geometry. Points
> > location but no length, width or depth. If you connect two
> > you form
> > a line, and can continue to connect multiple lines in various
> > to form a
> > shape. Once you've formed a shape you can invent and apply rules
> > these
> > shapes (like the square of the hypotenuse of right triangle is
> > equal to the
> > sum of the squares of the other two sides). Nowhere in reality
> > you
> > find a point, a straight line (or any line for that matter),
> > certainly
> > not a right triangle to which you can apply the rule cited
> > Events
> > are asynchronous and have no duration. You can connect events
> > various
> > relationships, and you can make up rules for these
> > causality. Likewise in reality there are no events, no
> > between events and certainly no relationships to which you can
> > apply the
> > rule of causality. These are all illusory - pretend. They are
> > seeing
> > a dog shape in the clouds, or seeing the face of Jesus on a
> > They are
> > desperate attempts of your rational, dualistic mind to find
> > in chaos.
> > They are wishful thinking.
> > If what you're trying to get across is that in both cases
> > (collection of
> > illusions that make up plane geometry and time) the rules
> > from these
> > illusions are useful when interacting with others who share
> > illusions,
> > then I won't disagree. It's also useful to follow the social
> > cultural
> > rules of the society you live in, but that doesn't make them
> > absolute. They're just a mutually agreed upon social contract.
> > you're still trying to assert that these rules (like causation)
> > real, or
> > are derived from something real, then I vehemently disagree.
> > >You need to be careful in maintaining illusions aren't 'real'.
> > Illusion
> > >is part and parcel of reality but should be recognized as
> > illusion. Even
> > >when seen as illusion, it still doesn't disappear, only its
> > >realness disappears.
> > Illusions are not real, therefore they are not part of reality.
> > They are at
> > best heavily filtered, diluted and polluted representations of
> > reality.
> > That's what illusions are. Illusions are insubstantial and
> > Illusions can disappear. Reality is substantial and eternal.
> > cannot disappear.
> > >BTW, I'm a Goh player, not a chess man. Goh, to me, seems much
> > directly
> > >in tune with Tao, i.e., with the rules of fundamental causality.
> > Go may indeed be in tune with causality. So of course is chess.
> > far as
> > I know all board games have a basis in logic, which is a
> > causality.
> > >But I do have to ask you, if there is no causality how do you
> > >to checkmate my queen?
> > I don't have to checkmate you now. By declining to engage in
> > argument concerning causality you have apparently resigned.
> > ...Bill!
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:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: