Bill!, To be honest, I think you're addressing this issue from a slightly wrong perspective. Jumping from a high-building doesn't necessarily 'cause' death (you could use a parachute, land in water or fall onto an open top pillow-truck etc). Even if you fell onto concrete and died, can we really say it was jumping, or landing, that caused the death? Was death caused by the jump; the fall; the impact; the heart stopping; the skull fracturing; the brain being pierced by your jawbone etc.? There is in fact no real definitive causal link to the initial jump and moment of death. IMO this is where cause and effect are questioned, not just in Buddhism.but in Western philosophy, too (see David Hume).
Mike ________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011, 18:47 Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Anthony, I DO believe that jumping from a high building will cause death. I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that it is a belief and not an experience, therefore it is not real. It's only a belief - a concept. Just THIS! is experience and only an experience, therefore it is real. The term 'Just THIS!' which I use to communicate and the concept of 'Just THIS!' which you might form as a result of my communication are just terms and concepts. They are not real. You may believe in them if you wish but that doesn't make them real. If you experience 'Just THIS!' (Buddha Nature) then you will know it is real. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Bill, >  > If jumping from a high building will get oneself killed is not real, I don't > know what is real. Do you want to try it to find whether it is real? >  > 'Only just this is real is another of your belief system. >  > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011 9:00 AM > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > >  > > Anthony, > > You're partially correct. > > That is part of my belief system, but it's not real - it's just a belief > system. > > Only Just THIS! is real. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > Bill, > >  > > So that is your belief system, and it is real. > >  > > Anthony > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Sunday, 30 October 2011 4:52 PM > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > >  > > Anthony, > > > > If you're asking would I jump off a 9-story building, the answer is no, and > > the reason is because I would be afraid of getting hurt or killed. And yes, > > this is because of my belief in cause-and-effect. > > > > If you're asking about the raw experience of jumping off a 9-story building > > I'd say the experience when you landed would be pretty severe and your > > discriminating mind probably wouldn't have much of a chance to create such > > determinations as 'gee, this hurts', or 'this is bad', or 'I don't think > > I'll do that again!'. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > >  > > > While I can see that your statement regarding Buddha Nature experience > > > makes (zen) sense. You have to explain the cause and effect of a person > > > jumping from a nine story building. Does it have a determinant effect? Is > > > it 'raw'? > > >  > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > To: Zen_Forum@ > > > Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 10:29 AM > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > >  > > > Anthony, > > > > > > Quarks, dinosaurs, etc..., can only stand up to 'proof' if you have faith > > > in the 'proof', have faith in the scientific method, have faith in logic > > > and human concept of cause-and-effect. > > > > > > All belief systems are built on faith, and science is such a system. > > > > > > Only raw, un-filtered, un-censored, un-interpreted, un-categorized, > > > un-valuated sensory experience (Buddha Nature) can be accpeted without > > > faith. It is the only real thing you have. All else are concepts and > > > beliefs - and are based on faith, not immediate, raw experience. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > The story of turtles cannot stand proof, but quarks, dinosaurs, > > > > supernova... can. Science and historyÃÆ'‚ are as much a > > > > belief system as the knowledge that jumping from a nine story building > > > > without your psychic guru will get killed. They are less of that than > > > > Yehowa asking you to kill the people you conquered, and Buddha > > > > presenting a flower at the Vulture Peak. > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 9:27 AM > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > ...and is the endless series of turtles any less of a belief system > > > > than our theory of matter, molecules, atoms, atomic particles, hadrons, > > > > quarks, etc..ad infinitum? > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Historical facts and science are NOT based on a belief system. Many > > > > > times they run counter each other. For instance, a scientist was > > > > > lecturing on our solar system of the earth rotating around the sun. A > > > > > woman rose from seat and declared it nonsense. She said, 'the earth > > > > > is flat, supported by a huge turtle.' 'Who supports the turtle?', she > > > > > was asked. 'Oh, you stupid. It is supported by another turtle. And > > > > > still anothor turtle. It is turtles all the way down.' That is a > > > > > belief system. > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > Grasshopper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 4:13 PM > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > And so, little grasshopper, are you saying that 'historical facts' > > > > > and 'science' aren't based on a belief system? > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > Belief systems and historical facts are different things. It is OK > > > > > > to deify Buddha in sutras or any scriptures compiled in the name of > > > > > > Buddha, as long as you bear that in mind. However, historical facts > > > > > > such as the real life of Buddha and that of the sixth Patriarch had > > > > > > better be maintained in as close to history as possible. I consider > > > > > > the latter a 'science'. > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011 4:56 PM > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony and ED, > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't take any of the Sutras or the story of the Flower Sermon as > > > > > > absolute fact. I just assume they are mythic to a greater or lessor > > > > > > extent. Whether or not any of these things written about in the > > > > > > Sutras, the Bible or any other Holy Books actually happened is not > > > > > > important to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > I still believe the 'seeds' of Buddhism are containted in the > > > > > > Sutras; the 'seed' of Zen is revealed in the Flower Sermon; and the > > > > > > 'seed' of zen (Buddha Nature) already exists in every sentient > > > > > > being. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All teachings are continually evolving. See: > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature > > > > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find the Flower Sutra to be magnificent. Anyway, what matter to > > > > > > > me is > > > > > > > that the Flower Sutra edifies and inspires me - and that's all > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > matters to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --ED > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ED, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Flower Sermon appeared in the 14th century, while the > > > > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > > lived in the 6th Century BC, what happened in the 2,000 year gap? > > > > > > > Did > > > > > > > the physical Buddha returned from the grave to transmit the > > > > > > > dharma? Or > > > > > > > the 'dharmakaya' of the Buddha showed up to spread the untold > > > > > > > teaching? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
