Mike, Do Buddha nature, chaos, concept etc exist? Anthony
________________________________ From: mike brown <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 23 January 2012, 20:02 Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your friends & family react? Anthony, My point regarding Democritus' quote is that whatever man says about the universe/reality can only be opinion. I would include 'Buddha Nature' and 'chaos' in that, along with anything else you care to name, label or conceptualise about. Mike --- On Mon, 23/1/12, Anthony Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >From: Anthony Wu <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your >friends & family react? >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Date: Monday, 23 January, 2012, 21:39 > > > >Rewrisk, > >You tracked it correctly. Explained incorrectly. I referred to Mike's >contradiction against his usual way, by saying that nothing exists except >atoms and space. I did not state my view. Nevertheless, I give you a thesis >here. For instance, Bill insists nothing at all exists in this world (maybe >only chaos and Buddha nature exist).What is your comment? > >Anthony > >________________________________ >From: rewrisk <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Monday, 23 January 2012, 18:04 >Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your >friends & family react? > > >I am sorry was this not your post.I am surprised you take that materialistic >view. So all of your vipassana with ensuing red, brown, crimson lights are >just hallucinations.I thought I had tracked it correctly.--- In >[email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote:>> Hi,>  > You say, >'So Anthony do you really believe that you know something that does not >exist?> I would like to see such a thing?'>  > I never said that.>  > >Anthony> > > ________________________________> From: rewrisk <rewrisk@...>> >To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, 23 January 2012, 11:59> Subject: >Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your friends & >family react?> > >  > So Anthony do you really believe that you know >something that does not exist?> I would like to see such a thing?> > --- In >[email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote:> >> > Mike,> >  > > >Only just now you said atoms and empty space, and the rest don't. That is a materialistic view, which have existed (besides atoms and space) thousands of years.> >  > > Anthony> > > > > > ________________________________> > From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@>> > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2012, 0:13> > Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your friends & family react?> > > >  > > Hi Anthony,> > > > My point is that labeling phenonema and things is all just opinion. Saying I am, or am not, a Buddhist (for example) is to miss the point of Zen. Same with labeling phenonema as 'cause and effect' or 'freewill'. These things simply don't exist in the universe. We can claim they exist in the sense that counting exists, yet the number 4 doesn't. Same with unicorns and Buddhists.> > > > Mike> > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 15/1/12, Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote:> > > > > > >From: Anthony Wu <wuasg@>> > >Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your friends & family react?> > >To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>> > >Date: Sunday, 15 January, 2012, 8:53> > >> > >> > > > > >Mike,> > > > > >I am surprised you take that materialistic view. So all of your vipassana with ensuing red, brown, crimson lights are just hallucinations.> > > > > >Anthony> > >> > >________________________________> > >From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@>> > >To: [email protected] > > >Sent: Saturday, 14 January 2012, 21:29> > >Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your friends & family react?> > >> > > > > >Siska,> > >> > > Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is just opinion. > > >> > >                                                                                                             - Democritus> > >> > >> > >Mike > > >> > >--- On Sat, 14/1/12, siska_cen@ <siska_cen@> wrote:> > >> > >> > >>From: siska_cen@ <siska_cen@>> > >>Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your friends & family react?> > >>To: [email protected]> > >>Date: Saturday, 14 January, 2012, 23:17> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >>Hi Bill,It took a while for me to figure this :-) I'm rather slow, perhaps lately, if not always.The idea that cause and effect is illusory is quite new to me. I remember Anthony mentioning it before, but didn't really sink in. I thought the concept of cause and effect is something that is parallel to dependent origination, which is to say that everything is simultaneously affecting many other things in such complicated manner that our mind cannot really grasp it. Even if it can, it is actually of no use. As you said, the mind needs it to 'feel' secure.I never thought it as illusory though. Whatever we think about it IS illusory.Siska> > >>> > >>________________________________> > >>> > >>From: "Bill!" <BillSmart@> > > >>Sender: [email protected] > > >>Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:19:25 -0000> > >>To: <[email protected]>> > >>ReplyTo: [email protected] > > >>Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your friends family react? > > >>Siska,Yes, the concept of cause-and-effect is illusory.The belief in cause-and-effect is an attempt by your discriminating mind to 'understand' reality, to 'make sense'of experience which is fundamentally chaotic. It is a process of breaking up wholistic experience (Just THIS!) into pieces, and then to categorize and even directly associating some pieces with others by assigning a dependent cause-and-effect relationship to these pairs or sets of pieces. The establishment of these cause-and-effect relationships are done to fit your needs at the time. They are not absolute, objective or real. They are relational, subjective and illusory - this is because they are dependent upon your dualistic concept of self/other. The illusion of cause-and-effect helps you feel more comfortable and gives you a certain sense of control of life.The concept of karma is a spritualized version of cause-and-effect which is usually thought of as purely a physical> > relationship.The letting go of this illusion is sometimes referred to in zen stories as 'leaping into the abyss', or 'taking a step off the 100-ft flagpole'. These are teachings telling you that you must let go of your attachments (espcially to logic and the belief in cause-and-effect), come out of your fantasy comfort zone, throw away your illusory security blanket and throw yourself completly into the stark unknown and unknowable.There's no comforting assurance of cause-and-effect there. Just THIS!...Bill! --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote:>> Hi Bill,> > > The killing is not the cause and the dieing the effect.> Would you then say that cause and effect is illusory?> > Siska> -----Original Message-----> From: "Bill!" <BillSmart@>> Sender: [email protected]> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:18:32 > To: <[email protected]>> Reply-To: [email protected]> Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How> > did your friends & family react?> > Anthony,> > When I said 'outside agency' I meant 'outside of you' or 'other than you'. When you say 'karma functions by itself' you are implying that karma exists independently of you; like when you say 'not my will but Yours (God's) be done' you are implying that God exists independently of you. You are implying that 'karma' and 'God' are 'outside agencies' - outside of and/or separate from you.> > I am saying that both the concept of 'karma' and 'God' and all their supposed attributes and associated powers/activites are NOT separate from you. That are created by you - by your discriminating mind. They are illusory.> > If you kill, there is killing. If you are killed, you die. If you loot, there is looting. If you are looted, you loose property. The killing is not the cause and the dieing the effect. It is the same action viewed or described from two perspectives. It is Just THIS!> > This is my experience...Bill!> >> > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote:> >> > Bill,> >  > > The difference is that karma does not rely on God or any other 'outside agent'. It functions by itself. On the other hand, if you deny karma, does that mean whatever you do, whether killing, looting or burning, does not have any effects? You may say you rely on law to take care of it. But that is part of karma, at the human level. Nevertheless, it is more realistic than reliance on God. if all are illusory, killing and looting will be out of control. In that case, believing in God is better than believing in nothing.> >  > > Anthony> > > > > > ________________________________> > From: Bill! <BillSmart@>> > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, 9 January 2012, 13:00> > Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your friends & family react?> > > > > >  > > Anthony,> > > > How are they different concepts?> > > > Both> have to do with> > action/reaction (cause and effect), and both exist as a concept in your mind.> > > > Labeling some actions/reactions or cause/effect as good or bad (good deeds lead to reward or sin leads to punishment; or accumulation of [bad] karma leads to being re-born as a toad) is just packaging. Likewise attributng the enforcement of actions/reactions or cause/effect to an outside agency such as karma or God is also just packaging.> > > > It all looks the same to me - illusory, dualistic packaging.> > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote:> > >> > > Bill,> > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > It is a different message you wrap in the same envelope.> > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > Anthony> > > > > > > > > ________________________________> > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@>> > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Monday, 9 January 2012, 9:15> > > Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your friends &> family react?> > > > > >> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > Anthony,> > > > > > You definition of karma is well stated, but why do you not think that definition could not also be applied to the Christian concept of sin/obedience and Hell/Heaven?> > > > > > For me it's the same message in a different envelope.> > > > > > ...Bill!> > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote:> > > >> > > > That is not karma, but reward and punishment by God. Karma is action and reaction by yourself through your own mind (or Buddha nature).> > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Anthony> > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________> > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@>> > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012, 18:03> > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your friends & family react?> > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Christians beleive in 'karma'> also: if you're 'good' you go to Heaven and if you're> > 'bad' you go to Hell...Bill!> > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > ItÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ is not at all surprising that you got a funny reaction from people surrounding you when you said you were interested in Buddhism. Try doing the same thing with Moslems, and you get a funnier response. Even in this forum, which is less hostile to Buddhism, you find different views on it. > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > The key point in Buddhism is karma. But Hinduism also agrees to karma. The difference between the two is the former insists that karma is your own business, nobody else can help you change it. However, in Hinduism, there are powerful deities who respond to your requests and assist you. Don't forget we are a zen forum, and there are a view I term chaotic> zen, which denies anything on karma, or any laws or rules. They say everything is in chaos. On> > the other hand, you will also hear all kinds of Buddhist views here. I hope you have fun here. > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > Anthony> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________> > > > > From: dan_guzy <dan_guzy@>> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 January 2012, 16:08> > > > > Subject: [Zen] When you began learning about buddhism, How did your friends & family react?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > I seem to be having trouble with this. I'm new to buddhism, just recently starting reading up on it the past several months, although technically> I've been exposed to it for many years through a variety of tv shows, movies, etc. My favorite was Kung Fu: The Legend Continues. Don't know why, but the scenes with the shoalin temple> > and buddhist monks were always my favorite. > > > > > > > > > > Although I haven't come right out and said to my family (except for my sister) that I'm learning about Buddhism, they've seen the books and notes I leave to myself pertaining to it. So far, it has not been encouraging. They kind of give a disgusted look or a groan when they see it that suggests that they are not happy about it. They are catholics. I'm an atheist (which they've known for years). When I finally told my sister that I'd like to visit a temple in town, she got disqusted and said "why? You'll never go with me to my church, but you'll go to a buddhist church?" I didn't know what to say, so I told her the truth, that I didn't feel anything for catholicism anymore, and that it didn't feel like the right religion for me. She wasn't pleased.> > > > > > > > > > Then today I was having a chat with a co-worker and boss at work. I get along great with both of them, known them for several> > years. My co-worker mentioned she and her husband were atheists, so I told her I was too. We both got a kick out of it realizing that we never knew that about each other. Then I mentioned to her that I had been reading up on buddhism lately, and she gave the same kind of groan I've been hearing from my family. My boss just sort of gave a look of shock and disbelief, didn't say anything. I couple of weeks or so before that, I was discussing various books with another boss that we like to read, and I mentioned one I'd been reading called the Peaceful Warrior. He asked what it was about so I told him, and when I mentioned it has a buddhist theme to it, he gave a funny look.> > > > > > > > > > What's funny about all of this is that I've always figured buddhism to be one of the most revered and highly respected forms of philosophy and religion on earth. Even growing up I felt that way. When I go online to Yahoo Answers R&S forum to ask a question pertaining> > to it, I haven't had any bad replies over a single question, and if any of you have ever been on there, you know they can be harsh sometimes in that section. So it really threw me for a loop seeing all these crazy reactions from people I know.> > > > > > > > > > Did any of you get these same reactions from the people you knew when you were first learning about buddhism?> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>> >>
