"Karma is intention" - Buddha
Intention, is attachment! *L*
At the other end of the umbilical is expectation, AKA 'suffering'
KG
PS - Manifesting Buddha nature is not optional, though realizing this
appears to be. ;)
On 10/13/2012 5:42 AM, Bill! wrote:
Mike,
Well for starters during my koan study the most troublesome koan for
me was HYAKUJO'S FOX. After my initial breakthrough koan I seemed to
race through the next 10 or so until I got to that one. I finally
passed it but it took me almost a month of intense effort.
Notwithstanding my response to HYAKUJO'S FOX I'll just say this:
You asked: "...what [do] you think about the Buddhist idea of cause
and effect?"
I ASSUME by that you mean 'karma'. I believe karma like all other
metal constructs is illusory. What that means is I believe if you are
attached to your dualistic illusions, especially that of self, you are
subject to karma.
If however you not attached to your illusions, or better yet are
manifesting Buddha Nature there is no self, so there is no karma.
...Bill!
--- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote:
>
> Bill!,
>
> >I'm not the only one who has these doubts.
>
>
> You're certainly in good company! But if you're skeptical about
cause and effect in science (as am I.. you're now in excellent
company), I'd be interested as to what you think about the Buddhist
idea of cause and effect?
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bill! <BillSmart@...>
> To: [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 10:13
> Subject: [Zen] Re: I need some practice advice
>
>
> Â
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the tip but I'm very aware of this.
>
> I've got Hume's COMPLETE WORKS which include his AN ENQUIRY INTO
HUMAN UNDERSTANDING in which he records his thoughts about
cause-and-effect, and Kant's A CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON on my Kindle
they are both loaded with my yellow highlights. Also Plato's
PARMENDIDES, Betrand Russel's THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY and of course
THE PARADOXES OF ZENO.
>
> I'm not the only one who has these doubts.
>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, mike brown <uerusuboyo@> wrote:
> >
> > Bill!,
> >
> > For me, David Hume does a great job of dispelling the idea of
cause and effect. Although useful, cause and effect is nothing more
than an assumption about the future based on observation of repeated
phenomena. For example, is pushing on a light switch the cause of the
light turning on? We observe that this happens 99 out of a hundred
times, but is the pressing of the switch or the electricity travelling
down the wires, the heating of the element? etc etc This could
continued almost ad infinitum to the point where the finger pushing
the switch seems like a different event entirely. So we just assume
that pushing a light switch will turn on the light. Anyway, that's my
(simplistic) understanding of Hume.
> >
> > In Buddhism, however, cause and effect can be taken somewhat
differently. In terms of suffering, the Buddha found that 'if this
arises - so does that. If this doesn't arise - that doesn't arise'. We
can observe within ourselves that if greed, hate, anger (this) etc.
arises then suffering/dissatisfaction (that) arises, too. If love,
compassion, peace arises then Happiness arises. If hate, anger etc
don't arise then suffering doesn't arise. Compared to a scientific
observation, this truth of Buddhist cause and effect can be observed
by each and every one of us, until... ; )
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Bill! <BillSmart@>
> > To: [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 4:15
> > Subject: [Zen] Re: I need some practice advice
> >
> >
> > Ã,Â
> > Joe,
> >
> > Then I'll add to my sparse defintion:
> >
> > Science is a religion whose method is based on a faith in the
concept of cause-and-effect and whose 'corpus' is based on the
dualistic illusion of subject/object.
> >
> > Is that better?
> >
> > ...Bill!
> >
> > --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill!,
> > >
> > > Some of the body of Science -- the corpus, not the Method -- is
pure categorization, based on stringent and accumulated, vetted,
observation.
> > >
> > > Botany, for example. And some basics of Astronomy. Geology.
> > >
> > > What's formed and what accumulates are lists of entities and
their properties, and how to tell them apart. No causality yet.
> > >
> > > I think, at that level, observational science is more an Art, or
act of careful book-keeping, than it is yet Religion, or other
endeavor dependent on Faith. It's a fun stage of the game!, and it
takes a lot of work.
> > >
> > > --Joe
> > >
> > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Edgar,
> > > >
> > > > Science is a religion based on faith in the concept of
cause-and-effect.
> > >
> >
>
