calm..a down children..i say it once i say it twice..and now i say it once
again..karmarama ... with no drama!..merle
"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], 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]
>> 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], 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]
>> > Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 4:15
>> > Subject: [Zen] Re: I need some practice advice
>> >
>> >
>> > ÂÂ
>> > 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], "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.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
