Mike,

Bill doesn't believe in a nature or natural law. In his deluded mind these are 
delusional products OF HIS MIND.

Bill is a solipsist but solipsism is NOT zen.....

Edgar



On Mar 30, 2013, at 9:02 AM, mike wrote:

> Bill!,
> 
> I'm happy to drop it if you want, but I think we're kind of saying the same 
> thing, but differently (if that makes sense?). The only thing I'd disagree 
> with you tho is that conditions are not just a human thing. It's found in 
> nature too. That's why mangoes don't grow n the Sahara and mice don't hunt 
> cats.
> 
> Mike
> 
> --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> > 
> > This whole dialog is getting over my head and is taking me to a place I 
> > really don't want to go - and that is talking ABOUT zen and Buddha Nature 
> > and trying to EXPLAIN them rather than just describing experience.
> > 
> > That being said, my take on this is that you can embrace (form attachments) 
> > to illusions such as identifying with living in Thailand or seeing your 
> > loved ones as independent selves or believing everything is subject to 
> > cause-and-effect and is independently conditioned. That's a very human 
> > thing to do. All zen (and as best as I can understand Buddhist dogma) says 
> > about this is IF YOU DO you are subject to suffering.
> > 
> > If you don't mind the suffering or believe the upside is at least as 
> > pleasant as the downside is painful then go for it.
> > 
> > But this IMO is not zen.
> > 
> > ...Bill! 
> > 
> > --- In [email protected], "mike" <uerusuboyo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill!,
> > > 
> > > I think it was Gary Snyder who wrote (and I paraphrase badly):
> > > 
> > > 'A farmer holding a turnip pointing the Way'.
> > > 
> > > Don't you see that? We know that a turnip, Thailand, 'I', the ones we 
> > > love, are illusory - in the sense that they're not separate, independent 
> > > objects with an enduring 'self', but why Is it illusory to see them as 
> > > independent selves? Because we know they're interdependently conditioned. 
> > > Take that away and you'd have the absurdity of a peach tree growing on 
> > > the moon and Merle suddenly waking up tomorrow as a Mongolian. 
> > > 
> > > Not all conditions are made by us. Why were you born in the US? There are 
> > > conitions that predate you (n fact, they ultimately go back to the Big 
> > > Bang). And when I say 'you' we can make it that bundle of DNA if you 
> > > like. Try as you might, you (as Bill) can't escape the fact that cause 
> > > and effect define who you are and why you are while you live in Samsara. 
> > > Better to be a human in this lifetime with the potential of Buddhahood, 
> > > than to be a fox for the next 500 lifetimes! ; )
> > > 
> > > Mike
> > > 
> > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mike,
> > > > 
> > > > IMO…
> > > > 
> > > > Form (things/phenomena) don't point to a truth. Truth is only 
> > > > experienced. Truth is Buddha Nature. Truth is absolute.
> > > > 
> > > > A `relative' truth would be YOUR truth, or MY truth. That's no longer 
> > > > `form' but `content'. I call all content illusory because each of us 
> > > > create us ourselves (relatively). It might mean a lot to you (be true) 
> > > > but could be meaningless to me (not be true).
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not concerned with teaching guides. Nothing I or anyone could teach 
> > > > you about experience of Buddha Nature would be of value anyway. You've 
> > > > got to experience yourself. That doesn't mean you have to then go on 
> > > > and fill-in all form with content for yourself, although you and I do 
> > > > indeed do that, I'm certain. That means you have to recognize the form 
> > > > as empty, and the content you've created as illusory. The only way I 
> > > > know how to do that is zazen.
> > > > 
> > > > The self is illusory, and so is the distinction between `you' and 
> > > > `those' you love or hate.
> > > > 
> > > > There are conditions but I MAKE THEM. They are illusory. The `I' that 
> > > > woke up this morning is an illusory `I'. The distinction that 
> > > > `Thailand' is a unique place separate from other places is illusory. I 
> > > > MAKE THOSE conditions with my human intellect.
> > > > 
> > > > The is no `Law' except the one we make with our intellect.
> > > > 
> > > > My point is…none of these things/phenomena/truths/conditions are bad 
> > > > things, nor are they even necessarily detrimental to or obscure the 
> > > > manifestation of Buddha Nature. You can see through these if you do not 
> > > > become deceived and believe they have substance (content) and are not 
> > > > just what they are – empty forms. When you start believing they are 
> > > > real (relatively) you are prone to form ATTACHMENTS that can that then 
> > > > can obscure Buddha Nature.
> > > > 
> > > > That's the best I can do to explain my UNDERSTANING of the experience 
> > > > of Buddha Nature and of illusions.
> > > > 
> > > > …Bill! 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > From: uerusuboyo@ <uerusuboyo@>; 
> > > > To: BillSmart@ <BillSmart@>; 
> > > > Subject: RE: [Zen] Cause-and-Effect 
> > > > Sent: Sat, Mar 30, 2013 7:47:56 AM 
> > > > 
> > > > Bill!,
> > > > 
> > > > Of course, the labels we use to name things/phenomena are meaningless 
> > > > by themselves, but they point to a truth. A relative truth (such as 
> > > > 'self'), but a truth none-the-less. To just say everything is 
> > > > "illusory" means very little and does even less as a teaching guide. 
> > > > This is what Buddha was getting at. He never denied a self as just 
> > > > being illusory - I'm very much real and so are the people I love - but 
> > > > he recognised that it is a self created by conditions (if there are no 
> > > > conditions, then how come you didn't wake up as a Chinese man this 
> > > > morning? How did you come to live in Thailand?) and that these 
> > > > conditions influence our thoughts/actions leading to further conditions 
> > > > etc etc. A simple contemplation of your life thus far would quickly 
> > > > bear witness to this Law. Oh, I forgot! "your" and "life" are concepts, 
> > > > and therefore illusory, so.... what was your point again? ; )
> > > > 
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Reply via email to