Mike, Maybe he'll get there in his next thousand lives but I doubt it...
I've been explaining it to him for several years but he still doesn't get it... Edgar On Mar 30, 2013, at 10:35 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Don't worry, he'll get there. Even Dogen favoured an interdependent universe > that depends on our actions to determine its causal structure. It is possible > to jump off that roundabout, but it's not by denying cause and effect (the > Fox koan) as illusion. > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone > > From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]>; > To: <[email protected]>; > Subject: Re: [Zen] Cause-and-Effect > Sent: Sat, Mar 30, 2013 1:55:00 PM > > 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 >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
