Joe, IMO all concepts (like cause-and-effect) are illusory. The 'exist' in the same way all illusions 'exist'. The are created by us (humans, and maybe other rational beings too)and superimposed on experience. I assume we do this because it gives us a sense of order and therefore control over what is undoubtedly pure chaos.
When I use the phrase in single parenthesis 'out there', I mean the dualistic illusion that there is an 'out there'. I know many/most of you really believe there are what you call 'principals' or 'laws of nature' (and now I have to add) 'out there'. You believe these principals or laws exist independent of you and that you, the smart fellow that you are, have the ability to observe, recognize, separate out, classify and document these principals. I don't believe that. I believe we create them, or at least some of us who are really, really smart create them and then teach them to the rest of us, which of course we all believe on faith. That faith is bolstered by our ability to observe the same principals or laws at work in our own dualisitic and rationalized perception of our experience. Kapeesh? ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > I've seen you put it like this several times before, and I think you are > being a little amiss in how you're saying one small part of this. > > I don't think you mean the "concept" doesn't exist "out there". > > I think you mean a kind of functioning that results in what looks to us like > cause and effect does not exist out there. > > By contrast, of course the concept exists: it exists in us, as a concept. > Otherwise it would not be a concept for us. Concepts exist nowhere else but > in us, so of course we won't find it "out there". > > But, what about the "functioning" I refer to above? ...the functioning that > results in our ascribing cause and effect. I would not say it exists out > there as a concept (as I think you would not). I would not say it exists out > there as a Principle. I would not say it exists out there as a Law. I think > all we can say is that there is a functioning, and that functioning is a > VERB, not a noun. It functions. But we do not see "something" functioning, > or the mechanics and gears of the functioning. We see instead manifestations > or consequences. Consequences of WHAT? When we ask that, "WHAT?", and > ANSWER it, this is where we start drawing up phantoms. And we attach to > them, if we are not awake. They become our models. It's OK to use the > phantoms for our purposes, and emploit them in our skilful means. But > attachment to them as something "out there" is the root of suffering. The > concept or idea of a self is one of these "things", I know everyone here > agrees. > > --Joe > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > Mike, > > > > I'm not denying that cause-and-effect seems to provide independent > > conditioning in the world of forms (illusions), I'm saying like the world > > of forms the concept of cause-and-effect is just a projection of our > > rational mind. It's not something that exists 'out there' independent of > > intellect. > > > > This is a good example of the question: "If a tree falls in the forest and > > no one (human) is there, is there a sound?" No, there isn't. > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
