Mike and Edgar, I don't think either of you can even imagine how completely nauseating Edgar's comparison of reality and a computer's operating system is to me. It's got to be the ultimate in human hubris and anthropomorphism.
...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Mike, > > This is largely correct and pretty well stated. The best model is that the > world of forms is analogous to a computer in which the laws of nature compute > the states of nature, both being information forms, just as computer software > and data are information forms. > > Just as a computer operates according to rules, so does the computational > system of reality. In effect the universe continually computes its current > state of existence. > > Understanding this mechanism is essential to Zen because only thus can one > realize 'the true nature of things'. > > Edgar > > > > > > On Mar 31, 2013, at 2:03 AM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > Bill!, > > > > There are many different terms for the same thing. The most well known in > > the Buddhist lexicon is 'dependent origination', but equally you might come > > across 'dependent arising', inter pendent co-arising, 'conditioned arising' > > and other such terms. They just mean that everything arises in dependence > > on a multitude of conditions and causes. > > > > As I said before, a simple contemplation of your own life will point to the > > truth of this. It's also not just the relationship of human interaction to > > phenomena. For example, why does a harvest flourish one year but not the > > next if not because of conditions? > > > > This is the complementary to the notion of emptiness, too (that nothing > > exists as a singular, independent entity). > > > > I copied the passage below from wiki because it explains the meaning quite > > well: > > > > "The general or universal definition of pratityasamutpada (or "dependent > > origination" or "dependent arising" or "interdependent co-arising") is that > > everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions; > > nothing exists as a singular, independent entity.[b][c] A traditional > > example used in Buddhist texts is of three sticks standing upright and > > leaning against each other and supporting each other. If one stick is taken > > away, the other two will fall to the ground. Thich Nhat Hanh explains:[9] > > Pratitya samutpada is sometimes called the teaching of cause and effect, > > but that can be misleading, because we usually think of cause and effect as > > separate entities, with cause always preceding effect, and one cause > > leading to one effect. According to the teaching of Interdependent > > Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise (samutpada) and everything is a > > result of multiple causes and conditions... In the sutras, this image is > > given: "Three cut reeds can stand only by leaning on one another. If you > > take one away, the other two will fall." For a table to exist, we need > > wood, a carpenter, time, skillfulness, and many other causes. And each of > > these causes needs other causes to be. The wood needs the forest, the > > sunshine, the rain, and so on. The carpenter needs his parents, breakfast, > > fresh air, and so on. And each of those things, in turn, has to be brought > > about by other causes and conditions. If we continue to look in this way, > > we'll see that nothing has been left out. Everything in the cosmos has come > > together to bring us this table. Looking deeply at the sunshine, the leaves > > of the tree, and the clouds, we can see the table. The one can be seen in > > the all, and the all can be seen in the one. One cause is never enough to > > bring about an effect. A cause must, at the same time, be an effect, and > > every effect must also be the cause of something else. Cause and effect > > inter-are. The idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself > > need a cause, cannot be applied.[d]" > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...>; > > To: <[email protected]>; > > Subject: Re: FW: RE: [Zen] Cause-and-Effect > > Sent: Sun, Mar 31, 2013 4:52:57 AM > > > > > > Mike, > > > > There's no need for you to drop a dialog that interests you. I'm a big boy > > so if there comes a time when I don't want to participate anymore I'll stop. > > > > I'm not really clear on just exactly what you're referring to as > > 'conditions' or 'independently conditioned'. Maybe if you'd explain what > > that means to you it would help. What I've been assuming so far is that it > > refers to the rational structure that I believe we create and superimpose > > on our experiences, and that you believe is actually 'out there somewhere' > > and that we discover or learn about. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "mike" <uerusuboyo@> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
