Edgar, Digital computers do operate on a very simple form of logic. What they are not is a model of reality (I've never heard anyone claim that before) or even a model of how humans think (I've heard that before). They are a model of how we think we think.
...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > As usual you've got your understanding backwards. Computers work and software > works PRECISELY because the underlying logical system of computer logic > mirrors that of reality. That is the only way they could do what they do. > They both use essentially the same rules of logic. > > So if the underlying structure of reality nauseates you so be it, but it will > be difficult for you to realize the Buddha Nature of reality while you are > puking about it! > :-) > > Edgar > > > > On Mar 31, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > 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/
