Or as I like to point out the answer to Why? Is invariably "the entire history of the universe till now." Why is generally not a useful question.
Thanks, --Chris 301-270-6524 On Mar 30, 2013 11:03 PM, <[email protected]> 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! <[email protected]>; > * 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
