Chris, Exactly! The current state of the world of forms is the computational result of an immense network of cause and effect going back to the big bang....
Aristotle was I think the first who recognized the several different categories of cause; such as proximate cause, necessary cause, sufficient cause etc. 'Why' generally glosses over all these seeking a simplified and often misleading answer... Edgar On Mar 31, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
