group...much of being human is about feelings..most of the time folk act on their feelings... thinking rationally is in the too hard basket for many..if we did the world would not be in the mess it is now... and don't tell me to spell it out...merle 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
