Chris, et al... Absolutley! "Why?" is a useless question because even if there was an answer (which I think there is not) we wouldn't be able to comprehend it anyway. We'd just have to call it "God"..Bill!
--- In [email protected], Chris Austin-Lane <chris@...> 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, <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 isâ¦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 â" 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > â¦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/
