Merle, Yes, that is kind of what I was saying...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > > > >  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 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/
