Bill, Your point is along the line of the mind only philosophy, which says nothing is real except the mind. But whether or not the reality is chaos, no rules, no cause and effect and no flowing time sequence is another matter. Besides the existence of absolute reality (which I don't deny), you should consider the conventional wisdom. Otherwise, how do you make a living on computer software. Next time your customer calls on you, you can just go and throw their computer out of the window to complete the 'chaos'. Anthony
________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2011 3:42 PM Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Anthony, You can 'deduce' all you want. That doesn't make your deductions real. They may be and they may not. I can see what I think are footprints in the snow and deduce they were made by Bigfoot. That doesn't make Bigfoot real - although I might realy, truly believe in his existence. Experience is real, nothing else. And that doesn't mean your perceptions of experience, that means just your raw, unfiltered experience. I call the awareness of that Buddha Nature. I do work in computers. They are a manifestation of logic and sequential time - at least finite state (digital) computers are. Reality is not a manifestation of logic or sequential time no matter how much humans would like it to be. Reality is a manisfestation of chaos - no patterns, no rules, no cause-and-effect, no flowing time sequence (past, present, future): Just THIS! Only NOW! ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Bill, >  > I don't deny that you experience 'just this', so you think it is real. On the > other hand, you don't need to experience everything to deduce that some of > them are real. You believe jumping from a high building will cause death. You > don't have to experience it. If you did, you would have to talk to us from > heaven. That is what is called 'anti-science'. I understand you do computer > software services, when you sort out your customer's problem, you believe it > is real in the sense that the customer will run it well. Do you have to run > their system every minute? Since it may go wrong although it is fine at the > moment. >  > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011 5:47 PM > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > >  > Anthony, > > I DO believe that jumping from a high building will cause death. I'm not > arguing that. What I am arguing is that it is a belief and not an experience, > therefore it is not real. It's only a belief - a concept. > > Just THIS! is experience and only an experience, therefore it is real. The > term 'Just THIS!' which I use to communicate and the concept of 'Just THIS!' > which you might form as a result of my communication are just terms and > concepts. They are not real. You may believe in them if you wish but that > doesn't make them real. If you experience 'Just THIS!' (Buddha Nature) then > you will know it is real. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > Bill, > >  > > If jumping from a high building will get oneself killed is not real, I > > don't know what is real. Do you want to try it to find whether it is real? > >  > > 'Only just this is real is another of your belief system. > >  > > Anthony > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011 9:00 AM > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > >  > > > > Anthony, > > > > You're partially correct. > > > > That is part of my belief system, but it's not real - it's just a belief > > system. > > > > Only Just THIS! is real. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > >  > > > So that is your belief system, and it is real. > > >  > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Sunday, 30 October 2011 4:52 PM > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > >  > > > Anthony, > > > > > > If you're asking would I jump off a 9-story building, the answer is no, > > > and the reason is because I would be afraid of getting hurt or killed. > > > And yes, this is because of my belief in cause-and-effect. > > > > > > If you're asking about the raw experience of jumping off a 9-story > > > building I'd say the experience when you landed would be pretty severe > > > and your discriminating mind probably wouldn't have much of a chance to > > > create such determinations as 'gee, this hurts', or 'this is bad', or 'I > > > don't think I'll do that again!'. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > While I can see that your statement regarding Buddha Nature experience > > > > makes (zen) sense. You have to explain the cause and effect of a person > > > > jumping from a nine story building. Does it have a determinant effect? > > > > Is it 'raw'? > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > To: Zen_Forum@ > > > > Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 10:29 AM > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > Quarks, dinosaurs, etc..., can only stand up to 'proof' if you have > > > > faith in the 'proof', have faith in the scientific method, have faith > > > > in logic and human concept of cause-and-effect. > > > > > > > > All belief systems are built on faith, and science is such a system. > > > > > > > > Only raw, un-filtered, un-censored, un-interpreted, un-categorized, > > > > un-valuated sensory experience (Buddha Nature) can be accpeted without > > > > faith. It is the only real thing you have. All else are concepts and > > > > beliefs - and are based on faith, not immediate, raw experience. > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > The story of turtles cannot stand proof, but quarks, dinosaurs, > > > > > supernova... can. Science and > > > > > historyÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ are as much a belief > > > > > system as the knowledge that jumping from a nine story building > > > > > without your psychic guru will get killed. They are less of that than > > > > > Yehowa asking you to kill the people you conquered, and Buddha > > > > > presenting a flower at the Vulture Peak. > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 9:27 AM > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > ...and is the endless series of turtles any less of a belief system > > > > > than our theory of matter, molecules, atoms, atomic particles, > > > > > hadrons, quarks, etc..ad infinitum? > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Historical facts and science are NOT based on a belief system. Many > > > > > > times they run counter each other. For instance, a scientist was > > > > > > lecturing on our solar system of the earth rotating around the sun. > > > > > > A woman rose from seat and declared it nonsense. She said, 'the > > > > > > earth is flat, supported by a huge turtle.' 'Who supports the > > > > > > turtle?', she was asked. 'Oh, you stupid. It is supported by > > > > > > another turtle. And still anothor turtle. It is turtles all the way > > > > > > down.' That is a belief system. > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > Grasshopper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 4:13 PM > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > > > And so, little grasshopper, are you saying that 'historical facts' > > > > > > and 'science' aren't based on a belief system? > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > > Belief systems and historical facts are different things. It is > > > > > > > OK to deify Buddha in sutras or any scriptures compiled in the > > > > > > > name of Buddha, as long as you bear that in mind. However, > > > > > > > historical facts such as the real life of Buddha and that of the > > > > > > > sixth Patriarch had better be maintained in as close to history > > > > > > > as possible. I consider the latter a 'science'. > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2011 4:56 PM > > > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony and ED, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't take any of the Sutras or the story of the Flower Sermon > > > > > > > as absolute fact. I just assume they are mythic to a greater or > > > > > > > lessor extent. Whether or not any of these things written about > > > > > > > in the Sutras, the Bible or any other Holy Books actually > > > > > > > happened is not important to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still believe the 'seeds' of Buddhism are containted in the > > > > > > > Sutras; the 'seed' of Zen is revealed in the Flower Sermon; and > > > > > > > the 'seed' of zen (Buddha Nature) already exists in every > > > > > > > sentient being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All teachings are continually evolving. See: > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature > > > > > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find the Flower Sutra to be magnificent. Anyway, what matter > > > > > > > > to me is > > > > > > > > that the Flower Sutra edifies and inspires me - and that's all > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > matters to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --ED > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ED, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Flower Sermon appeared in the 14th century, while the > > > > > > > > > Buddha > > > > > > > > lived in the 6th Century BC, what happened in the 2,000 year > > > > > > > > gap? Did > > > > > > > > the physical Buddha returned from the grave to transmit the > > > > > > > > dharma? Or > > > > > > > > the 'dharmakaya' of the Buddha showed up to spread the untold > > > > > > > > teaching? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
