Anthony, You're almost correct.
The difference between 'zen' (ala Bill!) and Zen Buddhism is the Buddhism, and 'karma' is certainly one of the most important tenets of Buddhism. I think of it as a kind of 'spritual cause-and-effect. It's very similar to the Christian concept of 'sin' and 'atonement': if one sins, one must atone. This can be through seeking forgiveness which can also involve sacrifice, or through punishment (as in Hell). Some people think there is 'good karma' and 'bad karma'. I believe there is neither. Karma is illusory, a fairytale like Hell, the bogie man or Santa Claus, used as a threat of punishment or promise of reward to convince you to act or think a certain way. Both Buddhism and Christianity also have nice lists to help you either accumulate points or avoid loosing them. Buddhism has either 5, 8 or 10 Precepts depending on just how 'good' you want to be, and of course Judiasm and Christianity have the 10 Commandments. You can refer to these lists in case you get into a situation and don't know how you should act. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > Siska, > Â > Karma is an important part of Buddhism and Hindu. It means action, with cause > and effect. Nobody set the standard. No God is needed. Believe it or not is > the difference between Zen Buddhism and 'zen'. > Â > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: "siska_cen@..." <siska_cen@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, 26 November 2011, 9:42 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > Â > Anthony, > > > Volition is an important factor in Buddhism. In its presence, karma works. > > That is the cause and effect. > > Doesn't karma mean action? It is not cause and effect. > > > If I am proved that those series of things are just illusions, I am free to > > kill, loot and burn without punishment > > Anyway, I get your point. But why is it that punishment is so important (and > perhaps, so is reward)? is it because people merely do or don't do things > because of rewards and punishment? If this is the system, who set the > standard? Why is killing a bad thing? Is it bad to everyone in every > situation? > > I just started reading CS Lewis' Mere Christianity. It begins interestingly > with description of moral standard. > > Siska > > ________________________________ > > From: Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:39:28 +0800 (SGT) > To: [email protected]<[email protected]> > ReplyTo: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > Â > Siska, > Â > Volition is an important factor in Buddhism. In its presence, karma works. > That is the cause and effect. If I am proved that those series of things are > just illusions, I am free to kill, loot and burn without punishment. > Â > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: "siska_cen@..." <siska_cen@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011, 13:23 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > Â > Hi Anthony, > > Cause and effect is a different discussion from whether or not volition is > present with buddha nature or pure awareness. This is the first time I > learned that cause and effect can be illusory. > > > I assure you you will not become a fox, as I will reject your application. > > Ah, not my time to join your regimen yet. > > Siska > > ________________________________ > > From: Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:04:39 +0800 (SGT) > To: [email protected]<[email protected]> > ReplyTo: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > Â > Siska, > Â > You eat for various reasons. The 'various reasons' are the various causes. > Please note there are diferent views on this forum. Some think cause and > effect is illusion. Others don't. Please watch the developments. I assure you > you will not become a fox, as I will reject your application. > Â > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: "siska_cen@..." <siska_cen@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011, 8:38 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > Â > Anthony, > > Yes, generally, that is the case. But sometimes it can be, I eat because it > is my lunch time, I don't eat because I'm on diet, I eat because I want to > gain weight, I don't eat because I'm observing the eight precepts today..... > > The earlier discussion was about how it is when buddha nature or pure > awareness is present, which in my opinion, based on the little experience > that I have, which may or may not be 'true', eating is just eating. > > I should probably clarify that at this point, I usually eat because of > various reasons. > > > Siska > > ________________________________ > > From: Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:03:13 +0800 (SGT) > To: [email protected]<[email protected]> > ReplyTo: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > Â > Siska, > Â > You 'eat' when you are 'hungry'. "Hunger" is the cause, then 'eat' is the > effect or action. The purpose of eating is to eliminate hunger. > Â > Anthony > > > ________________________________ > From: "siska_cen@..." <siska_cen@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 21:50 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > Â > Edgar, > > Why would one eat when he is hungry? Presumably to appease hunger? > > I don't think there is that causal relation going on. A mind with buddha > nature is free, actions are not driven by any certain cause for any certain > purpose. > > Siska > > ________________________________ > > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:44:01 -0500 > To: <[email protected]> > ReplyTo: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > Â > Siska, > > There is still a reason or purpose but that purpose is not mediated or > blocked. As Bill quotes: One eats when one is hungry... > > Edgar > > > > On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:55 AM, siska_cen@... wrote: > > Â > >Hi Bill, Edgar, > > > >I must have mis-understood Edgar then. > > > >I would not call 'volition' at the presence of buddha nature as 'purposeful > >action'. I agree with Bill that it would not involve a decision making > >process. With purpose, there would still be reason behind the action. I > >don't think there is. > > > >Siska > > > >________________________________ > > > >From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> > >Sender: [email protected] > >Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:55:41 -0500 > >To: <[email protected]> > >ReplyTo: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > >Â > >Bill and Siska, > > > > > >Perhaps there is still 'purposeful action' is a better descriptor than > >'volition'? > > > > > >And yes, generally accurate representations of what I said... > > > > > >Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Nov 22, 2011, at 3:09 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > >Â > >>Siska, > >> > >>My comments are imbedded below: > >> > >>[Siska} ...When someone tells lies, and we perceive it as 'bad', then this > >>perception is illusory. But when a thought of telling lies is bad, then it > >>is just a thought on itself and it is just it, not illusory. I was > >>wondering whether with pure awareness, this type of thoughts (mental > >>objects) can still be there. I rather think they can. > >>[Bill!] In my opinion all thoughts are illusory, but I'm an extremist on > >>this point. As Edgar says I think the key is no so much whether this or > >>that is illusory, but whether you form attachments to it. > >> > >>[Siska] On volition, my question is then, does it mean that with pure > >>awareness one acts without volition or with untainted volition? > >>[Bill!] Volition is a tricky term. Normal usage of 'volition' would imply > >>'self', something that makes a decsion. When Buddha Nature is manifest > >>there is no conscious decision-making, but I still beleive there is > >>volition. I don't know why, or at least I can't explain it very well. I > >>just don't usually think about these things this way. When Buddha Nature is > >>manifest there is just 'doing', not so much 'deciding what to do' as we > >>usually ascribe to 'volition'. > >> > >>[Siska] The way I understand it, Edgar was not saying the same thing. His > >>description of not attached to attachment was something like: objects > >>arise, being noted and let go. (Edgar, I apologise in advance if I quoted > >>you wrongly). > >>> > >>> My description below is: objects arise and awareness is not affected at > >>> all, not noting, not letting go, no response. Arising objects will > >>> disappear, sooner or later, whether you let go or not. It's impermanent. > >>[Bill!] I'll let Edgar respond to this one, and maybe he already has, but I > >>think you're both saying pretty much the same thing. When he says "being > >>noted and let go" I think he means 'being noted and not forming an > >>attachment'. It's not so much an active 'letting go' as a non-action of 'no > >>attachment'. And that is very close to what you have said. That's my > >>interpretation anyway. > >> > >>...Bill! > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
