Siska, If you 'makan', because you want to 'makan'. If you sleep, because you want to sleep. etc etc. Computer terminology calls it circular reference. When you run your computer that way, you will go nowhere. In real life, whether it makes sense is an open question. Anthony
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2011, 8:05 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Anthony, Yes, it is rare. What do you mean by eating and eat? I cannot tell the difference. Siska ________________________________ From: Anthony Wu <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 06:45:44 +0800 (SGT) To: [email protected]<[email protected]> ReplyTo: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Siska, It is a rare occurrance. Even if that is the case, there is still a cause and effect: 'eating' is the cause, and 'eat' is the effect. That is a 'circular reference' just like in computer terminology. Anthony ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 28 November 2011, 23:00 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Anthony, > Do you eat just for the sake of eating? It is possible. Do you think there's something wrong with that? Siska ________________________________ From: Anthony Wu <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:07:18 +0800 (SGT) To: [email protected]<[email protected]> ReplyTo: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Siska, When hungry, you eat. When sleepy, you sleep. that is cause and effect. Do you eat just for the sake of eating? Anthony ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 28 November 2011, 8:20 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Anthony, I don't know much about Hindu. Karma is an important part of Buddhism as much as other 'concepts' are. I don't think you can hold onto one and forget about others. They are all simultaneous. For example, anatta or no self. When one looks at actions or karma, one needs to also see the no self characteristic in these actions. As for cause and effect deriving from these actions, one should also remember paticcasamupada (dependent co-arising). They are not straight forward simple cause and effect. I only have Theravada 'theoretical' background to describe these things. Perhaps there is something similar in zen. Keeping aside all the concepts for a while, aren't there just some things you do because they are what you are to do (with no specific reasons or cause), not because there are some rewards or punishments (effects)? Siska ________________________________ From: Anthony Wu <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:01:33 +0800 (SGT) To: [email protected]<[email protected]> ReplyTo: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Siska, 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'. Anthony ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 26 November 2011, 9:42 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism 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 <[email protected]> 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 Siska, 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. Anthony ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011, 13:23 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism 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 <[email protected]> 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 Siska, 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. Anthony ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011, 8:38 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism 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 <[email protected]> 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 Siska, 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. Anthony ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 21:50 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism 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 <[email protected]> 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 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, [email protected] wrote: >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 <[email protected]> >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 > > >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: > > >>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! >> >> > > > > >
