Bill/Mike, If you want to deny scientific cause and effect, jump off a cliff (not a fiscal one). If you want to deny Buddhist cause and effect, kill your neighbor. I hope attaining Buddha nature can avoid this, but then you don't kill your neighbor either. Anthony
________________________________ From: Bill! <billsm...@hhs1963.org> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 18:14 Subject: [Zen] Re: I need some practice advice Mike, I didn't miss it but you didn't finish your statement so I wasn't sure...Bill! --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > You missed my last line: > > >Compared to a scientific observation, this truth of Buddhist cause and > effect can be observed by each and every one of us, until... ; ) > > Mike > > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 10:42 > Subject: [Zen] Re: I need some practice advice > > >  > Mike, > > Well for starters during my koan study the most troublesome koan for me was > HYAKUJO'S FOX. After my initial breakthrough koan I seemed to race through > the next 10 or so until I got to that one. I finally passed it but it took me > almost a month of intense effort. > > Notwithstanding my response to HYAKUJO'S FOX I'll just say this: > > You asked: "...what [do] you think about the Buddhist idea of cause and > effect?" > > I ASSUME by that you mean 'karma'. I believe karma like all other metal > constructs is illusory. What that means is I believe if you are attached to > your dualistic illusions, especially that of self, you are subject to karma. > > If however you not attached to your illusions, or better yet are manifesting > Buddha Nature there is no self, so there is no karma. > > ...Bill! > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, mike brown <uerusuboyo@> wrote: > > > > Bill!, > > > > >I'm not the only one who has these doubts. > > > > > > You're certainly in good company! But if you're skeptical about cause and > > effect in science (as am I.. you're now in excellent company), I'd be > > interested as to what you think about the Buddhist idea of cause and effect? > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 10:13 > > Subject: [Zen] Re: I need some practice advice > > > > > >  > > Mike, > > > > Thanks for the tip but I'm very aware of this. > > > > I've got Hume's COMPLETE WORKS which include his AN ENQUIRY INTO HUMAN > > UNDERSTANDING in which he records his thoughts about cause-and-effect, and > > Kant's A CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON on my Kindle they are both loaded with my > > yellow highlights. Also Plato's PARMENDIDES, Betrand Russel's THE PROBLEMS > > OF PHILOSOPHY and of course THE PARADOXES OF ZENO. > > > > I'm not the only one who has these doubts. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, mike brown <uerusuboyo@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > For me, David Hume does a great job of dispelling the idea of cause and > > > effect. Although useful, cause and effect is nothing more than an > > > assumption about the future based on observation of repeated phenomena. > > > For example, is pushing on a light switch the cause of the light turning > > > on? We observe that this happens 99 out of a hundred times, but is the > > > pressing of the switch or the electricity travelling down the wires, the > > > heating of the element? etc etc This could continued almost ad infinitum > > > to the point where the finger pushing the switch seems like a different > > > event entirely. So we just assume that pushing a light switch will turn > > > on the light. Anyway, that's my (simplistic) understanding of Hume. > > > > > > In Buddhism, however, cause and effect can be taken somewhat differently. > > > In terms of suffering, the Buddha found that 'if this arises - so does > > > that. If this doesn't arise - that doesn't arise'. We can observe within > > > ourselves that if greed, hate, anger (this) etc. arises then > > > suffering/dissatisfaction (that) arises, too. If love, compassion, peace > > > arises then Happiness arises. If hate, anger etc don't arise then > > > suffering doesn't arise. Compared to a scientific observation, this truth > > > of Buddhist cause and effect can be observed by each and every one of us, > > > until... ; ) > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > To: mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 4:15 > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: I need some practice advice > > > > > > > > >  > > > Joe, > > > > > > Then I'll add to my sparse defintion: > > > > > > Science is a religion whose method is based on a faith in the concept of > > > cause-and-effect and whose 'corpus' is based on the dualistic illusion of > > > subject/object. > > > > > > Is that better? > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill!, > > > > > > > > Some of the body of Science -- the corpus, not the Method -- is pure > > > > categorization, based on stringent and accumulated, vetted, observation. > > > > > > > > Botany, for example. And some basics of Astronomy. Geology. > > > > > > > > What's formed and what accumulates are lists of entities and their > > > > properties, and how to tell them apart. No causality yet. > > > > > > > > I think, at that level, observational science is more an Art, or act of > > > > careful book-keeping, than it is yet Religion, or other endeavor > > > > dependent on Faith. It's a fun stage of the game!, and it takes a lot > > > > of work. > > > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > > > "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > Science is a religion based on faith in the concept of > > > > > cause-and-effect. > > > > > > > > > >
