Mike, I know you will not jump off a cliff. But the fiscal cliff in the US needs to be jumped over, at least the horse they ride has to be reined in. Bernanke is out of his wit. Anthony
________________________________ From: mike brown <uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk> To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2012, 6:37 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: I need some practice advice Anthony, I wasn't denying 'scientific' cause and effect at all! What I'm saying, and which mirrors Hume, is that there is no causative link to be found in a sequance of events. Was it it the finger pushing the switch that turn the light on, or the current in the circuit board, the filament, even the intention of the person who pushes the switch (was the room dark because of a thunder storm)? etc etc etc... I think Buddha "had his finger on the pulse" in this regard. The above is nothing other than Dependent Origination - everything is inter-connected which makes cause and effect nothing other that a useful convention. Nothing to do with denying it. Mike ________________________________ From: Anthony Wu <wu...@yahoo.com.sg> To: "Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com" <Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 22:23 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: I need some practice advice 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. > > > > > > > > > >
