Bill!, Not wanting to sound picky, but do you mean real or 'real'?
Mike ________________________________ From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, 9 September 2011, 16:54 Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle Mike, There's certainly a logical difference between these two: one shows the results of a real cause-and-effect sequence and one demostrates the illusory nature of the concept of cause-and-effect. But of course neither one of those are the teaching point of the koan. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > Do you see a difference between the two meanings? > > Mike > > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 11:26 > Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > >  > Mike, > > It's also noteworthy that in the koan 'living the life of a fox' was implied > to be the 'effect' of the form zen master's dualistic response - the 'cause'. > When the non-dualistic turning phrase freed him from his life as a fox > (enlightened him) you can interpret that as either: > - the turning words were the'cause' and the freeing was the 'effect' which > still relies on cause-and-effect, or > - the turning words freed him (by enlightening him) from the bonds of cause > and effect, which is what he said in the first place. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@> wrote: > > > > Bill!, > >  > > If it was living one of its lives in on a country estate in England, then > > yes, "condemned" would be an apprpriate choice ; ). I do, however, take > > your point that the koan doesn't suggest that the fox suffered anymore than > > we do by being subject to cause and effect (as opposed to being one with > > it). > >  > > Mike > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 16:16 > > Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > > > >  > > Anthony, Mike and Siska, > > > > Well you all used or continued to repeat the word 'condemn' which implies > > it's a bad thing. You didn't say your were 'rewarded' with the life of a > > fox... > > > > But I of all people know how tricky the English language can be when > > talking about these types of things, so I'll take your word for it. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote: > > > > > > Bill, I never said it is a bad (or good) thing. I don't think Mike did > > > either ;-) > > > > > > Siska > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: "Bill!" <BillSmart@> > > > Sender: [email protected] > > > Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:22:41 > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > > > > ...and what's so bad about living as a fox for 500 years? > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > Ah, got your point. > > > > > > > > > there is no self, yet.. > > > > There is no self, no yet ;-) > > > > > > > > Siska > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@> > > > > Sender: [email protected] > > > > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 07:28:05 > > > > To: [email protected]<[email protected]> > > > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > > > > > > Hi Siska, > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Oh, I see. I thought you were asking if saying, "There is and isn't a > > > > diifference" condemns you to 500 years as a fox. Really, it's just a > > > > question of neither being absolute nor subjective. For example, there > > > > is no self, yet... > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > From: "siska_cen@" <siska_cen@> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 6 September 2011, 11:28 > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > Don't really get it, if what were true? > > > > > > > > Siska > > > > From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@> > > > > Sender: [email protected] > > > > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 03:17:07 +0100 (BST) > > > > To: [email protected]<[email protected]> > > > > ReplyTo: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Hi Siska, > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > If that were true, then what wouldn't condemn you to 500 years as a fox? > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > From: "siska_cen@" <siska_cen@> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Monday, 5 September 2011, 18:48 > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > > In other words, there is and there isn't a difference. > > > > > > > > I like this. > > > > > > > > Would statements implying there is or isn't a difference condemn you to > > > > 500 years as a fox too? :-) > > > > > > > > Siska > > > > From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@> > > > > Sender: [email protected] > > > > Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 11:17:44 +0100 (BST) > > > > To: [email protected]<[email protected]> > > > > ReplyTo: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle > > > > ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > > > > > > > >In truth, Two and One are in support of one another. > > > > > > > > >>Here it seems that Rev Harvey makes distinction between Two and One. > > > > >>Are they really different at all? > > > > > > > > Siska, > > > > > > > > JustÃÆ'‚ as Bill! is condemed to live 500 years as a fox > > > > for saying that an enlightened person isn't subject to karma (just > > > > asÃÆ'‚ he would beÃÆ'‚ if he > > > > saidÃÆ'‚ thatÃÆ'‚ an enlightened person > > > > is subject to karma), soÃÆ'‚ with this question. There > > > > is no yes or no. In other words, there is and there isn't a difference. > > > > > > > > MikeÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ > > > > > > > > > >
