permanent as permanent flux can be...merle
Is this state of flux permanent? --- In [email protected], Merle Lester wrote: > > > >  > welcome.... all is in flux... forever changing, forever evolving.... > who is the I of I is but a possibility.. > for ever becoming, forever growing, forever expanding... > sit in the zen moment  and breathe... >  awareness of change is the beginning .. > now what is your next  fleeting insight? > merle > > >  > Hi Joe, > > Thank you for the welcome, and the very nice response. What you've said > certainly gets me thinking. So, here's one possibility: > > "Who is the I that takes the vows?" > > My first thought is that the "I" who takes the vows is every bit as ephemeral > as the "I" who thinks this one thought, or to be a little vulgar, the I who > went to the bathroom this morning. "I" is not a lasting entity, but more of > an unfolding stream of experience, and it seems to me that no two moments in > that stream are identical. > > Incidentally, it's interesting to know that monastics repeat these vows so > often -- perhaps because of the realization that the "I" who recited the vows > this morning is not the same fundamental entity as the "I" who is reciting > them now. > > Now, if that's how things are, it opens up a whole other question about where > continuity comes from. Clearly my experience of "I" now bears some > resemblance to who and what "I" was 1,000 moments ago. And the vows I made > yesterday or a year ago have consequences for what I do now. But, I still > don't see that as being relevant to free will. Here is an analogy that I'd > like to try out: > > The trees I will pass by on my way home from work today are not the same > trees that I passed by on the way to work this morning, despite being in > roughly the same location and looking mostly the same. They've grown a > little, their cellular structure has changed, etc., and all of those changes > are conditioned and dependently arisen. Those changes have be brought about > by the sun, the moisture in the soil, etc., but also (and this is where the > vow thing comes in) by the state the tree was in at the time the sun hit it, > the water saturated the ground, etc. So, the tree's current state is > conditioned upon its past states. The tree *entity* has no enduring essence > -- the trees I greet this evening are *not* the same trees I saw this > morning-- but the unfolding process of this particular tree is continuous, > and past states of the tree (what and how the tree was before) impose > limitations on current states of the tree. > > Of course, in this case the tree is the mind, or the "I" who recites the vows > or chooses a particular action. Viewed as an entity, that "I" dies with each > new moment; viewed as a process, though, that "I" serves as a condition for > future states of being. So, you have continuity, but no enduring essence; no > essential self who takes the vows or chooses his next action. > > That's one possibility, I guess. Looking forward to hearing back from you > (and others)! > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" wrote: > > > > Greetings, Fleetinginsight, > > > > A well-considered post! Welcome. > > > > Regarding the matter of free will in a Buddhist context, remember that, > > among monastics and lay people, there are... "Vows". The monastics of > > course take many more of the Precepts than lay people do; and, at least > > three times per day, monastics in their daily practice -- and lay people, > > say, on sesshin or zazenkai -- chant the four Bodhisattva Vows. > > > > Now, what do you make of the matter of free will, and the practice of > > taking, making, and practicing according to, and in accord with... Vows? > > > > We can ask the same things you ask about free will: WHO takes the vows (who > > makes them; who adheres to them... )? And, we can note that we can "keep" > > a vow, but we might also "break" it. Granted, the Zen sect, like others, > > takes hetu pratyaya -- conditioned arising -- as gospel: as reality. > > Yet... Vows are considered -- known -- to have power. > > > > I simply put this out there for all to consider. I'll work on it, too, > > over the next hours or days. > > > > Just a brief reply, and a "Welcome!" to the Group. > > > > --Joe > > > > --- In [email protected], "fleetinginsight" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Greetings, all, from a new member. > > > > > > This is an interesting question; I thought I'd try exploring it from a > > > slightly different direction. > > > > > > In a strictly philosophical sense, "free will" doesn't make any sense > > > from a Buddhist (or Zen) framework, does it? > > > > > > First, free will is the notion that I have ultimate dominion over my > > > choices and actions. But, of course, Buddhism teaches that there is no > > > inherent or lasting "I" that could act as the controller. So, who is it > > > that controls these choices? The self that appears to be in control is > > > itself fleeting and arisen from causes and conditions, so it can't be > > > that, can it? > > > > > > Second, free will usually comes with the requirement that in any > > > particular situation (i.e., holding constant the forces at play), I > > > *could have* done otherwise. This seems quite incoherent with the notion > > > that all phenomena (including the momentary experience of the self) arise > > > sufficiently on the basis of causes and conditions. The decision or > > > choice could be different -- but first you'd have to find a way to change > > > the causes and conditions that give rise to the self who decides. In > > > this sense, most decisions, in the moment they are made couldn't have > > > been different than how they were. > > > > > > So, in some sense our decisions are fully the product of our karma (I'm > > > using "karma" here to simply mean conditioned patterns of perceiving, > > > judging, and acting upon the world). But karma is not fixed (there's > > > that darn impermanence thing again). Karma, too, is subject to causes > > > and conditions. One such condition, mindfulness, seems to "open up" our > > > habitual ways of acting to alternative possibilities. Mindfulness means > > > awareness of the arising and ceasing of particular perceptions or > > > thoughts. It seems that this awareness takes away some of the usual > > > "power" of habits and allows for alternative courses of action. This > > > isn't really "free will" in any meaningful sense, but it is greater > > > flexibility in our ways of relating to the world, which itself sews the > > > seeds for future behavior. > > > > > > Anyway, these are the musings of my karmic mind. ;) I'd love to hear > > > what others have to say. > > >
