Good point -- it's easy to back yourself into a corner with this stuff. I think that's why this idea is often translated "All phenomena are of the nature to change" -- meaning that each sensory experience (which is, without exception, everything of which we are aware) has as its "essential nature" the quality of being fleeting, temporary, ephemeral, and changing. It's the phenomena that are impermanent.
So, in a manner of speaking, yes, the state of flux is permanent, to the extent that everything we know is marked by that quality. --- In [email protected], Merle Lester wrote: > > Â > Is this state of flux permanent? > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester wrote: > > > > > > > > ÃÂ > > 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...ÃÂ > > sit in the zen moment ÃÂ and breathe... > > ÃÂ awareness of change is the beginning .. > > now what is your next ÃÂ fleeting insight? > > merle > > > > > > ÃÂ > > 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. > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
