So the nature to change must itself be subject to the nature to change or else we could not conjour up permanence from impermanence and vice versa?
--- In [email protected], "fleetinginsight" wrote: > > 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/
