Iain,
I think the buck stops at one change.
I don't think that the nature of change, or the tendency to change, is open to
change. Change, as we see it, is a process, not a thing. Does it have a
second derivative? Maybe. But I dunno with respect to what variable. ;-)
Do processes change? Not fundamental ones, no. I make bold to say.
I think change is merely a constant, one of the dependable features of the
physical universe as humans perceive it. So, it may be a feature of human
experience, and/or the way humans experience. And it does not change.
We have no right to say how it may appear to non-Human observers, because we
have no non-Human experience.
Seen from another perspective -- say, that of a Buddha, or other awakened
(human) person -- it may look the same, or perhaps different. Only the
awakened person can say.
But, we have the TEACHING of the Buddha, purportedly, which runs that one of
the marks of existence is Impermanence.
But note that the Buddha's teaching is not knowledge and is not philosophy: it
is meant to affect our behavior and our practice, so that we will wake up.
The Buddhadharma is not "Information": it is a Goad.
A medical Prescription. It must be taken and ingested, *not* cogitated about.
Impermanence is a little more comprehensive a topic than "change", I think.
For example, a tree may CHANGE during all the years of its LIFE and growth;
but, it is also impermanent: it can wind up as fuel in my wood stove this
Winter, and NO tree-like trace of "it" will remain, not even tooth-picks,
...unless I make some. ;-)
Humans change; and, we are also impermanent. Evidently!
Even if there is an after-life, "we" would not subsist as Humans, but would
have some other form. I won't speculate further, there. As he drank the
hemlock, Socrates thought that "he" was going on to another life, and that is
why he reasoned that he could face death without distress. The dialogue of
Socrates' discussion with his disciples about this is in Plato's PHAEDO. ;-)
To reach for a different metaphor, even if we don't fear "fear itself", we may
still fear.
--Joe
> "iain" wrote:
>
> 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?
------------------------------------
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/
