Ha! Ha!
--- In [email protected], "iain" wrote:
>
> Is this state of flux permanent?
>
> --- In [email protected], Merle Lester wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > 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...Â
> > sit in the zen moment  and breathe...
> > Â awareness of change is the beginning ..
> > now what is your next  fleeting insight?
> > merle
> >
> >
> > Â
> > 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/
