how else can you envisage flux?..merle
Ha! Ha! --- In [email protected], "iain" wrote: > > 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. > > > > > >
