Hey Joe (said Jimi Hendrix), Many thanks for the thoughtful reply. What you've written is a very helpful way to think about *why* one takes vows. The nagging question is *who* is taking them, and I realize that resolution to this question has to occur through practice, not intellectual gymnastics (or theory as you put it, though for the purposes of a listserv the gymnastics sure are fun).
Best, Erik --- In [email protected], "Joe" wrote: > > Fleetinginsight, > > In practice circles, I think there's no "theory" as to who it is who takes > the vows, etc. One simply takes them, even without a clear idea about the > "one". > > I think we can be as clear about it in this instance -- of taking vows, and > precepts -- as about anything else, and so, therefore, from the point of view > of pragmatism and utilitarianism, all's well with the doing of it: in our > sect, awakening is the goal, not understanding or philosophizing (but, that > much is already known by any student of Zen who has practiced). > > If you can muster the gumption to formulate a vow, that's good enough. And > it's *very* good. > > The taking of vows and precepts is the employment of tools, and, really, of > skilful means... skilful means for our own awakening. > > This is a bit different from the usual usage, appreciation of, and > application of skilful means, isn't it? Usually, skilful means refer(s) to > means and ways, tactics, and technic which we develop, ourselves, after > awakening, in order to help others and hence to fulfill our Bodhisattva vows > of saving beings; mastering approaches to Dharma; and, attaining the > Buddhaway. > > Do you have a short nickname that we can refer to you by, by the way? For > example, instead of my long email user-name, I use the nickname "Joe", here, > and sign posts that way. By now, it feels natural. Of course, posts do not > need to be signed. ;-) > > --Joe > > > "fleetinginsight" wrote: > > > > 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)! > ------------------------------------ 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/
