Mike, I copied the email version of this and pasted it below because the website version got all garbled when I went to REPLY.
There are a lot of points here so I'll be brief. If you would like to pick out one or two to discuss further please do, but this is getting to unwieldy for me to continue to respond to this email thread... >Yes, because all phenomena are conditioned. Phenomena are not conditioned. To be conditioned implies cause-and-effect. > I recognise that it's main point is not to imply cause and effect, > but you can't extract it from that situation either. Sure you can. A better version of that saying would just be: I eat. I sleep. I wake. That way there's no reference to cause-and-effect at all, and in fact that better describes Just THIS! And better yet would be just Eat. Sleep. Wake. That implies there no 'I' involved. > You'll recall that the old man said he was doomed to live 500 > lifetimes as a fox and he begged Hyakujo to free him from living > as an animal. Seems quite explicit to me. I don't know what translation of the koan you're reading but mine does not use the pejorative term 'doomed'. It uses the terms 'fell into'. It does use the term 'release' which is close to your term 'free from'. > Similarly, being freed resulted in his enlightenment. I'd say that > was pretty positive. I'd say his enlightenment upon hearing the turning word dissolved his illusion of falling into the body of a fox along with the dissolution of the illusion of cause-and-effect. > Call it illusory if you like, but ignore it at your peril. I think > there is an argument that relationship between cause and effect is > difficult to pin point (ala David Hume), but that doesn't make it > illusory. Also, remember cause and effect doesn't always have to be > a linear (as in Newtonian physics), but can be complex. I do call it illusory and am aware that attempts to prove it logically have been unsuccessful. When science and logic are stumped they usually do resort to the 'it's just too complicated/complex' excuse. Of course they'll follow that up with 'we're still working on it and we're very close'. It is just something that appears to exist, which is the same with all illusions like time and space. > Again, not necessarily. A moral choice could be to give money to a > beggar on the street, but if I don't it doesn't make me immoral. You completely missed my point. I'm not saying that some things are moral and some immoral. That's the illusory two-sided coin approach. I'm saying there is no coin. It's illusory. The whole concept of morality is illusory. >> Dogen didn't really use this term,did he?<< > I got this from wiki. They're all Dogen's words: " I just expounded this dharma to guide people: Those who practice wholesome actions rise and those who practice unwholesome actions fall. You practice cause and harvest the effect .Thus I try to clarify, speak, identify with, and practice this teaching of cause and effect. Do you all understand it?[10]" "Those who say "one does not fall into cause and effect" deny causation, thereby falling into the lower realms. Those who say "one cannot ignore cause and effect" clearly identify with cause and effect. When people hear about identifying with cause and effect, they are freed from the lower realms. Do not doubt this. Many of our contemporaries who consider themselves students of Zen deny causation. How do we know? They confuse "not ignoring" with "not falling into." Thus we know they deny cause and effect.[12]". "He notes that those who claim the monk "did not become a fox because of past actions" are wrong: while some foxes are born with the ability to remember their past lives, "such a capacity may be the result of unwholesome action.." I do strongly disagree with most everything written above. I guess I would be one of the ones mentioned above that deny causation. I do not confuse 'not ignoring' with 'not falling into'. The translation I have is 'cannot be obscured'. In any event I disagree. Who are you going to believe? Some writings attributed to some guy who died 100's of years ago or me? > The turning word didn't extinguish cause and effect per se. It just > freed > him from the effect of being a fox. As I said above, cause > and effect is not fixed. We're not prisoners to it - it can > be changed. Like all illusions causes and effects can be manipulated anyway your intellect wants to manipulate them. And yes we are not prisoners to cause-and-effect unless we believe we are. > So you're saying you're not subject to cause and effect?? Please > turn yourself into a beautiful Thai princess and fly over here > pronto! How would that show that I am not subject to cause-and-effect? Do you really want to know that? Come closer and I'll show you. >>and if he is fooled by them he is not enlightened.<< > At last! That's something we can agree on! At last...Bill! --- In [email protected], uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Bill!,<br/><br/>>>The zen saying "When hungry we (sic) eat" does imply cause > and effect. So does "When hungry we don't eat" and "When not hungry we eat". > <<<br/><br/>Yes, because all phenomena are conditioned.<br/><br/>>>Implying > doesn't make it so. <<<br/><br/>It also doesn't make it not > so.<br/><br/>>>The saying is just meant to describe impromptu, unconditioned > action, not to illustrate cause-and-effect.<<<br/><br/>I recognise that it's > main point is not to imply cause and effect, but you can't extract it from > that situation either.<br/><br/>>>Also (and IMO) you're reading a little too > much into the koan to jump to the conclusion that being cast into the body of > a fox for 500 lifetimes is NEGATIVE karma or being released from that was > POSITIVE karma.<<<br/><br/>You'll recall that the old man said he was doomed > to live 500 lifetimes as a fox and he begged Hyakujo to free him from living > as an animal. Seems quite explicit to me. Similarly, being freed > resulted in his enlightenment. I'd say that was pretty positive.<br/><br/>>> > Also you've neglected to note that the 'effect' (500 lifetimes as a fox) was > dismissed as soon as the old man heard the turning words. These words broke > the chain of cause-and-effect.<<<br/><br/>No, I didn't neglect anything. I > said that cause and effect is not fixed (determined) as demonstrated when the > old man was freed. <br/><br/>>>I don't know who every came up with the term > 'moral causation' but it is doubly problematic for me. <<<br/><br/>I'll > address this below.<br/><br/>>>One because the concept of causation (the > chain of cause-and-effect relationships) is illusory, <<<br/><br/>Call it > illusory if you like, but ignore it at your peril. I think there is an > argument that relationship between cause and effect is difficult to pin point > (ala David Hume), but that doesn't make it illusory. Also, remember cause and > effect doesn't always have to be a linea (as in Newtonian > physics), but can be complex.<br/><br/>>>and two because 'morality' is just > another one of those two-sided coins with 'moral' on one side and 'immoral' > on the other. <<<br/><br/>Again, not necessarily. A moral choice could be to > give money to a beggar on the street, but if I don't it doesn't make me > immoral.<br/><br/>>>In other words is a dualistic concept which makes it > illusory.<<<br/><br/>Answered.<br/><br/>>> Dogen didn't really use this > term,did he?<<<br/><br/>I got this from wiki. They're all Dogen's > words:<br/><br/>" I just expounded this dharma to guide people: Those who > practice wholesome actions rise and those who practice unwholesome actions > fall. You practice cause and harvest the effectâ¦.Thus I try to clarify, > speak, identify with, and practice this teaching of cause and effect. Do you > all understand it?[10]"<br/><br/>"Those who say "one does not fall into cause > and effect" deny causation, thereby falling into the lower realms. Those who > say "one cannot ignore cause and effect" clearly identify with cause and > effect. When people hear about identifying with cause and effect, they are > freed from the lower realms. Do not doubt this. Many of our contemporaries > who consider themselves students of Zen deny causation. How do we know? They > confuse "not ignoring" with "not falling into." Thus we know they deny cause > and effect.[12]".<br/><br/>"He notes that those who claim the monk "did not > become a fox because of past actions" are wrong: while some foxes are born > with the ability to remember their past lives, "such a capacity may be the > result of unwholesome action.."<br/><br/>>>You do attribute to Dogen the > statement in relationship to HYAKUJO AND THE FOX that "cause-and-effect are > immovable". That's obviously not so because the turning word removed > them.<<<br/><br/>The turning word didn't extinguish cause and effect per se. > It just freed him from the effect of being a fox. As I said above, > cause and effect is not fixed. We're not prisoners to it - it can be > changed.<br/><br/>>>For me (and this is Bill! speaking) a person is only > subject to cause-and-effect if he fooled by them, <<<br/><br/>So you're > saying you're not subject to cause and effect?? Please turn yourself into a > beautiful Thai princess and fly over here pronto!<br/><br/>>>and if he is > fooled by them he is not enlightened.<<<br/><br/>At last! That's something we > can agree on!<br/><br/>Mike<br/><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone > ------------------------------------ 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/
