Bill and Mike, While you guys argue round and round about imaginary foxes I actually feed my real fox visitors including the one with the broken hind leg....
So far none of them has told me they don't want to be a fox any more. You are both arguing about a delusion as if it were something real! Edgar On Apr 17, 2013, at 9:18 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Bill!, > > >>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". > > Yes, because all phenomena are conditioned. > > >>Implying doesn't make it so. > > It also doesn't make it not so. > > >>The saying is just meant to describe impromptu, unconditioned action, not > >>to illustrate 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. > > >>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. > > 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. > > >> 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. > > No, I didn't neglect anything. I said that cause and effect is not fixed > (determined) as demonstrated when the old man was freed. > > >>I don't know who every came up with the term 'moral causation' but it is > >>doubly problematic for me. > > I'll address this below. > > >>One because the concept of causation (the chain of cause-and-effect > >>relationships) is illusory, > > 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. > > >>and two because 'morality' is just another one of those two-sided coins > >>with 'moral' on one side and 'immoral' on the other. > > 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. > > >>In other words is a dualistic concept which makes it illusory. > > Answered. > > >> 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.." > > >>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. > > 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. > > >>For me (and this is Bill! speaking) a person is only subject to > >>cause-and-effect if he fooled by them, > > 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! > > >>and if he is fooled by them he is not enlightened. > > At last! That's something we can agree on! > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone > > From: Bill! <[email protected]>; > To: <[email protected]>; > Subject: FW: RE: [Zen] Re: Hello > Sent: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 7:27:40 AM > > > Mike, > > 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". Implying > doesn't make it so. The saying is just meant to describe impromptu, > unconditioned action, not to illustrate cause-and-effect. > > 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. 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. > > I don't know who every came up with the term 'moral causation' but it is > doubly problematic for me. One because the concept of causation (the chain of > cause-and-effect relationships) is illusory, and two because 'morality' is > just another one of those two-sided coins with 'moral' on one side and > 'immoral' on the other. In other words is a dualistic concept which makes it > illusory. Dogen didn't really use this term,did he? > > 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. > > For me (and this is Bill! speaking) a person is only subject to > cause-and-effect if he fooled by them, and if he is fooled by them he is not > enlightened. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > > > Bill!,<br/><br/>As you say, we do need to live in the world of illusions > > and that is why we need to see things as "real" in terms of the relative > > (I've never claimed anything as not being illusory, just that to do so is > > not practical to live a human life). For example, in Zen the saying is > > 'When hungry we eat' (how's that for cause and effect!). It doesn't say > > 'When hungry - just dismiss hunger as illusion'. <br/><br/>My reading of > > the last part of the koan is just that karma is not fixed (determined) and > > can be changed. Even the negative karma of living as a fox for 500 > > lifetimes was eventually extinguished (it could even be argued that 500 > > lifetimes was necessary before the old man could become enlightened, > > therefore making it positive karma if that is what was required for his > > enlightenment). <br/><br/>I cut this from > > angelfire.com:<br/><br/>"Causation" in this passage refers to "moral > > causation." The Buddhist concept of Karma acknowledges that > > good/bad deeds, thoughts, and so forth result in good/bad effects. Thus the > > import of the question posed by the "fox" is whether or not the Enlightened > > person is subject to Karma. Hyakujo's answer, in effect, affirms that the > > Enlightened person is subject to moral causation. Katsuki Sekida offers a > > common Zen interpretation of this passage in his comment: "Thus to ignore > > causation only compounds one's malady. To recognize causation constitutes > > the remedy for it." See Karma and Free Will.<br/><br/>Dogen Zenji's > > employment of this story in the "Daishugyo" chapter of the Shobogenzo > > implies that, on one level, he thinks Hyakujo's answer indeed provides a > > "remedy" for the old man's predicament. Yet Dogen was rarely content with > > merely citing traditional Zen interpretations of passages; typically, he > > sought to push his students to a further understanding by a creative > > reinterpretation of a passage. Lest his disciple therefore think this > > not-ignoring/recognition of causation is de facto a release from it in an > > ultimate sense, Dogen answers that the passage means "cause and effect are > > immovable." In other words, moral causation, for Dogen, is an inexorable > > fact of human existence."<br/><br/>For me then (this is Mike speaking!), > > the enlightened person is still subject to cause and effect, but is not > > fooled by it. <br/><br/>Mike<br/><br/><br/> > > > > >
