Mike, I do have chipmunks climb up me to get peanuts out of my hand, and some birds also take them out of my hands. I do also sit right beside the raccoons and one of the foxes when they eat. One raccoon I feed dog pellets right in front of me sitting on the steps. He'd take them out of my hand if I let him but could bite so I don't do that. Also the deer come running right up when I put out corn. Also had a small snapping turtle that came up regularly and ate roast chicken bits out of my hand in my koi pond last year. I kept him well fed enough he didn't bother the fish...
But the cheesy music and Eddie Murphy are all yours. Sad that'd you think of compassionate acts and empathy with wild creatures only as a Hollywood caricature.... Edgar On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:59 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Edgar, > > Are you actually Dr Doolittle? I can just see you out your garden with > animation butterflies and birds flying around you and alighting on your head > and shoulders, with the music to that cheesy 80s movie playing.. "Did you > ever know that you're my hero?".. > > Mike > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone > > From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]>; > To: <[email protected]>; > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Hello > Sent: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:25:34 PM > > > 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/> >> > >> >> > > >
