Mike,  In the paragraph below I mean really real.  'Real' implies to me 
illusory real.

The first example supports the belief in real cause-and-effect.

The second example supports the belief that the concept of cause-and-effect is 
illusory.

...Bill! 

--- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote:
>
> Bill!,
> 
> Not wanting to sound picky, but do you mean real or 'real'?
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Bill! <BillSmart@...>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, 9 September 2011, 16:54
> Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle
> 
> 
>   
> Mike,
> 
> There's certainly a logical difference between these two: one shows the 
> results of a real cause-and-effect sequence and one demostrates the illusory 
> nature of the concept of cause-and-effect.
> 
> But of course neither one of those are the teaching point of the koan.
> 
> ...Bill!
> 
> --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@> wrote:
> >
> > Bill!,
> > 
> > Do you see a difference between the two meanings?
> > 
> > Mike  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: Bill! <BillSmart@>
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 11:26
> > Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > Mike,
> > 
> > It's also noteworthy that in the koan 'living the life of a fox' was 
> > implied to be the 'effect' of the form zen master's dualistic response - 
> > the 'cause'.  When the non-dualistic turning phrase freed him from his life 
> > as a fox (enlightened him) you can interpret that as either:
> > - the turning words were the'cause' and the freeing was the 'effect' which 
> > still relies on cause-and-effect, or
> > - the turning words freed him (by enlightening him) from the bonds of cause 
> > and effect, which is what he said in the first place.
> > 
> > ...Bill!
> > 
> > --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill!,
> > >  
> > > If it was living one of its lives in on a country estate in England, then 
> > > yes, "condemned" would be an apprpriate choice ; ).  I do, 
> > > however, take your point that the koan doesn't suggest that the fox 
> > > suffered anymore than we do by being subject to cause and effect (as 
> > > opposed to being one with it).
> > >  
> > > Mike
> > > 
> > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@>
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 16:16
> > > Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > Anthony, Mike and Siska,
> > > 
> > > Well you all used or continued to repeat the word 'condemn' which implies 
> > > it's a bad thing. You didn't say your were 'rewarded' with the life of a 
> > > fox...
> > > 
> > > But I of all people know how tricky the English language can be when 
> > > talking about these types of things, so I'll take your word for it.
> > > 
> > > ...Bill! 
> > > 
> > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill, I never said it is a bad (or good) thing. I don't think Mike did 
> > > > either ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > Siska
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: "Bill!" <BillSmart@>
> > > > Sender: [email protected]
> > > > Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:22:41 
> > > > To: <[email protected]>
> > > > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle
> > > > 
> > > > ...and what's so bad about living as a fox for 500 years?
> > > > 
> > > > ...Bill!
> > > > 
> > > > --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ah, got your point.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > there is no self, yet..
> > > > > There is no self, no yet ;-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Siska
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@>
> > > > > Sender: [email protected]
> > > > > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 07:28:05 
> > > > > To: [email protected]<[email protected]>
> > > > > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Siska,
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > Oh, I see. I thought you were asking if saying, "There is and isn't a 
> > > > > diifference" condemns you to 500 years as a fox. Really, it's just a 
> > > > > question of neither being absolute nor subjective. For example, there 
> > > > > is no self, yet...
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > Mike
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: "siska_cen@" <siska_cen@>
> > > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 6 September 2011, 11:28
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  
> > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Don't really get it, if what were true?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Siska
> > > > > From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@> 
> > > > > Sender: [email protected] 
> > > > > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 03:17:07 +0100 (BST)
> > > > > To: [email protected]<[email protected]>
> > > > > ReplyTo: [email protected] 
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  
> > > > > Hi Siska,
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > If that were true, then what wouldn't condemn you to 500 years as a 
> > > > > fox?
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > Mike
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: "siska_cen@" <siska_cen@>
> > > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 5 September 2011, 18:48
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  
> > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > > 
> > > > > > In other words, there is and there isn't a difference.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I like this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Would statements implying there is or isn't a difference condemn you 
> > > > > to 500 years as a fox too? :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Siska
> > > > > From: mike brown <uerusuboyo@> 
> > > > > Sender: [email protected] 
> > > > > Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 11:17:44 +0100 (BST)
> > > > > To: [email protected]<[email protected]>
> > > > > ReplyTo: [email protected] 
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Fwd: Re: [Zen Living] Supreme Vehicle
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > >In truth, Two and One are in support of one another.
> > > > > 
> > > > > >>Here it seems that Rev Harvey makes distinction between Two and 
> > > > > >>One. Are they really different at all?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Siska,
> > > > > 
> > > > > JustÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ as Bill! is condemed to 
> > > > > live 500 years as a fox for saying that an enlightened person isn't 
> > > > > subject to karma (just asÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ he 
> > > > > would beÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ if he 
> > > > > saidÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ thatÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ an
> > > > >  enlightened person is subject to karma), 
> > > > > soÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ with this question. There 
> > > > > is no yes or no. In other words, there is and there isn't a 
> > > > > difference.
> > > > > 
> > > > > MikeÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>




------------------------------------

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/

Reply via email to