[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants

[curt]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

>Stan,
>  
>
>>This may be, but in the example it clearly was not the person's birth
>>that caused his death; it was the person who discharged the gun.  The
>>bullet was merely an instrumental means instantiated in the "event" of the
>>shooting.
>>    
>>
>
>Birth was the cause. This person would have died in some way or other in any
>case. The gun, bullet, organic breakdown, etc., are contingent conditions.
>Contingent simply means it could have been otherwise (i.e., it is not
>necessary). The fact of death, however, once something or someone is born,
>cannot be otherwise.
>
>
>
>  
>
Death is not inevitable. Take single celled organisms, for example. They 
divide. Nobody "dies" when a cell divides. Single celled organisms are 
the most numerous form of life - so any sweeping generalizations should 
apply to them. The generalization that death is inevitable does not, 
however, apply to them. So it is invalid. It's possible that one could 
make a generalization about "multicellular organisms of the Kingdom 
Animalia" - but even that would not be a sure thing. Even deciding what 
exactly a "multicellular organism" is, exactly, is not always clear. For 
instance, what appear to be individual "Aspen trees" can, in fact, be 
thought of parts of huge organisms that cover entire mountainsides. I 
will die and Dan Lusthaus will die - but death is not an inevitable 
event for a living thing.

- Curt