Edar, The problem with 'purposeful action' is of course it implies a 'purpose'. What would that purpose be?
...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill and Siska, > > Perhaps there is still 'purposeful action' is a better descriptor than > 'volition'? > > And yes, generally accurate representations of what I said... > > Edgar > > > > On Nov 22, 2011, at 3:09 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > Siska, > > > > My comments are imbedded below: > > > > [Siska} ...When someone tells lies, and we perceive it as 'bad', then this > > perception is illusory. But when a thought of telling lies is bad, then it > > is just a thought on itself and it is just it, not illusory. I was > > wondering whether with pure awareness, this type of thoughts (mental > > objects) can still be there. I rather think they can. > > [Bill!] In my opinion all thoughts are illusory, but I'm an extremist on > > this point. As Edgar says I think the key is no so much whether this or > > that is illusory, but whether you form attachments to it. > > > > [Siska] On volition, my question is then, does it mean that with pure > > awareness one acts without volition or with untainted volition? > > [Bill!] Volition is a tricky term. Normal usage of 'volition' would imply > > 'self', something that makes a decsion. When Buddha Nature is manifest > > there is no conscious decision-making, but I still beleive there is > > volition. I don't know why, or at least I can't explain it very well. I > > just don't usually think about these things this way. When Buddha Nature is > > manifest there is just 'doing', not so much 'deciding what to do' as we > > usually ascribe to 'volition'. > > > > [Siska] The way I understand it, Edgar was not saying the same thing. His > > description of not attached to attachment was something like: objects > > arise, being noted and let go. (Edgar, I apologise in advance if I quoted > > you wrongly). > > > > > > My description below is: objects arise and awareness is not affected at > > > all, not noting, not letting go, no response. Arising objects will > > > disappear, sooner or later, whether you let go or not. It's impermanent. > > [Bill!] I'll let Edgar respond to this one, and maybe he already has, but I > > think you're both saying pretty much the same thing. When he says "being > > noted and let go" I think he means 'being noted and not forming an > > attachment'. It's not so much an active 'letting go' as a non-action of 'no > > attachment'. And that is very close to what you have said. That's my > > interpretation anyway. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
