Bill, All living organisms continually act purposely. They have to to stay alive. The purposes can be all sorts of things, eating, drinking, defecating, meditating (by non realized beings only of course :-) ).
Even after realization there is still purpose at least in the autonomic areas of the organism which keep on going about their purposeful actions to maintain life. Even Bill still eats dinner. That's a purposeful action... EDgar On Nov 22, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Bill! wrote: > 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! > > > > > > > > > >
