Siska, There is still a reason or purpose but that purpose is not mediated or blocked. As Bill quotes: One eats when one is hungry...
Edgar On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:55 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Bill, Edgar, > > I must have mis-understood Edgar then. > > I would not call 'volition' at the presence of buddha nature as 'purposeful > action'. I agree with Bill that it would not involve a decision making > process. With purpose, there would still be reason behind the action. I don't > think there is. > > Siska > > From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:55:41 -0500 > To: <[email protected]> > ReplyTo: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > 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! >> > > > >
