Siska, Don't you eat then? If so why?
Edgar On Nov 23, 2011, at 8:50 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Edgar, > > Why would one eat when he is hungry? Presumably to appease hunger? > > I don't think there is that causal relation going on. A mind with buddha > nature is free, actions are not driven by any certain cause for any certain > purpose. > > Siska > > From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:44:01 -0500 > To: <[email protected]> > ReplyTo: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > 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! >>> >> >> >> > > > >
