Hi Siska, Well my 90 year old grandad used to say he didn't eat because he was hungry but ate to keep from getting hungry.
However you sound like the only person on the planet who doesn't eat or not eat because of nothing at all! But I assure you you can still eat because you are hungry and not lose your Zen. :-) Edgar On Nov 23, 2011, at 9:25 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Edgar, > > If I eat, I eat. If I don't eat, I don't. Not because I'm hungry, not because > I'm not hungry, not because of anything. > > This rarely happens though. > > Siska > > From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:22:17 -0500 > To: <[email protected]> > ReplyTo: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism > > > 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! >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > >
