Siska, You 'eat' when you are 'hungry'. "Hunger" is the cause, then 'eat' is the effect or action. The purpose of eating is to eliminate hunger. Anthony
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 21:50 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism 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! >> >> > > > > >
