Siska, You eat for various reasons. The 'various reasons' are the various causes. Please note there are diferent views on this forum. Some think cause and effect is illusion. Others don't. Please watch the developments. I assure you you will not become a fox, as I will reject your application. Anthony
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011, 8:38 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism Anthony, Yes, generally, that is the case. But sometimes it can be, I eat because it is my lunch time, I don't eat because I'm on diet, I eat because I want to gain weight, I don't eat because I'm observing the eight precepts today..... The earlier discussion was about how it is when buddha nature or pure awareness is present, which in my opinion, based on the little experience that I have, which may or may not be 'true', eating is just eating. I should probably clarify that at this point, I usually eat because of various reasons. Siska ________________________________ From: Anthony Wu <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:03:13 +0800 (SGT) To: [email protected]<[email protected]> ReplyTo: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism 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! >> >> > > > > >
