Siska, I probably mis-read your posts. Mea culpa...Bill!
--- In [email protected], siska_cen@... wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I'm not sure if you mis-read my post or I was being unclear, but this is
> exactly what I was saying :-)
>
> Siska
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Bill!" <BillSmart@...>
> Sender: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:23:56
> To: <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism
>
> Siska,
>
> I don't think there is a reason behind the action in the classical sense. In
> other words there is not a 'you' (self) deciding (perhaps by using logic)
> what actions could be taken, and then ranking them (judging) as 'good',
> 'better', 'best', and selecting the one that seems the most approriate to
> achieve some 'goal' you have or 'outcome' you want to produce.
>
> That I'm sure is not the process.
>
> I still come back to 'volition' as being legitimate because both you and I
> could be at the same place in the same circumstance and both manifesting
> Buddha Nature, but take different actions. It's like a koan. There is not
> one 'right' response to a koan. That means to me there is 'volition' of some
> kind applied in the responses.
>
> Anyway, I don't think about things like this a lot - but these are my
> thoughts on this topic at this time.
>
> ...Bill!
>
> --- In [email protected], siska_cen@ 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
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@>
> > Sender: [email protected]
> > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:55:41
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To: [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!
> > >
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
