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 <[email protected]> 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! > >
