-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre Broersen
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [MD] The MOQ/Zen relationship.
Marsha to Andre:
Are you saying my statement is incorrect? I think that to understand the
emptiness of self and phenomenon is to eliminate the tendency to grasp which
causes suffering. But I am not a Buddhist, so I could certainly be
misinterpreting the dharma.
Andre:
Hi Marsha. I think your statement is correct. The idea of self is useful,
convenient and practical and as Pirsig says, references to the self, the 'I'
etc etc are so ingrained in our language it is impossible to get rid of them
(Lila, p158).
Í am not a Buddhist either but the MoQ suggests that when you begin to
dissect 'substance'/phenomenon (PoV's) you end up thinking about nothing
whatsoever. I tend to think that the same applies to this notion of 'self'.
If 'we' are patterns of value which patterns contain the self? Which pattern
is yours and which is mine? Which specific set of patterns define my 'self'
?
To cling to these as if they are real and desirable causes suffering because
they are not true.
I am presently working my way through Nagarjuna's "Fundamental Wisdom..."
which I find very difficult, so use Steve Hagen to keep my feet on the
ground, and am barely able to follow his reasoning which leads to his
conviction that the self is empty. At present this is an
intuitive conviction for me.
Regarding the dharma. It may well have something to do with small and big
self. The dharma which you find within your own patterns is a recognition of
your big self (which is recognising Dynamic Quality). And who owns DQ? Ha!!
DQ 'owns'/has small self.
DQ has no boundaries and if 'self' is not a boundary I do not know what is.
Not sure if this is helpful Marsha.
Andre
PS: Reanney's use of the boy-statue and associated metaphor filled me with
apprehension as well. He could have used a more appropriate and
sensitive metaphor to get his point across.
Andre,
Yes, you have been helpful. I have wondered that my intermingling of the
MoQ and Buddhism has caused confusion, but in the end it has been helpful,
and I love both. While my understanding may be incomplete, the generous
gifts bestowed have been beneficial beyond words.
I am grateful that you admit apprehension concerning Reanney's metaphor, for
I could imagine many, many thousands reading this book and taking such
statements for granted, as truth. Those paragraphs jumped off the page at
me and hit me with a great, painful force. And I felt helpless to find the
proper weapon, words or syntax, with which to defend myself, let alone fight
back. (It is a problem because I am a warrior at heart.) This 'useful
self' felt angry, deflated and useless. I am still angry. I am angry for
my daughter and granddaughters, and all mothers, all daughters and all
granddaughters. Men suffer because of this too.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
