Dan said to Ron:
I don't know for sure, but I would say that the selfless existence doesn't mean
denying the self so much as it means realizing the self doesn't exist in light
of the Buddha's teachings.
dmb says:
William James says that consciousness is not a thing or an entity but exists as
a function, as a process. Alan Watts uses the image of a point of light moving
in a circular motion, like a sparkler on the fourth of july. In the darkness, a
steady motion can make that point look like a full circle. To mistake the self
as a thing or entity is like taking that point for a circle. This metaphor
breaks down at a certain "point" because that sparkler or point of light is not
solid thing or entity either.
And when you start to think of all the things that make consciousness possible
- words, tongues, brains, sounds, gravity, food, mothers, evolution, etc, etc,
etc forever - the notion that it is some one particular "thing" starts to seem
pretty absurd. You know, this is what the net of jewels image means. Each jewel
reflects all the other jewels and is what it is only in relation to all other
jewels. Some people (nerds) prefer the holographic analogy. I mean, the idea of
co-dependent arising applies to the self just as much as any other "thing".
Inspired by the recent discussion concerning quality in writing, I wrote a
poem. It's a meditation on my back yard and it came to me as I had a cigarette
there just now. If it had a title it would be something like: "NOT very fucking
Zen of you, Dave!"
a peach tree grows
squirrels skitter
a garden hose
becomes a weapon
against hungry little thieves
P.S. The peaches were awesome. We had a peach-picking dinner party for some
friends. I did not invite the squirrels.
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/md/archives.html
