Thanks Andre, a good answer. Other answers could be formulated too.
On Dec 6, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Marsha to Andre (and perhaps Tim may be interested: > > And who are you? > > Andre: > I assume (and this is a very slippery thing to do with reference to you) that > you want to know this from a MOQ perspective? Or should I say MY MOQ > perspective? Well, then you'll know you get the standard answers. > > I am a set of static patterns of value that have co-dependently arisen with > all other static patterns of value.(and I am after something) At some point > in this development, distinctions are learned between oneself and the world > as this is a valuable one to hold. ( Rahula verifies that it's accurate to > think of the 'self' as being real in the 'static' or conventional sense > (sammuti-sacca, it's acceptable to 'use such expressions in our daily life as > 'I', 'you', 'being', 'individual' etc. According to Rahula, the Buddha taught > that a clinging to the self as static and permanent is the primary cause of > dukkha (which is usually translated as 'suffering'). (Anthony's PhD, p 47) > > And, our language is so organized around notions of 'man', 'I', 'people', > 'she' and they are so convenient to use it is impossible to get rid of them. > But there is no need to so long as it is remembered that they are terms for > collections of patterns and not some independent primary reality of their > own. (LILA, p 158) And, from this point of view I agree with Pirsig when he > argues that, 'This Cartesian 'Me', this autonomous little homunculus...is > just completely ridiculous.This self-appointed little editor of reality is > just an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it'. (LILA, > p204) > > I'd like to put this 'sense of self' in the context of William James' > observation as outlines in his 'Concerning Fechner', a chapter in his 'A > Pluralistic Universe': Fechner likens our individual persons on the earth > unto so many sense-organs of the earth's soul...'We add to its perceptive > life so long as our own life lasts. It absorbs our perceptions, just as they > occur, into its larger sphere of knowledge, and combines them with the other > data there. When one of us dies, it is as if an eye of the world were closed' > ( In 'The Heart of William James', p 282) > > Place this in the MOQ context and we come close to the concept of dharma. > 'Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together'. It is the basis of all order. > It equals righteousness. It is the ethical code. It is the stable condition > which gives man perfect satisfaction...Dharma is duty...Dharma is beyond all > questions of what is internal and what is external. Dharma is Quality itself, > the principle of 'rightness' which gives structure and purpose to the > evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding of the universe which > life has created'. (LILA, p392) > > So now you know who I am? ___ 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
