Marsha said:
Desires are just a way to ward off one's only certainty: death. Desires project
existence into the future so one does not have to deal with one's fear of
death. ... For me desire is all about illusion, it is not realizing that the
object of my desire is a projection, a pattern, a conceptual construct that
does not exist out there somewhere separate. Desire creates separation, builds
ego or I-ness; it is dualistic through and through. - I paint when I prefer
to paint above all other activities.
dmb says:
The MOQ can certainly be compared to Buddhism but that doesn't mean it must be
constrained by it or comply with every tenant. The MOQ is a fusion of East and
West, right? I think young Phaedrus left India because he was put off by the
morally vacuous attitude of otherworldly forms of mysticism.
"But one day in the classroom the professor of philosophy was blithely
expounding on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed the fiftieth
time and Phaedrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that the
atomic bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory. The
professor smiled and said yes." (ZAMM, 144)
As I understand it, the masses take the claim "desire is the cause of all
suffering" as a warning against hedonism but not quite an endorsement of
asceticism either. The basic story of the Buddha is about finding a middle way
between either extreme, so that desire is neither indulged nor extinguished.
But a more properly intellectual rendering would be something like, "grasping
is the cause of all anxiety." It's a fairly subtle psychological insight. There
is a bible story, a moment really, right after Christ has been re-animated and
one of his followers, very psyched to see him alive, rushes over to see him. In
some translations he says to her, "don't touch me", which would be kinda rude
and weird. (I mean, he's been dead in a cave for days. So who's the yucky one
in that scenario.) But some scholars think the proper translation is "don't
cling to me". Now it's not about avoiding intimacy. It's a warning against
rigidity of thought and holding beliefs too tightly. It's a war
ning against intellectual co-dependency not unlike the idea that you'e
supposed to kill Buddha if you meet him on the road. As James says, our ideas
must not become final resting places and we can't allow them to let us come to
a full stop intellectually. They are programs for more work, they must be set
to work in the stream of life, to serve life.
What if it were true? What if reality was illusory and all our desires were
just egotistical delusions? Set that idea to work and see what happens. I dare
you.
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
