Marsha Here, dmb, is the quote that you configured from bits and pieces for two separate comments not even addressed to you:
> 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. Marsha: And here are your accompanying comments, where you go on to talk about Buddhism: > 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 w ar > 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. There is not link between what I said and what you go on to babble about. If you would like to ask a legitimate question, first please reconstruct my comments into their original context, and then try to address the present material. Marsha ___ 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
