Hi Marsha Before you dive into the deep. Have you ever read this? It's an excerpt from a letter written by RMP to Anthony McWatt, March 23, 1997:
" ... The MOQ is in agreement with the Buddhist law of Dependent Origination and regards this law as an excellent explanation of how Dynamic Quality becomes static patterns of quality. The Buddhists however, say that the source of patterns is ignorance, whereas the MOQ says the source of the patterns is the "nothingness" of Dynamic Quality. It seems to me that this is self-contradictionary for the Buddhists to say that that the world is all nothingness and then in almost in the same breath say that everything we know arises from something that is not nothingness. This separates nothingness and not-nothingness into a deadly dualism. When it is said that the static patterns arise from Dynamic Quality the non-dualistic view of the world so characteristic of Buddhism is preserved. The MOQ says, as does Buddhism, that the best place on the wheel of karma is the hub and not the rim where one is thrown about by the gyration of everyday life. But the MOQ sees the wheel of karma as attached to a cart that is going somewhere - from quantum forces through inorganic forces and biological patterns and social patterns to the intellectual patterns that percieve the quantum forces. In the sixth century B.C. in India there was no evidence of this kind of evolutionary progress, and Buddhism, accordingly, does not pay attention to it. Today it's not possible to be so uninformed. The suffering which the Buddhists regard as only that which is to be escaped, is seen by the MOQ as merely the negative side of the progression toward Quality (or, just as accurately, the expansion of quality.) Without the suffering to propel it, the cart would not move forward at all. ..." I just would like to say that I think it is useless, of no value, no quality at all, to equate DQ and SQ. I remember when I was a kid, me and my brother playing a word game. We took one word, just any word, "overall" or "jumper" for example, and repeated it to each other again and again till the word totally lost its meaning and we cracked up like lunatics. Jan-Anders 22 jul 2011 kl. 13.31 Marsha wrote: > On Jul 21, 2011, at 11:07 PM, David Thomas wrote: > >> On 7/21/11 9:29 PM, "MarshaV" <val...@att.net> wrote: >> >>> So please do not make any apology for Buddhism, Exploring the MoQ together >>> with Buddhism is very valid. >> >> Dave >> I'm not making any apologies for Buddhism. And I'm surely not challenging >> the validity of exploring them together. How could I? The MoQ is Zen in a >> Pendleton blanket. Most, not all, but most of the confusion in the MoQ is >> the confusion with and within Buddhism. The MoQ it is an attempt by a >> Westerner with a tiny amount of Eastern experience and smidgen of Zen >> experience to rewrite Zen in a way that is palatable to the Western mind. It >> seem to be working for you, but as you are aware you are in a minority here. >> >> As for me I'm not looking for a new religion. The old ones have such a >> dismal track record I just can't see making the same mistakes all over >> again. >> > > > Marsha: > Today there are, intelligent Buddhist scholars that present Buddhist > philosophical > ideas clearly and succinctly for Westerners. I think it is more in keeping > with the > MoQ to learn something new than rehash the already known. And meditation, > concentration and mindfulness techniques offer first-hand empirical > experiences > for validation, rather than just words. It is a shame that I am a minority. > It has been > said that the shift from a subject-object reality to a Quality reality takes > more than > intellectually understanding the words on a page. While there is a religious > aspect > to Buddhism, to become a Buddhist is not to accept a bundle of doctrines and > dogma on the basis of faith. You are NOT suppose to accept claims based on > what the Buddha said, but are to examine the arguments and determine for > yourself if the arguments are true. There is no place for psychological > bullies > within Buddhism. > > Buddhism does have cultural trappings to watch out for, but they are more > likely to be questioned by a Westerner. And lets face it, the West comes > with > its own set of cultural glasses which often blindsight us to a new more > dynamic > perspective. Science, for instance, may be more accepted dogma than fresh > investigation. I am trying say that Buddhism is much, much more than a > religion. 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
