J-A, On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote:
> 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. > ..." > And? That was 1996. Published in 2005, in the Textbook, Anthony writes that the fundamental nature of the static is the Dynamic: "Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static)" - Buddhist "nothingness" is not nothingness like 'nothing there' it is "Emptiness", that is empty of inherent existence. A better understanding of Buddhism has been emerging since 1996. . > I just would like to say that I think it is useless, of no value, no quality > at all, to equate DQ and SQ. And? Try reading the Heart Sutra. Maybe you might, at least, get a better understanding. > 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. Now this bit is useless. You may be interested in Buddhism or not, that is up to you. I have every right, though, to pursue the connections. > Jan-Anders Marsha > > > 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 ___ 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
