Mark, My answer was the Hagen quote. Don't like it? Quibble with him. Your posts are always interesting, and I enjoy reading them, but I am not looking for you to tell me how it is. For instance, first you state that a teacher is a requirement, and then you state a teacher has nothing to teach. Whatever... I did post to you Steve Hagen's 'Epilogue: Be a Light Unto Yourself'. For me the key is mindfulness and meditation. Sorry, but I don't have answers for you.
Marsha On Sep 10, 2011, at 2:31 PM, 118 wrote: > Gutten morgen Marsha, > I am not sure if you are avoiding my questions to be coy, or if you > have not yet thought of answers. So I will wait on those. In the > meantime, I will address your quote below in MoQ terms. > > We create conceptual Reality with our intellects. Such a thing is > termed comprehension. This is what MoQ does, it creates a static view > of Reality so that we can share comprehension. If I look it up on > Miriam-Webster, I come up with: Comprehension --"the act of action of > grasping with the intellect". Such "grasping" is the creation of > things with the intellect which happens within our brains and other > parts of our bodies. We therefore comprehend things as long as we > intellectualize them, by simple definition. If comprehension is > something other than that for you, I would like to hear how you define > comprehension. > > To say that we cannot comprehend, means that we cannot > intellectualize. Now, I can certainly do that, and do it all the time > with Reality; perhaps Steve Hagen cannot. His "we" certainly does not > speak for me. Perhaps he is speaking of his group of disciples. Are > you one of those Marsha? > > Every explanation of everything is provisional. Science marches along > through the continual re-explanation of things. Every time I eat a > fried egg, I have a new explanation for it. To say we are done > explaining anything is a Flat Earth attitude. It would seem that > Steve Hagen is putting himself on a Hegelian pedestal by claiming to > be able to fully explain something. I would like to see him explain > the simplest thing, like a fly landing on his long nose. I would tear > holes in it (the explanation, not the nose) quite easily. All this > would take is some very simple Socratic questioning. > > Reality is placed in a conceptual form every time we discuss it. This > is the nature of the social level as it is utilizing the intellectual > level (and visa versa). Perhaps Steve Hagen does not understand the > nature of static quality. Reality does not fit into concepts because > it is created by concepts. A Home does not fit into a house either, > so what? This is pretentious rhetoric at best, and is not very > convincing to those of us outside of Steve Hagen's tight little circle > of followers. > > Anyway, a few more questions for you to avoid discussing with me. I > can only discuss things with you productively if you let me know what > you are thinking in terms of MoQ. > > Namaste, > Your chat biatch, > Mark > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:39 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "We can't comprehend Reality with our intellects. We can't pull it into a >> static view of some thing. All our explanations are necessarily >> provisional. They're just rigid frames of what is actually motion and >> fluidity. In other words, if you think of how Reality is, you can be sure >> that's how it isn't. Reality simply cannot be put into conceptual form --- >> not even through analogy, for there's no;thing like it. Reality simply >> doesn't fit into concepts at all. >> >> (Hagen, Steve, ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, p.71) >> >> _ >> >> >> >> On Sep 9, 2011, at 1:00 AM, 118 wrote: >> >>> Hallo M. >>> I will again ask, Marsha, if we are part of the illusion, what is it >>> an illusion of? That is, what does it represent? For example a >>> mirage of an oasis is an illusion of something we recognize. Such an >>> illusion is misdirection, like mistaking a rope for a snake. It is >>> what the Vedantins call Maya. What is the illusion of a tiger and our >>> part in it representing in the REAL world? Thinking about this may >>> help you along. >>> >>> As the Zen teacher will tell you, he has nothing to teach. And, he means >>> it! >>> >>> All the best, >>> Mark >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2011, at 12:13 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I love this story... A student asked his venerated Zen teacher, "If all >>>> is an illusion, should I run if a tiger chases me?" "Yes!", said the >>>> teacher, "because you are a part of the illusion." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 8, 2011, at 2:33 AM, 118 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Marsha, >>>>> >>>>> I have no idea what is REAL for you and what is PHONY, although I am >>>>> sure you do. If I am driving through a neighborhood and two young >>>>> children suddenly appear crossing the street chasing a ball, that is >>>>> pretty REAL for me, and I slam on the breaks. >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 ___ 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
