Ian,
“There isn't any 'man' independent of the patterns. Man is the patterns. This
fictitious 'man' has many synonyms; 'mankind,' 'people,' 'the public,' and even
such pronouns as 'I,' 'he,' and 'they.' Our language is so organized around
them and they are so convenient to use it is impossible to get rid of them.
There is really no need to. Like 'substance' they can be used as long as it is
remembered that they're terms for collections of patterns and not some
independent primary reality of their own.
(LILA, Chapter 12)
Marsha:
The assumption in your comment seems to go beyond just using conventional
(pronouns) language. Really, which pattern gets it right or wrong?
So again:
"While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism recently
out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen and published by Tuttle
Publishing. I recommend you get it because it shows the similarities, between
the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other I have seen."
Pirsig to McWatt, May 6th 1998.
---
"When the Buddha spoke of individuals, he often used a different term “stream.”
Imagine a stream flowing --- constantly moving and changing, always different
from one moment to the next. Most of us see ourselves as corks floating in a
stream, persisting things moving along in the stream of time. But this is yet
another frozen view. According to this view. everything in the stream changes
except the cork. While we generally admit to changes in our body, our mind,
our thoughts, our feelings, our understandings, and our beliefs, we still
believe, “I myself don’t change. I’m still me. I’m an unchanging cork in an
ever-changing stream.” This is precisely what we believe the self to be ---
something that doesn’t change.
"The fact is, however, that there are no corks in the stream. There is only
stream. What we conceptualize as “cork” is also stream. We are like music.
Music, after all, is a type of stream. Music exists only in constant flow and
flux and change. Once the movement stops, the music is no more. It exists not
as a particular thing, but as pure coming and going with no thing that comes or
goes.
"Look at this carefully. If this is true --- how a stream exists, how music
exists, and how we exist --- see how it is that when we insert the notion of
“I” we’re posited some little, solid entity that floats along, not as stream,
but like a cork in a stream. We see ourselves as solid corks, not as the
actual stream we are.
"If we are the stream, what is it that experiences the flux, the flow, the
change? The Buddha saw that there is no particular thing that is having an
experience. There is experience, but no experiencer. There is perception, but
no perceiver. This is consciousness, but no self that can be located or
identified."
(Hagen, Steve, ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, p.128)
Marsha
On Sep 23, 2011, at 4:42 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
> Ian,
>
> What is this WE? How do WE get anything right or wrong?
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Saying our free-will is "part random" is not the same as saying it's "by its
>> very nature unpredictable" is it ! By its very nature it's free will, ...
>> but ...
>>
>> It's just honest to recognise that our will is subject to chance too - and
>> it's beneficial two ways - we can take account of the unpredictability in
>> our willed choices and actions, through guesses, percentages, margins for
>> error, plan-B fallbacks, etc - AND - when we get it wrong we learn
>> something from what we didn't expect, and evolve our will.
>>
>> Not complicated.
>> Ian
>>
___
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
