Hi Marsha, This is not a question of existence, it is about belief. Existence as presented is a static concept. Belief is much deeper than that.
Of course it is appropriate to bring in static concepts such as physics (I do it all the time) as a raft to cross the river. Once across, the raft is left behind. Staying on the raft of To Be or Not to Be misses the point, IMO. MoQ is not a bridge between awarenesses, it is awareness in and of itself. Drop the static, embrace the dynamic. Not with words but with actions. Leave that raft behind and start walking. Cheers, Mark On Oct 7, 2011, at 1:06 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings Mark, > > Indeed, why would one deny existence to what has never been found to exist in > the first place? And so, one cannot say that the self exists; one cannot > say that the self does not exist; one cannot say that self both exists and > does not exist; one cannot say that the self neither exists nor does not > exist. Yet, statically (conventionally) the self is reified into inherent > existence all the time. It seems a MAJOR habit of thought. Karma? > > In some schools of Buddhism, there seems to be two types of nirvana. Maybe > Khoo can explain. > > That '"static quality’ refers to anything that can be conceptualised" makes > me curious about cognitive science's investigation into consciousness, and > its relationship with the conventional notion of self. What is the > relationship between Quality and consciousness? And what of the suggestions > that consciousness be seen as a major force in the Universe? There are some > really interesting questions being raised. As I am sure you know, Tibetan > Buddhism, headed by the Dalai Lama, is involved in dialogues concerning both > physics and cognitive science. By trying to follow these dialogues, I find I > learn more about Buddhism, cognitive science and quantum physics. Since the > MoQ is bridge between East and West, this is not only extremely interesting, > it also seems the right thing to do. But bottom line, for me, Reality = > Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience), there's nothing > Ultimately to cling to... > > > Marsha > > > > > > > On Oct 6, 2011, at 6:24 PM, 118 wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> Gautama was a philosopher in the same vein as Socrates. He used dialectics >> to bring about understanding. Any writings of his philosophy were written >> after he was dead, sometimes a long time. The same can be said for Jesus >> and Solomon. Buddha had a disregard for writing since he knew such words >> are always misinterpreted and abused. >> >> He was confronted with a self-adsorbed society where the ego was rampant >> (sound familiar?). People imagined that they were their thoughts. As was >> his custom, he professed to those types that the Self does not exist. Each >> situation required a different type of approach. This is a method of >> dialectics to wake one up. The end goal of such "bargaining" was to achieve >> the Middle Way. He would never say that there was really no Self since that >> is an attempt at enlightenment through extremes; something that he >> abandoned. If one wants to counter ones current thinking with the opposite >> to achieve the Middle Way, then that is good. If one truly believes that >> there is no self, Nirvana cannot be reached. Nirvana means to breath out. >> That is, to not cling to one's breath. Believing in No-Self is like holding >> one's breath. >> >> Mark >> >> On Oct 6, 2011, at 2:49 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> >>> For others who might be interested in consciousness and are no-self >>> absorbed, I just started reading another book on the subject and would >>> recommend it as excellent: >>> >>> >>> 'Self, No Self?: Perspectives from Analytical, Phenomenological, and Indian >>> Traditions', edited by Mark Siderits, Evan Thompson & Dan Zahavi. >>> >>> >>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199593809 >>> >>> Editorial Review: >>> >>> Self, No-Self? is a welcome product of a rare endeavor: the attempt to >>> bring insights from diverse schools of thought to bear on a question of >>> deep philosophical interest... Drawing upon considerations from various >>> schools of Buddhism, Indian Philosophy, phenomenology, analytic philosophy, >>> and cognitive science, the papers in Self, No-Self? cannot fail to advance >>> both the reader's understanding of the issues at play and her grasp of the >>> history of the non-Western approaches to those issues. Although the self is >>> the main focus of this collection, students of the nature and structure of >>> consciousness will find much food for thought... It is a virtue of this >>> collection that it draws attention to the connection between the study of >>> the self and subjectivity and the issues of the nature of consciousness... >>> Robert J.Howell, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. > > > > 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
