Greetings Mark,
"Do not go where the path might lead,
go instead where there is no path
and leave a trail."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Cheers,
Marsha
On Oct 15, 2011, at 1:14 PM, 118 wrote:
> Hi Marsha,
>
> Please forgive me if sometimes I apply bombastic rhetoric to make a
> point. I appreciate your certainty of No-Self, as it is much better
> than the alternative, which is Ego. Such Ego is wrecking havoc on the
> human spirit, imo. More of you are needed in this Juggernaut of human
> "progress". This mode of teaching was fully developed by Nagarjuna,
> as you probably know. Such teaching cannot be considered "Doctrine"
> because that would destroy the message that Buddha was trying to
> convey. I have been taught that Buddha was firmly against Doctrine,
> and therefore did not write any of his teachings down. Buddha was of
> course educated and could have done so. In contrast we have the more
> recent "prophet" from the Middle East which initiated Islam. He was
> uneducated, yet he was able to convey endless complex concepts which
> others then wrote down verbatim. The vast difference between Islam
> and Buddhism can be attributed to the Doctrine/No Doctrine approach.
> The first is a Law, the second is an attitude. The second can be
> discarded as written once the approach has worked.
>
> To firmly "believe" in the No-Self, is the single sided form of
> approach that Buddha tried for so many years. That is, enlightenment
> through extreme methods. While this may have aided in his
> enlightenment, he chose to teach through the Middle Way. This
> teaching claims that one cannot get to Nirvana by believing
> exclusively in the Self, or by believing exclusively in the No-Self.
> In fact, the whole notion of steadfast belief is not an end in itself.
> The purpose is to become free of such "beliefs". Therefore, when one
> resorts to the written "Doctrine" as an end, one is mislead in ones
> travels and effectively stays in the same place. Such "loitering"
> needs to be dispelled and one needs to move on.
>
> While I sometimes use forceful arguments, it is nothing compared to
> the teachings which I received through various circumstances years
> ago. Buddha's use of rhetoric dispel firm positions of others, was
> completely fluid and depended on the nature of the "student". Buddha
> is said to analogize his speakings as a "raft". He warned the
> recipients of his lessons, that this raft must be left behind one the
> river is crossed. Who carries a raft with them once they have reached
> to other shore? No-Self was one of many such teachings of which the
> Pali Cannons are replete. My guess is that he would have been
> disappointed with the firm conviction of No-Self. He himself thought
> (as is written anyway), that his teachings would not last more than a
> few hundred years, and apparently he was right. We are once again
> entrenched in dogma.
>
> Therefore, the belief in No-Self is appropriate to a point. The
> important thing (imo) is to find out where such meditation brings one.
> Once there, the concept of No-Self is not necessary, and one can act
> as if there is Self. With such new "Self", one adopts an attitude of
> altruism towards all "sentient beings". With Self comes
> responsibility; it is the "Self of No-Self" if you will. However,
> there is no longer responsibility towards one's own gratification.
> Just the "opposite", it is responsibility towards not gratifying
> oneself, but others. So, I can suggest that you maintain this idea of
> No-Self for a while, but keep a look out for the banks of the other
> shore.
>
> Meditation on the rhetoric used by Pirsig is for exactly the same
> purpose. It can be considered a Western raft. Yes, Pirsig does write
> that there is no "humunculus" with his rhetoric. But is that truly
> what he saw when he was sitting in his own waste and letting
> cigarettes burn is fingers (as he admits to in ZMM)? Just a question
> for you to contemplate, no answer required. The analogies therein are
> not Truths, for Pirsig had realized that such a thing did not exist.
> While he cannot remember exactly what that felt like since he was
> "treated" to cure him of such "affliction", he is thankful for the
> personal benefits that it brought him in his daily life and attitude
> once he returned to "sanity". Such is the power of ZMM which was a
> bestseller for a while.
>
> Once one "gets" what is being taught, one can then return to the
> "normal" world, and the "Mountains are once again the Mountains" as
> they say in Zen. There is really nothing special about it. To think
> that logic brought one to a special place would be a form of Ego
> clinging. It is not an adjustment of logic that one is after; one is
> seeking freedom from such logic. Words are rhetoric, not truths.
> Rhetoric is a painting, one cannot live in a picture. One
> participates in the world and should not try to dictate it. Such
> dictation only results in Bitterness.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
___
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
