Hi Marsha,
"The path of No-Self is well trod and deep
One slips in its river and then falls asleep
The words of another can entice one to claim
That such is the answer to all their disdain"
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Cheers,
Mark
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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
>
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
