Andre, I found the presentation on Emptiness very thoughtful. For what it's worth.
Marsha Sent from my iPad On Dec 17, 2011, at 1:55 PM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I have inadvertently pushed the send button when the post was not yet > completed. Please ignore the previous one and if you care to ignore this one > as well that's fine...I'm easy, but this is the complete one. > > Marsha to Mark: > > So I find it worth considering what the Buddhist's have to say about > Emptiness, and what this particular presentation says about the importance of > realizing Emptiness, or Dynamic Quality. I find it a very thoughtful > presentation. > > Andre: > Hi Marsha, Mark. First of all 'the Buddhists' have nothing to say about > 'Emptiness' because there isn't anything to say about it. The closest one > gets is 'light' or 'freedom' or 'within which there is great working', 'an > insight','a luminous cloud', 'an intese vision', 'a sensation of great > bliss'. These are all nice , but they are all static representations which is > what DQ is not . Read all the first person accounts of the saints and sages > over the years, read Pirsig and you will not find anything on the content of > Quality, Nothingness, Emptiness, Tao, Buddha mind, Big Self...not one > thing...of course not. There is nothing to say about it...because you end up > thinking about nothing at all (which is a nice experience). But Phaedrus > realised this. A first person account of DQ is meaningless unless one has > like-developed persons to converse with. And even that conversation is quite > weird to watch. > > Therefore he gained the insight that "In the past Pheadrus' own radical bias > caused him to think of Dynamic Quality alone (as you seem to be doing Marsha) > and neglect static patterns of quality (as you seem to be doing Marsha). > Until now he had always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have > no love. They offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb > to death, since that which does not change cannot live. But now he was > beginning to see that this radical bias weakened his own case ( listening > Marsha?). Life cannot exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying > power. To cling to Dynamic Quality is to cling to chaos. He saw that much can > be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather that > futilely trying to define what it is... Slowly at first, and then with > increasing awareness (!) that he was going in a right direction, Phaedrus' > central attention turned away from any further explanation of Dynamic Quality > and turned to t he > static patterns themselves' ( LILA pp 124-5. The exclamation marks are not > meant to be condescending or derogatory but are placed there to point to > where I think you go overboard or neglect). > The idea of 'realizing Emptiness' is a different notion and practice. All the > perennial philosophers agree that it is here right now, closer to you than > you are to your self! Quite a claim and quite a promise which isn't a > promise. It is an affirmation that needs to be realized. Until such > realization one can only point the finger. That is what the MOQ attempts to > do (amongst other things). Which is the dynamic interplay of LILA, DQ/sq not > to be confused with one another. Remember the great insight in reducing all > to the 'One'? This is not so. To express the 'One' properly one designates it > as 'not-two'. > > For what it is worth. > > > > 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
