On Apr 10, 2012, at 2:41 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
> Marsha to Andre:
>
> I will not disagree with you if you say in your experience of mindfulness
> there is an 'I', but in mine, when I am in that state, there is no 'I' in
> mindfulness, and there is no 'I' that exists other than as a static
> convention.
>
> Andre:
> Hi Marsha, and I will not disagree with you because that will end up in a
> yes/no children's game. I would just ask you to read carefully what you write
> above:"... but in mine (!), when I(!)am in that(!)state, there is no I..."
>
> Point to ponder perhaps is to ask: who is making this observation? Who is
> witnessing this so that you can arrive at the statement that there is no I?
> If there is no "I" how can you speak of 'that state'?
>
> Over and out.
Andre,
The response was there in my original post. In Buddhism there is the term
'anatta', no-self:
One cannot say that the self (I) exists.
One cannot say that the self (I) does not exist.
One cannot say that self (I) both exists and does not exist.
One cannot say that the self (I) neither exists nor does not exist.
I have pondered and sought to find an intrinsically existing self, but have
consistently found only a flow of bits and pieces of inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual value patterns.
The 'I' and 'mine' and 'my' are merely nominal conventions labeling a stream,
or flow, of patterns. These terms are pragmatically used for social discourse.
In my experience of mindfulness, there is no 'I'.
Whatever is 'pondering', 'seeking' or 'witnessing':
it cannot be said that the self (I) exists;
it cannot be said that the self (I) does not exist;
it cannot be said that self (I) both exists and does not exist;
it cannot be said that the self (I) neither exists nor does not exist.
"An example of sammuti-sacca [conventional (relative) truth, or static quality]
is the concept of self. Pirsig follows the Buddha’s teachings about the ‘self’
which doesn’t recognise that it has any real existence and that only
‘nothingness’ (i.e. Dynamic Quality) is thought to be real. According to
Rahula, the Buddha taught that a clinging to the self as real is the primary
cause of dukkha (which is usually translated as ‘suffering’). Having said
this, Rahula (1959, p.55) makes it very clear that it’s not incorrect to ‘use
such expressions in our daily life as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘being’, ‘individual’, etc’
as long as it is remembered that the self (like anything else conceptualised)
is just a useful convention."
(McWatt, MoQ Textbook)
Marsha
>
>
> 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
