Andre,
On Apr 22, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > Marsha to Andre: > > I am not presenting any statements about meditation or zazen, which I > consider and experience as a different set of techniques/practices. > > There are many different types of meditation. I use primarily two: > concentration on breath and watching thoughts pass through mind without > attachment. > > Andre: > And now you are arguing that different techniques give you different results > when it comes to the contemplative and the absorption techniques/practices? > There are subtle differences but not as obvious as you claim. Marsha: Is this a pronouncement from you as an expert? Where does your expertise come from? - The only difference I have suggested is that meditation is sitting, while mindfulness is more action oriented; action being being present while sweeping terrace, feeding dog, doing dishes. I am definitely not qualified to speak of subleties. What are you using as a standard to decide that "There are subtle differences but not as obvious as you claim". > Andre: > But hey! Think that you have lost yourself! Keep on floating up with the > daisies. You keep telling me: "I insist there is to I!" well then Marsha...be > my guest. But keep it to yourself! The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says this “autonomous individual” is an illusion." (RMP, Copleston) > Andre: > Only stipulation is that it is unwise to argue from there that, in Pirsig's > MOQ, DQ and sq are one and the same thing. This, as far as the MOQ as a > static intellectual pattern of value is concerned, is not a helpful move. Marsha: It was not from mindfulness or the two types of mentioned meditation practices that I made such a suggestion. The fundamental nature of sq is DQ. It is helpful to know this, and more helpful to see it. > Marsha: > Should we trade bibliographies? > > Andre: > You asked for quotes and I suggested some reading. Marsha: I was looking for you to present some proof that your interpretation of an 'I' being present in mindfulness, within the perennial philosophic tradition, had some validity. I thought quotes might be helpful; merely your say-so is not useful to me. It has been my understanding that the perennial philosophies tended towards a non-dualistic experience, which would exclude an 'I', but I have not read the Christian mystics. > I did not mean to impress you or anything. Not take away from the reading > you, obviously, have done for yourself. I was only suggesting that most of > not all wisdom traditions do not support your claim. That is all. Marsha: It's not up to me to make the case for you, one way or another; and your "suggesting" is not enough to make the case that you are correct. > Mark: > And I do not need to explain to you then one of the differences between > Hinayana and Mahayana teachings. Marsha: I have been lately reading of the Abhidharma and some on the Yogacara tradition, but it is quite detailed. It is interesting to see how the different aspects relate to the 12 links of dependent arising. But complicated. I have no investment in either Mahayana or Hinayana being right or wrong. I have been describing my own experience of mindfulness, which hasn't been based on any specific tradition. > Be happy. You too. 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
