Jan-Anders,
Balance by what measurement and whose standards? The fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality. There is no need for balance. Marsha On Sep 4, 2012, at 4:30 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha and others > > Whatever quote you bring in here, it could always be better, right? Pardon my > English. > > I'm trying to learn my horse to understand words. She definitely know what I > mean with Stop, Walk, Slow, Trot, Run and now she's beginning to learn the > difference between Left and Right. Still she's got her own opinion about a > lot of things. She doesn't ask for being educated at all but she's not > unreasonable. No ride is like the other. Finding balance is the main object. > > Making bread and cooking is as good to learn balance, isn't it? Not to > mention Motorcycle Maintenance. > > Jan Anders > > 4 sep 2012 kl. 10.04 skrev MarshaV: > >> >> "While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism recently >> out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen and published by >> Tuttle Publishing. I recommend you get it because it shows the similarities, >> between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other I have seen." >> >> Pirsig to McWatt, May 6th 1998. >> >> ~ >> >> "We can't comprehend Reality with our intellects. We can't pull it into a >> static view of some thing. All our explanations are necessarily >> provisional. They're just rigid frames of what is actually motion and >> fluidity. In other words, if you think of how Reality is, you can be sure >> that's how it isn't. Reality simply cannot be put into conceptual form --- >> not even through analogy, for there's nothing like it. Reality simply >> doesn't fit into concepts at all. >> >> (Hagen, Steve, ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, p.71) >> >> >> ---------- >> >> >> RMP: >> ... Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a >> subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not >> by reasoning of any kind... >> >> DG: >> Direct experience does not mean direct experience per se but rather >> experience directly perceived. It may just be a matter of semantics but I >> have always argued there is no such thing as direct experience. Now I sense >> I have been looking at the question backwards, so to speak. >> >> RMP: >> Yes >> (LILA's CHILD) >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 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
