djh, On Sep 7, 2013, at 6:26 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [Marsha] >> Discussion? Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. This isn't a debate club. >> Sometimes it depends on the style of the questioner/questions? For >> instance, I don't consider one should have to defend oneself against being >> called a "bad mystic" or an "anti-intellectual". And a discussion, as far >> as I am concerned, requires both sides to answer questions. This is not the >> place for a one-sided interrogation. I don't consider that a yes/no - >> black/white answer can be demanded when there is wide range grey or >> alternate possibilities. I could go on: no straw dogs, no begging the >> question, &etc, &etc, &etc, ... "I do not know" is a permissible answer. >> And sometimes there will be no agreement. Sometimes there will just be >> different opinions based on different people having different static pattern >> histories and differing circumstances. I like the discussion, though… > > [djh] > > You're more than welcome to ask questions of me. So I apologies if I ask too > many questions but I'm just interested in your values. > > In regards to this - what if you have better values than me and I simply fail > to see it because as you say 'we have different static pattern histories and > differing circumstances'. I want to become a better person right? How do I > see the potentially higher quality of your values without having your > personal life history and different circumstance? As far as I can see the > only way I can see your values if at first appearance I cannot see the > quality in what you say - is explain how I see things and alternately - you > can explain how I may be wrong in my understanding. Isn't this the great > thing about intellectual discussions? By working *through* our different > understandings like this - we can both become better people and learn about > values we might not have understood due to our 'different static pattern > histories and differing circumstances'. Yes? No? > I do not relate to your point-of-view. I am not here to be a better person. I have made my view on being a person (self) perfectly clear. For me being a better 'conventional' person is the natural fallout of a deeper understanding of reality, one where experiences of interconnected values reign, not aggression. Do you think that a Buddhist, who has experienced any level of awakening, thinks of Buddhist philosophy as no more than an intellectual exercise? No! Well, that is how I think of RMP's writings. Are they intellectual? Yes, often they are. Are they merely an intellectual exercise? No! That is why I can appreciate Paul Turner's two-context paper. It illuminates the difficulty and complexity of the RMP's task and the accomplishment. Though we have different views, I do agree there can be a benefit to trying to exchange ideas. Though in the end I value the advice of the Buddha who said "Place no head above your own". By this he meant, don't accept somebody else's words. Find out for yourself. I am quite sure RMP would agree. Djh, I am still miffed at the bullshit you tried to pull about my supposed 'not caring'. I remain suspicious of your motives. To me that episode represents aggressive and deceitful tactics. If you want to make a fool of me, I will simply admit that I am a fool and the discussion ends. I am not interested in that type of game. I have never claimed any authority, not even in terms of my meditation practice, though I will continue to proclaim its value. Also, I would like others to be able to add their perspectives and questions without being insulted (online or offlist) and without being discredited by indiscriminately being linked to the denigrated halfwit that I have come to be labeled. 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
