On Sep 9, 2013, at 6:44 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [djh]
>>> I think Buddhism's relation to the MOQ is nicely summarised by RMP in the
>>> following passage to McWatt:
>>>
>>> "The MOQ sees the wheel of karma as attached to a cart that is going
>>> somewhere - from quantum forces through inorganic forces and biological
>>> patterns and social patterns to the intellectual patterns that perceive the
>>> quantum forces. In the sixth century B.C. in India there was no evidence of
>>> this kind of evolutionary progress, and Buddhism, accordingly, does not pay
>>> attention to it. Today it’s not possible to be so uninformed. The suffering
>>> which the Buddhists regard as only that which is to be escaped, is seen by
>>> the MOQ as merely the negative side of the progression toward Quality (or,
>>> just as accurately, the expansion of quality). Without the suffering to
>>> propel it, the cart would not move forward at all. "
>>
>> Marsha:
>> I've mentioned before that I think that the type of suffering addressed
>> within Buddhism is the gumption trap variety, and to rid oneself of that
>> type of suffering is to gain a centered, peace-of-mind. That doesn't
>> alleviate all pain, nor all problems. There still will be such situations
>> to propel that cart forward.
>
> [djh]
> I think Buddhism addresses *all* suffering not just the gumption trap variety.
By gumption trap variety, I mean the self-inflicted psychological suffering.
The human Buddha supposedly died of food poisoning. Did he experience pain and
death? Did he suffer? I understand these to be separate questions.
> Buddhism doesn't intentionally solve problems or make static quality better.
I don't think that I stated that Buddhism did intentionally solve problems or
make static quality better.
> Katagiri Roshi goes so far as to call Buddhism and meditation 'useless'.
There are many ways of talking about Buddhist practices and the inexpressible.
Katagiri Roshi has/had his way.
> In fact, practicing Buddhism to improve things is actually counter
> productive.
I have no idea what you mean by "practicing Buddhism"?
> Steve Hagen talks about "Just sitting", and if your sitting for a reason then
> you're not "just sitting"!
I do get this. A *reason* would be a conceptual gumption trap. "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."
Is there a reason for "just sitting"? Well, the Dharma Field Zen Center that
Steve Hagen founded offers daily meditation sessions. Hmmm.
> What meditation does do however; is free you from the suffering of static
> quality by getting the suffering which you're experiencing - perfect.
Zen is one branch of Buddhism. There are all types of meditation practices. I
would never suggest such a definite description to cover all meditation
practices. It's ultimately is about awaken.
> "Soto Zen meditation is a carefully contrived situation where as little as
> possible is happening and this rational voice tends to run down like an alarm
> clock that nobody is winding. When it stops completely enlightenment can
> happen.... The voice is just static intellectual patterns reacting in fear of
> the Dynamic Quality that has been present all along."
I like this description, but again, Buddhism is broader than Soto Zen Buddhism.
I learned meditation, pranayama and Hatha yoga at an ashram teaching Raja
Yoga.
>>> [djh]
>>> When Nagarjuna states that all truth is relative and conventional he is
>>> merely pointing to the small self static patterns of Buddhism. These
>>> patterns *are not the focus of Buddhism* (unlike the MOQ) as they cause
>>> suffering which is to be escaped. Whereas in the MOQ this suffering is
>>> seen as a necessary part of the evolutionary process in order for things to
>>> get better...
>>
>>
>> Marsha:
>> Yes, and I am fascinated by seeing this 'relative and conventional reality'
>> as patterns. I think my interest was primed by reading 'The Social
>> Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge' by Peter
>> L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. It was primed, but RMP's explanation is so
>> much more appealing and powerful. Regardless, I am still very interested in
>> the Buddhist point-of-view, for it requires one to develop a deep insight
>> into the nature of one's own mind. This empirical approach very much
>> appeals to me. It has been the path to direct experience. One can
>> investigate the interdependency between value and consciousness:
>> "Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality."
>>
>> The MoQ, as a bridge between East and West, allows for movement back and
>> forth and considering the best of both worlds. Buddhism also has it's
>> vehicle for making things better: the eight-fold path.
>
> [djh]
> But the eightfold path is *not* about making things better. It is about the
> cessation of suffering..
Yes, no and all of the above. It's about awakening...
> From wiki
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Paths_to_liberation#Noble_Eightfold_Path)
>
> "The most notable of these descriptions is the Noble Eightfold Path, which
> was presented in the first discourse of the Buddha and is considered the
> essence of the Buddhist path (magga). The Noble Eightfold Path is typically
> presented as a set of eight interconnected factors or conditions, that when
> developed together, lead to the cessation of dukkha (suffering)."
>
> Buddhism is about enlightenment not making static quality better. As RMP
> explains - in the sixth Century B.C. there was no sign of "evolutionary
> progress[or improvement over time], and Buddhism, accordingly, does not pay
> attention to it."
>
> What the MOQ adds to Buddhism is that as a result of freeing oneself from
> suffering through the perfection of static patterns; things get better. In
> the wake of suffering - evolution occurs. Or as RMP puts it..
>
> "If you’re not suffering from anything, there’s no need to be free."
>
Wikipedia? Lol!!! I'll stop meditating and throw away all my books, because
Wikipedia has shown me the way. - I am sure I can find different words used
by different Buddhist authorities.
>>> [djh]
>>> It is all about what we value. But I think we need to do more than check
>>> something against our experience. What if, as you say, our experience is
>>> different? Our 'personal life histories and circumstance' is different?
>>> Can we then just never see the value in what someone else says? The great
>>> thing about the intellectual level of the MOQ provides a way for us to test
>>> how good something is with the aid of logical consistency and economy of
>>> explanation as well. What if I have never experienced hail before but I
>>> have experienced rain and I have experienced ice. Then in this case I can
>>> know what hail is using logic and very rough explanation of Rain + Ice =
>>> Hail. Then when other folks refer to hail - I'll know what it is, even if
>>> I've never experienced it before.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> RMP has said that "Truth is not supposed to be determined by social
>> popularity." So then, by what zero-point or specific standards are logical
>> consistency and economy of explanation to be determined?
>
> [djh]
> By what zero-point is anything to be determined? Since when was 'zero-point'
> the best starting point? To me, the best starting point is experience and
> this experience is quality.
You're the one who implied experience was not always enough. The best starting
point is experience; and the best evaluation is *agreement with experience*.
Does that work for you?
> If something is good - it exists.
Hmmm.
> Logical consistency is better than vagueness and incoherence.
Without standards, these are all relative concepts, and that's fine by me, but
don't hit me over the head with your relative opinions.
> Therefore, the quality of logical consistency exists. Intellectually -
> something explained well is better than something explained badly.
> Therefore, economy of explanation exists.
Exists as relative concepts. This is just the type of discussion I choose to
avoid. It goes nowhere. If you are after a definition that represents
certainty, I am not the person for this discussion. And RMP said "Truth is not
supposed to be determined by social popularity." So where are we?
>>> [djh]
>>> Logic has its valuable use beyond our own personal experience and can point
>>> to us things which are valuable which we might not have experienced
>>> otherwise. This is why logic on this discussion board is good. This is
>>> why explaining things and talking through things on this discussion board
>>> is good. Because if we do these things then we can discover things which
>>> are good which we might not have experienced otherwise.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> Are you talking about formal logic or some kind of common sense? I have
>> never said or thought discussions were bad.
>
> [djh]
> Again, I'm talking about the everyday logic which we all use including in
> this discussion right now.
Common sense? Well, you've heard what Einstein said: "Common sense is the
collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
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
