Hi All I like the concept of "common sense" in the english language very much. There is no such concept in the dutch language. When i translate the concept "common sense" in the Dutch language it would mean something like ; using your mind in a healthy way. When I analyse the concept common sense more carefull you can also understand it as a definition of culture itself. You can understand the word "common" as "that what we share" and the word sense as a derivative of the verb "sensing" or the noun "sensation" which can be understood as Feeling. So common sense to me also can mean "shared feeling" which can work as a basis for culture.
Just one of my minor philosophical thoughts. Kind regards Eddo 2013/9/9 MarshaV <[email protected]> > > > > 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 > 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
