Ron and Andre,
As I do not recognized neither of your interpretations of the original context,
let's backtrack and empty a bit of the tea to start afresh (or not):
*************
On Nov 14, 2013, at 1:35 AM, MarshaV posted:
Greetings,
More on right speech:
--- The Basics of Right Speech
As recorded in the Pali Canon, the historical Buddha taught that Right Speech
had four parts:
• Abstain from false speech; do not tell lies or deceive.
• Do not slander others or speak in a way that causes disharmony or
enmity.
• Abstain from rude, impolite or abusive language.
• Do not indulge in idle talk or gossip.
Practice of these four aspects of Right Speech goes beyond simple "thou shalt
nots." It means speaking truthfully and honestly; speaking in a way to promote
harmony and good will; using language to reduce anger and ease tensions; using
language in a way that is useful.
If your speech is not useful and beneficial, teachers say, it is better to keep
silent.
--- Right Listening
In his book The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, Vietnamese Zen teacher Thich
Nhat Hanh said, "Deep listening is the foundation of Right Speech. If we cannot
listen mindfully, we cannot practice Right Speech. No matter what we say, it
will not be mindful, because we'll be speaking only our own ideas and not in
response to the other person."
This reminds us that our speech is not just our speech. Communication is
something that happens between people. We might think of speech as something we
give to others, and if we think of it that way, what is the quality of that
gift?
Mindfulness includes mindfulness of what's going on inside ourselves. If we
aren't paying attention to our own emotions and taking care of ourselves,
tension and suffering build up. And then we explode.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/theeightfoldpath/a/rightspeech.htm
*************
--------------------
On Nov 17, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Ron Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 15, 2013, at 10:34 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Andre,
>
> I didn't state that anatta was the same as 'small self'. I'll leave you with
> your personal evaluations. There is nothing here I wish to discuss.
Notice the questions to Andre began with "who" and "whom"? The questions are
pertaining to anatta, or small self?
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Nov 15, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Marsha to Ron:
>> Notice the questions to Andre began with "who" and "whom"? The questions are
>> pertaining to anatta, or small self?
>>
>> Andre:
>> Who the heck do you think you are, on this discuss other than anatta? And,
>> by the way, you have it wrong. Anatta refers to 'no-self' which is different
>> to small self. To whom is Ron directing his question other than anatta which
>> you term 'small self'??? This is the world we live in and what we are!!
>> Sq...we ARE these patterns. And, oh...Big Self (no-self) has nothing to say.
>> It is silent...I experience this several times a day. But that is not the
>> one writing these lines.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> The questions in no way were meant to indicate that "the "right way" means
>> whatever one wants it to mean."
>>
>> Andre:
>> Marsha, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way you go about
>> this discuss. I'll refer to your 'apology' earlier today:
>>
>> 'There is so much not available in an email communication. I only see words
>> on a screen without any emotional cues. I tend not to want to make things
>> personal for that reason. I don't really know you at all. If I misread you
>> tone, I apologize. I too easily fall into the pattern of using past
>> experiences.'
>>
>> Andre continues:
>>
>> Do you not register that a human being types these words? Do you ONLY see
>> words and nothing else?
>>
>> This really confirms my (and some others') idea that you are so suspicious
>> of the intellectual level (in your mind= SOM)that you do not see or feel or
>> hear any living patterns behind the written language. Anti-intellectualism
>> to a sickly extreme.
>>
>> Do you think that you, on this forum discussing Pirsig's MoQ, are addressed
>> as anything other than your 'small self? (Yes, the world and all it's
>> inhabitants are an illusion...it's analogies all the way down and up and
>> left and right and centered and below and wherever you want them to be) AND
>> SO ARE YOU.
>> So why not behave as part of that illusion if you want to seriously engage
>> in discussions on this Discuss.
>> Avoiding discussions and appealing to 'anatta' (i.e. not-self) won't win you
>> any flavours or favours. It is a sickly way to escape...because that is what
>> it is. An ESCAPE and NOT a constructive way to creatively move a discussion
>> along or throw a completely different light on an old topic or simply answer
>> a question. NO! You use it as a way to wriggle through, to slither your way
>> out of any and every situation.
>>
>> You asked me the other day on your comment that 'If your speech is not
>> useful and beneficial,...it is better to keep silent.':
>>
>> I gave you my view and you answered:Record of what, and interpreted by whom?
>> Who is at the core of such opinion?
>>
>> It is very obvious that the 'record' you are referring to is your own (just
>> check the archives). Interpreted by many readers and participants of this
>> discuss. Who or what is at the core of such an opinion?
>>
>> I'll tell you Marsha: the one who wrote this is the one who reads this. And
>> if that is not clear enough: the one who reads this is the one who wrote
>> this.
>>
>> Stop hiding and own up!
___
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
