Marsha, If you do not recognize our Interpretation then perhaps You are not listening mindfully.
I simply asked who/whom is at The core of the interpretation of What is "right"?. But you never addressed that question, all we got was a quote That we were to presumably take As a justification for not answering It as something to consider. All the other stuff was your typical Deception/evasion tactics that you Obviously lost track of ..mistake ? More like confusion concerning your Own web of deceptive speech. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:50 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 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
