Ron,
What _is_ right?
Meanwhile:
The Alchemist
Louise Bogan
I burned my life, that I might find
A passion wholly of the mind,
Thought divorced from eye and bone,
Ecstasy come to breath alone.
I broke my life, to seek relief
>From the flawed light of love and grief.
With mounting beat the utter fire
Charred existence and desire.
It died low, ceased its sudden thresh.
I had found unmysterious flesh --
Not the mind's avid substance -- still
Passionate beyond the will.
On Nov 18, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Ron Kulp wrote:
> 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
