Hello everyone >From: "Case" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [MD] Art of Value >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:51:51 -0400 > >[Dan] > > I think the MOQ would say the individual invents the ficticous self > > so in a sense we are our own creators. > >[Ham] >What is ficticious about the self? Do you mean that the self is >non-existent (i.e., nothingness), or simply that is is an illusion? I have >been arguing with Arthur Weatherall that "awareness without an object" is >nothingness, and that the self has no empirical reality. Is this the sense >in which you say it is "ficticious"? > >[Case] >Isn't "awareness without an object" just awareness, or awareness of >awareness. It certainly isn't nothing. Nothing is nothing. If there is no >object what is it that is aware? If there is something that is aware, then >it is not nothing. If empirical means accessible to the senses then >certainly the self is nothing if not empirical.
Dan: Then you should be able to show me the self. Where is it? Please point it out. > >[Dan] > > Buddhism teaches that the solution to suffering is the process of > > overcoming the pervasive conditioning of seeing the self as separate >from > > the world. > > We have to understand the true nature of people and things. When the > > individual self is seen as an empty concept, as a convenient shorthand, > > Buddhism teaches that we enter a state beyond suffering. The true path >is > > morality. > > Thus the MOQ is built on morality. > >[Case] >Learning to see ones self as separate from the world is one of the first >tasks every infant confronts. It occurs during Piaget's sensorimotor stage. >Other stages of human development and understanding build upon and >transcend >this stage. If as you suggest Buddhism strives for regression to this state >why do they call it transcendence? Dan: When I met my advisor at the first retreat I attended, I couldn't help but notice how like a child he seemed, in his actions as well as his words. I found it very endearing and later as the years went on I came to understand that his wisdom was so profound that all he could do was giggle about it. They speak of a gateless gate in Buddhism that we all as practitioner must pass through. It is not a regression nor a trancendence as we understand those terms. But if pressed, I would say the gate is both and yet neither. For when one passes through they realize what they were seeking was theirs all along. We just have to remember, that's all. Thank you for reading, Dan 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
