Dan:
Then you should be able to show me the self. Where is it? Please point it 
out.

[Case]
I attempt to do that every time I sent in a post to the MoQ.

>[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.

[Case]
As James notes there are a variety of religious experiences.

But as Russell observes it is difficult to know what to make of another's
purely personal experience. 

"From a scientific point of view, we can make no distinction between the man
who eats little and sees heaven and the man who drinks much and sees
snakes."

You said, "We have to understand the true nature of people and things." It
is difficult to see how looking inward could shed much light on this.

In the town where I live we have a several mega-churches. One of them used
to occasionally have a guest speaker named Rodney Howard Brown. During his
sermons people in the congregation would experience religious ecstasy and
begin to so laugh hysterically, they would fall to the floor, oblivious to
their surroundings. What Brown was saying was no even remotely funny. He was
not a comedian. He claimed this was a movement of the Holy Spirit and those
so moved were in agreement. Never-the-less neither the fact of their
collective actions nor the fact that they had established consensus was not
enough to convince me that much could be made about their conclusions about
the fundamental nature of reality.

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/

Reply via email to