Hello everyone >From: "Case" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [MD] Art of Value >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:11:15 -0400 > >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.
Hi Case Thank you for writing. I think if you ask people to point to self you'll find that they automatically point to the center of their body. We associate the body with self. But where is self in the body? Is it in the center where people point? Is it in the brain? I don't know. Do you? > > >[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. Dan: Buddhism is not a religion, imo. Not that I consider myself a Buddhist. >Case: >But as Russell observes it is difficult to know what to make of another's >purely personal experience. Dan: See for yourself. >Case: >"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." Dan: >From a scientific point of view there is no self. >Case: >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. Dan: I know. >Case: >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. I am not a religious person. I used to go to several churches a lot but it was to clean not to pray. The retreats I go on are nothing like the religious retreats you might be familar with. So I think we are probably talking past each other. 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/
