Hello everyone >From: "Case" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [MD] Art of Value >Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:01:02 -0400 > >[Dan] >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] >I suspect the self originates in the body but it can be expressed and many >ways. But the term also lends itself to many to many meanings so it is hard >to say.
Hi Case Perhaps I misunderstood you. You said: If empirical means accessible to the senses then certainly the self is nothing if not empirical. Are you saying the self is empirical, accessible to the senses? If a doctor does an MRI on a person's body, they can image the various organs as they are empirical. But can they image the self? > >Dan: >Buddhism is not a religion, imo. Not that I consider myself a Buddhist. > >[Case] >Why would you say it is not a religion? Dan: I would say it is not a religion since Buddhism doesn't worship a deity. I understand there has been much disagreement among scholars on whether Buddhism is a religion or not. If one wishes to consider it so, I have no problem with that. I simply prefer to think of it as a way of life rather than a religion or a philosophy. >Case: >And why is it so important for you >not to consider yourself anything at all? Dan: I did not say that. I said I'm not a Buddhist as I do not consider myself to be one. I was baptized a Catholic yet I do not consider myself to be a Catholic either. I am a collection of patterns of value. I don't find that of particular import, however. > >Dan: >See for yourself. > >[Case] >What am I looking for? Dan: Personal experience. > >Dan: > >From a scientific point of view there is no self. > >[Case] >According to who? Dan: Who is the discoverer of the self? Has anyone found it yet? I don't think so. So I imagine if you were to ask any reputable scientist they would be forced to say the self is an empty concept, that it does not exist. > >[Dan] >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. > >[Case] >Retreats are fairly common practices. While the specific forms and goals >differ, the practice of having them is widespread. I doubt that the ones >you >attend are as unusual as you think. Dan: That could well be. Just out of curiosity, have you attended any? >Case: > >From what you say you have an expert guiding a group of students through >a >series of exercises design to teach them something about themselves. This >usually takes place at a location relatively free of modern distractions. Dan: There are no experts. I think that is another difference between religion and Buddhism. Everyone practices in solitude. The first time I attended it seemed (to me) like everyone was stuck up; in the culture I'm from we nod to each other and say hi when we pass each other on a path. It is only natural. At the retreat there is total silence. No one speaks or even acknowledges anyone else for the duration. No one tells you what to do. You just do it. It can be unnerving. >Dan: >The example I gave of Rodney Howard Brown had nothing to do with a retreat, >however. It served mainly to show that individuals can be invited to >experience for themselves a wide variety of inner states. Group consensus >can be achieved on how to achieve these states and what they mean. You >invited me to come see for myself. I am sure Rev. Brown welcomes you to >experience the movement of the spirit. > >What's the difference? Dan: The example you gave of the Rev. Brown showing that individuals can be invited to experience inner states sounds (to me) a great deal like a retreat. I might well ask you the same question: what's the difference? But I don't want to answer a question with a question. I would imagine one difference is that the good Rev. lives a pretty wealthy life. Probably drives a fine car and lives in a big fancy house and wears $3000 suits. Of course I don't know that for sure but were I a betting man, I would wager it to be true as I suspect it's a pretty safe bet. The advisor I know has one robe that doesn't actually belong to him (don't ask what he wears on wash day), abides in a one room stone hut (not his own) without electriciity or running water, and lives on rice and tea. He doesn't invite anyone to experience the spirit, so far as I know. And by example he points the way to correct practice. Let me ask you a question now: in your opinion, of the two, who is closer to truth? 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/
