On Jul 22, 2012, at 3:50 PM, 118 <ununocti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there Marsha,
>
> On 7/22/12, MarshaV <val...@att.net> wrote:
>>> Mark pontificates:
>>> Yes, you can certainly create the construct that "the ultimate nature
>>> of static quality is Dynamic Quality". Especially if this brings you
>>> meaning. For that is what this is all about. You project an entity
>>> called static quality and using the concept of "ultimate nature" you
>>> project Dynamic Quality as a source. We can say that the ultimate
>>> nature of mass is energy, if that brings meaning to one's reflections.
>>> Such contemplation is useful if it gets one into an appropriate frame
>>> of mind from which to deal with one's existence. It is the
>>> contemplation itself which is of importance, rather than the pointing,
>>> in my opinion.
>>
>> I might agree that both contemplation and pointing may have benefits, but so
>> might the experience of direct insight. That experience can be X or Dynamic
>> Quality or nirvana or whatever. I am not sure what you mean be "dealing
>> with" one's existence; that sounds like a grim task.
>
> It was not meant to sound grim. Perhaps "enjoying" would have been a
> better term. As I see it, direct insight is a form of contemplation.
> Such contemplation is more than words. Perhaps meditation is a better
> term. They both mean the same thing to me.
>>
>>
>>> This is what is brought forth in your translated passage of the
>>> Diamond Sutra. This passage is not saying that static patterns ARE
>>> dreams, etc. It is suggesting that one contemplate such a phrase as a
>>> tool by which to gain further meaning. By contemplating as such one
>>> looks beyond the simple analogy to its meaning in other aspects of
>>> thought. Such contemplation becomes a prism by which to gain access
>>> to an alternative mode of awareness. Such awareness is free of the
>>> idea that static quality are like dreams, etc. And the correlation
>>> shrinks to the point of triviality. One can then forget about the
>>> analogy and use one's new awareness in other matters of meditation.
>>
>> Yes, agree. But I an imperfect and have the residual of bad habits, so it
>> helps that I am reminded. I have come to appreciate more and more those
>> simple four lines.
>
> I am imperfect too, which is why I attend this forum and others. I
> like those lines too, they provide a sense of freedom from static
> quality, for me. That is one objective of MoQ, just like it is with
> Buddhism.
I agree. The theory is important to understand, but as just another theory who
cares. For me the MoQ offers a shift in the understanding of 'how things
really are', not merely another theory. We don't need another theory, we need
a better understanding. (I don't care too much for the word 'need', but it
will have to do.)
>>> This manner of teaching a method of promoting a fundamental paradigm
>>> shift is common in all lasting metaphysics (I wouldn't know of those
>>> which have not lasted). One can see this in the writing of
>>> Kierkegaard entitled "Sickness unto Death" where he speaks of
>>> fundamental spheres that humans can exist in regarding their
>>> relationship with reality. He presents three of these. Each one of
>>> these manners of existence are correct, but only one can be held at a
>>> time. Just like with an optical illusion, one can only hold one
>>> manner of viewing a picture, at a time, in one's view. Each form of
>>> metaphysical view requires a release of the one which existed before.
>>
>> Maybe with the new view one does not hold any view too tightly. Within
>> Buddhism it is stated that ultimately Emptiness is empty.
>
> Heh, heh. Not holding any view too tightly is also a view.
>
> Contemplating on Emptiness can also be useful, no doubt. One would
> ask "empty of what?". I am not sure that emptiness is a good word for
> the West. It implies fullness. Perhaps "Free" is a better term,
> (which means the same thing to me), for MoQ. If one uses the Buddhist
> instructions of contemplating all “inherentness” as conditional, one
> can only reach the conclusion that everything is free. That is, that
> it has no beginning. Without beginning there is no determinism. Once
> one begins clinging to causes, the assembly becomes self restricting, imo.
Buddhism is spreading throughout the West; emptiness can be explained in
degrees. I found its implications painful before freeing.
>>> The Western metaphysical view must be released in order to gain access
>>> into a Quality metaphysics. If not, one is just viewing Quality
>>> through the same set of glasses which one is used to, and nothing is
>>> gained. This is why I try to emphasize "Quality Awareness" as a
>>> fundamental shift in how one perceives. This awareness cannot be
>>> reached by reading about Quality as in MOQ, but is arrived at "out of
>>> the blue". It is like switching from a negative view of a situation
>>> to a positive one. The situation does not change, just the manner in
>>> which it is viewed. Some have analogized this switch to
>>> "enlightenment" which is a somewhat arrogant word.
>>
>> Or at least "enlightenment" can have projected upon it an arrogant
>> understanding. Your "Quality Awareness" sounds theoretical or like a result
>> (object) rather than an ongoing experience? But that's probably my
>> projection. All that is required is to pay attention. Yes?
>
> Yes, that is well put. Any word has its power in how it is
> interpreted. Buddha himself was said to be humble. This makes sense
> if one follows Buddhism.
>
> What I mean be Quality Awareness, would be similar to saying "movement
> awareness". That is, if one is aware of movement, one enters into
> such a world. There is nothing theoretical about it, it is a state of
> being. Just like being alive is not considered theoretical. From the
> sense of existence comes all else, including thought (for us humans).
>
> In Zen they say, "thinking without thinking". I could modify this to
> say "paying attention without paying attention". Don't know if this
> makes sense to you, but it is meant to prevent clinging. Or, using
> Taoism, it can be presented as "consider the Tao as a Way". This Way
> would be the same idea as Quality awareness. That is, that which
> comes before precepts. That which provides the basis for
> contemplation (or meditation). Just my own opinion, of course, which
> is not in conflict with yours.
I learned my meditation through Raja yoga techniques, and as I understand it
Zen Buddhism offers but one technique: zazen. I think of meditation as a
sitting technique, and it might include concentration. Mindfulness, for me, is
more awareness in action without any verbal narration. Washing dishes or
weeding garden or driving without words - without a narrative running through
our minds; being fully present in place and activity. But "objects" - dishes &
dish towel & garden tools & weeds & steering wheel & road - are recognized. It
is not an undifferentiated experience. I also think it possible to have fully
aware, unpatterened, undifferentiated experiences. - But my mediation
practices have not been systematic with the guidance of a qualified meditation
instructor. There are many traditions offering meditation techniques and I am
not talking with any authority or precision.
Snip...
>>> I do not believe that there is a magical manner in which to view
>>> reality which is somehow the "right way". (What is good, and what is
>>> bad...?"). This mode of thinking simply creates sides which do
>>> righteous battle with each other (as occurs in this forum on
>>> occasion).
>>
>> The small limited view is more liable to needlessly cause suffering due to
>> grasping. I think that the big expansive view is more accepting of
>> suchness. I also think that the big, expansive view naturally promotes
>> doing your best.
>
> As I see it, the concept of suffering comes about when one
> contemplates one's enjoyment through a Buddhist prism. First one must
> be Buddha aware, then the Buddhist concepts can be used. If one is
> not a Buddhist then one is not suffering in the Buddhist sense, and
> the term is meaningless.
>
> In the West, the concept of suffering means something a bit different
> since Christ suffered. As I understand it, "suffering" in Buddhism is
> more like "insufficiency". It brings about constant seeking (see the
> drawings of the three messengers (Buddha, Confucius, and Lao Tsu)
> tasting the vinegar. The word Nirvana, literally means "to breath
> out", or to stop holding ones breath. As a useful picture that some
> keep in mind when doing the Buddhist "breath awareness" form of
> meditation, is to consider a screen door which continually blows in
> and out without hindrance. As good indicator to "see" somebodies
> state of mind is to pay attention to their breathing. As you know,
> breathing is a very useful tool for becoming in tune, or in harmony.
> We simply ARE, and there is no need to struggle. See Tao Te Ching's
> analogies using water.
Don't have the best words for this, but I think of Buddhism's suffering as
addressing the insidious, self-inflicted aspect of suffering.
Snip...
>> I don't want anyone to think you do not belong here.
>>
> Not to worry Marsha. We all belong where we are, or else we would not
> be here. We are all active participants in the act of creation, and
> everything would fall apart without each one of us (literally); see
> Sartre on Being through Annihilation.
>
> As you well know, there is a strong attempt to control the message
> which Pirsig tried to start. There is a sense of ownership in terms
> of describing Quality in metaphysical terms. As I said to Ant, these
> will all fail due to their very nature. According to MoQ,
> presentations progress to betterness, and to consider our current
> views as the best and not easily changed is typical of academia.
> Knowledge grows in starts and stops. There will always be those free
> from the current static Quality. This is where Pirsig is. That he
> does not interfere indicates to me that he wants us to think for
> ourselves and not be told how to think.
I, too, believe he would want us to think these things through for ourselves.
> Belonging is a social part of our being. I our world it seems to
> dominate. One manner to view MoQ is as a rebalance of the various
> levels which have become top heavy in the social and intellectual
> realms. We no longer listen to our bodies, but wait for a doctor to
> tell us. Psychiatry tells us how we are to view reality, and drugs
> abound. Our social structure has become so encased in the appropriate
> social manner that freedom is left behind. The Victorian manner does
> not hold a candle to what we are currently faced with in terms of
> societal control.
There is value in being a radical skeptic!
> I will be providing a more detailed opinion on the "levels" in a
> response to "T-Rex" John's question. However, please be aware that
> such a post will contain objectionable material, and parental
> advisories are appropriate...
Some of us introverts have a more private and reserved relationship with words.
I think that needs to be respected too. It's not just that we are holding
back.
Marsha
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
