[MD] MoQ as religion [Belief Defininition]

[David Harding]

Hi again SA.

Heather Perella wrote:
> Hey David H.,
> 
>      You said:  "I know everything and I know nothing
> :)"
> 
>      You don't know my middle name.  Yet, you do know
> your first name.  

I know my first name - I know everything.

I don't know your middle name - I know nothing.

In fact I actually don't know your last, middle or first
name.  Why should I know these things?

Unless your trying to find some kind
> of middle way here between these two seemingly
> dualistic notions, which if you are then I will leave
> that effort up to you.

There is no middle way.  Any perceived 'middle way' is
after the fact.

> 
>      SA said:  "How much is the quantity of some?"  
> 
>      You said:  "Nothing specified, but it is still a
> quantity and that's my
> point."
> 
>      How many is some?  This is a mute point to
> distinguish don't you think?  

Yes, that's my point.

I see the difference
> between something and nothing, but I don't think DQ is
> not here and thus, not existing, thus, not a 'thing'.

DQ is here, it exists, it's no thing.

At the same time, it isn't here, it doesn't exist and it's
something. But if you really want to say something then I
think my first sentence is as close as I can get in the
finger pointing sense.

> Thing is anything and nothing.  It is, at least for
> me, a recognition of an existence, a something, or
> something called nothing, but it is here so I am
> recognizing with a vague word what That is That is
> here.  You have no idea what I am talking about when I
> say - something.

I do, you're talking about a thing.  DQ is not a thing.
When you call something a 'something' you run the risk of
people thinking your talking about some thing.  Things are
separate from reality, DQ is not separate from reality.

   Something could be anything or
> nothing at all.  

No it couldn't.  Some thing is opposed to no thing.

Yet, I am recognizing what ever you
> want to call 'it'.
>      I am going to read that article that you sent me.
>  I downloaded it but don't have the quality time to
> read it at this very moment.
> 
> Thanks, 
> SA
> 

Okay, no rush.  Tell us what you think after you've read
it.  But really all this talk about what DQ is or isn't is
really just this, talk. The best way to understand what DQ
is to meditate and see what it is for ourselves.  A good
guide to maintain the right attitude while doing it can be
found from books by Steve Hagen; Buddhism - Plain and
Simple, and Buddhism - It's not what you think.  The former
getting the following review by Pirsig.

"This is the clearest and most precise exposition of
Buddhism I have ever read. If you're looking for
enlightenment rather than just scholarly knowledge, you'd
better read this."

A lot of what I've been saying to you, I think has been
influenced by Steves writings as he also talks about
thoughts and things not being reality.

Cheers,

David.