[MD] Quantum Physics

[Heather Perella]

  [Chin]
> What would
> hold back DQ would 
> not be the sq that has built up over the years from
> DQ, but just 
> simply holding a dogmatic belief system in sq, or
> commonly accepted 
> knowledge. Sq will empty out naturally as long as
> you are open to DQ. 

     So, what I think we are saying is that dq is
here, but if one doesn't open up to dq, then sq will
not empty out naturally.  Things change, but if change
is stifled, then dq, a source of new sq, is not able
to suspend the ego, or in other words fill static
patterns from the static patterns that have emptied. 
I never really understood the empty and one is full
Zen concept, but the way you were explaining
suspend-ego clicked the Zen concept in my mind and I
think I finally get it.  Thanks.  The MoQ use of dq-sq
'movement' as sq empties, and dq fills, and thus, a
natural flow of filling sq again keeps sq from being
dead.


     [Chin] 
> Where this would fit in with Zen and Buddhism as I
> understand it, 
> would be you become a new person every day. Your
> self is temporary. In 
> the same thinking, sq is temporary; it is always
> open to DQ. 


      Impermanence


> SA previously)     Control is necessary then?  The
focus
> (control)
> keeps one on the clear path of suspending ego,
> maybe?
>  
> Chin)  Suspending the ego...
> Quality, or DQ in terms of DQ/sq, would simply just
> work its way into your nature by recognizing the
false self, by
> becoming real.  

-------
     While I meditate, it seems that at times I'm
focused on pain, events that are suffering, or not
refreshing.  At other times and eventually when I'm
focused upon pain, my meditation, if I stick with it
long enough, comes back to a deep quiet.  I soften up,
as if the hard shell that was once around me,
releases, opens up, and dissipates.  The tension is
gone, and I settle in this deep quiet.  As to my
focus, I guess I do relax my focus.  I am aware, but I
don't force anything.  While in painful experiences or
constant thoughts are distracting me, and I'm settled
in the quiet that I know is here, but I'm experiencing
it as deeply as I know the depth is.  While this is
happening my focus goes all over the place.  I sit,
relax, and my focus is upon this quiet, then a
distraction, then back again to the quiet.  Eventually
when the distractions are gone, the depth of quiet
felt throughout the experience involves no bottom, as
if yelling into the sky where no echo will be heard. 
The quiet seems to involve no boundary.  My focus,
when I relax, goes wherever the experience I am
involved with.  The longer I experience distractions,
the more my focus jumps around, thus not focused on
any particular 'thing' or 'activity', for the
distractions I'm focused upon keep changing.  On the
other hand, the longer I'm focused upon quiet, the
more stable my focus is, as the quiet isn't changing
seemingly, but my static patterns are changing.  How I
experience the quiet seems to be a sinking deeper, and
deeper into this quiet.  My focus the longer stuck
with quiet, the noticeable change I'll sense in static
patterns such as:  calmness, comfort, focus-stability.

    [Chin]
> ...Consciousness to me is just
> simply allowing 
> yourself to become connected, and it doesn’t matter
> what it is that is 
> connecting; it just is. It could be the universe, or
> it could be in 
> the confines of our own mind, or it could be
> Nothingness, which comes 
> closest to what I am saying, as we deny our egoistic
> nature of trying 
> to define where consciousness is coming from.

     Hmmm, very interesting.  This connection
consciousness involves us with would as you state
above, get us beyond debates of whether as you say,
"It could be the universe, or it could be in the
confines of our own mind, or it could be
Nothingness..."  Consciousness, put this way, is
connecting us, and thus, it doesn't matter where
consciousness is coming from, for in this line of
thinking, consciousness, according to its' nature,
would need to be clear, in by being clear, would not
emphasize or gravitate to some distraction. 
Consciousness, it seems, can't have a way about itself
in which it is misleading.  Consciousness, it seems,
can't inherently involve a delineated view and/or
inherently be directive, thus, consciousness can't be
selfish and force a view that consciousness itself
wants any being to be conscious of.  This is, I
assume, why you state consciousness "...could be
Nothingness...".  Consciousness is just clear and
quiet involved no-self.  Yet, as we understand, just
because consciousness is this way, consciousness
therefore does inherently involve a Way.  


      [Chin]
> There’s a little something in ZMM I would like you
> to read;
> “Phædrus wrote a letter from India about a
> pilgrimage to holy Mount 
> Kailas, the source of the Ganges and the abode of
> Shiva...


     Excellent reading, thanks, and yes, ego-climber,
I see.  No-self climber as in impermanence=chaos. 
Quantum physicist not having trouble with the unknown.
 Static quality is stuckness.  Intellectual level is
stuck.  Social level is stuck.  To not know the
difference between these levels might be due to the
porous nature of these levels for those helping these
levels understand their moral positions.  Thus,
perspective.  Those involved in helping the social
level with intellectual quality would not notice a
huge stumbling block between the two levels, or any of
the levels for that matter.  To focus upon trying to
delineate these two levels would be an effort that
does create conflict between these two levels.  Yet,
if intellectual quality is helping social level, then
intellectual level activity would disperse to social
level and thus, no huge or seemingly no difference
between the two levels would be waving its' hands like
some celebrity on a stage saying, "Here's the
difference."  The difference is being overcome or
calmed by a helpful intellect, a clear intellect, one
that is stuck with nothing.  Stuckness can either be a
trap or not a trap.  Stuckness upon original
intellectual latch is a stuckness upon nothing.  Stuck
upon static latches, the 'after' or 'post' code of art
first split would seem to be latches that trap one
with something, thus, stuck to static quality and the
ego.


warm sun upon this hill,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com