[MD] The MOQ and Righteousness

[Heather Perella]

Hello David H.,

     First question:  Remember that link you sent me
that had a paper titled:  "Topophobia" by Jamie
Hubbard?  I did end up reading it.  It was incomplete
in its' explanation.  There were some assumptions
involved, but I believe I got the gist of it.  It
discussed distinctions versus non-distinctions in what
is real Buddhism versus fake Buddhism.  I don't know
if I really can go one or the other in the
argumentation.  There are distinctions and there are
not.  I do admit I probably didn't get (understand)
everything that article discussed.    
     

     Second question:  This second question is more
pertinent to this new post you made.  What is
righteousness?  Before I answer your post I want to be
clear as to what righteousness means.
     When I think of righteousness, I think about a
mission, a mission to be right.  Whether this mission
is somewhere in the universe and we go along, by
choice or not, a right way exists and this right way
when followed becomes a path we call righteousness? 
Maybe this is what righteousness means?  
     What that right way is?  Well, maybe, in general
we can live that right way, but in the details this
righteousness may lose steam and understanding.  For
example to the latter (the details), politics, I have
difficulty in noticing what might be the best way for
a cultures politics, but that is due, at times, to
something more 'in general' that is not being applied
by a culture, therefore, the politics of that culture
gets caught up in decisions that seem to veer away
from premises that I don't agree with to begin with,
thus, the choices, the questions themselves become
difficult, maybe wrong.  Another example along the
same lines as the politics example is Pirsig's
intention to go beyond  an SOM.  This is to explain
much of what can be understood from another vantage
point - MOQ.  To dig beyond SOM, Pirsig even showed
how deep into history this usurping could go. 
     I tried to put forth what I thought about
righteousness, but I want to be clear about this, as I
mentioned, before I try to give my opinion on the
questions you raised. 
     As to, is there a right way?  Well, when I
meditate or walk in the woods I notice a
'normalization' that occurs.  This normalization is
what I deem right for me.  Without meditating or
walking in the woods or even having quality time with
my wife, I would not be on the right track.  I feel
disturbed and even agitation may arise.  I know from
experience.
     Am I attached to what I deem quality experiences,
that do something I find 'right' for me?  Yes, but
without those experiences a standard in this world
would not be met by me in how I desire to live.  Or is
this desire a much larger desire, larger than me?  I
notice a certain potential, lived at times, and thus,
actualized with these techniques I perform.  
     Can I fully explain what this standard is?  No,
but now this the place where I can use MOQ words to
define my experience.  It is undefined, DQ, and yet
just enough foothold in this mystery can be
identified, SQ, to at least point out, in a way, you
know, SQ/DQ together named quality.
     I'll think about your post and come back to it. 

Thanks,
SA

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