[MD] A formalised Code of Art

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: Squonkonguitar at aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] A formalised Code of Art
>Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:56:54 EDT
>
> >Mark 13-10-06: Hello Dan.
> >I agree. He was attacking static  social patterns with intellectual  
>skill.
> >I think the Buddha helped  initiate Eastern Intellectual development.
> >But the poem under discussion  is part of the initial attack! So,  how 
>can
> >intellectual patterns be  included in the body of the references in the
> >poem
> >itself?
>
>Hi Mark
>
>I am unsure what you're asking  here.
>
>Mark 14-10-06: Hello Dan.
>Imagine you could travel back to the time and place where the Buddha  
>lived?
>What sort of culture would you find?

You'd probably find rich living alongside poor and the poor being taxed to 
support the rich. But try as you might you wouldn't find any indoor 
plumbing.

>I will tell you: A culture severely dominated by religious ritual.
>There is a ritual for every aspect of the day from waking up until going to
>bed. Non stop.

That sounds a whole lot like my life, thank you very much.

>Some people found it excruciatingly pointless and did something about  it.
>Simply saying, 'Hey, this is a bit much! I want to live more freely' does
>not wash, because you are told you're being blasphemous to avoid the  
>rituals.
>You know, all that religious control freaky shit religious people go in  
>for?
>The Buddha was sneaky: He claimed that rituals where the source of  pain.
>So, when he says, 'Live as a dead man' he is saying, 'don't observe any
>rituals.'

Ignorance is the source of suffering. If a person goes about ignoring 
rituals they will not be going around long.

>This idea is backed up by intellectual arguments.

Not in LILA.

> >From a MoQ perspective we can see the intellectual patterns of the Buddha
>challenging the social patterns of his culture.
>One way of doing this is to go straight for DQ because there is no place  
>for
>the intellectual patterns to latch - yet.
>As time moved on, the intellectual advances where included into the culture
>of Buddhist thought and the emphasis on DQ remained.

You would perhaps know that better than I would. Yet in my experience there 
is no intellectual basis to zen.

>
>Dan:
>So far as I know, the Buddha offered no
>relief to the poor, he didn't  heal the sick, and he didn't feed the hungry
>and house the homeless. He was  pretty much apolitical too. Yet he taught 
>how
>to end the suffering of every  sentient being.
>
>Mark 14-10-06:
>Re: poor. The poor are actually less than Humans in the Indian cast  
>system.
>Did you know that Dan?

Umm, yes. I did know that Mark.

>In Indian culture, the different casts are not simply different classes of
>Human economic viability.
>Nope. The different casts are held to be different species.
>I'm not joking.

Oh I believe you. And I'm not laughing. I'm not!

>Re: Sick: I don't know in what way Indian culture regarded the sick.
>Re: Starving. I don't know in what way Indian culture regarded the  
>starving.
>Re: Homeless: The rituals i mentioned above revolved around the Home. This
>is why the Buddha wandered without home, because he was escaping the very 
>heart
>  of Indian culture's rituals. He's not going to fucking house the homeless
>then  is he!!!

It's good to see you have a sense of humor!

>Re Suffering: Drop cast system and stop treating some as less than human  
>(no
>divisions)

As you have obviously studied this matter, could you please provide a sutra 
(along with your commentary) that supports your hypothesis?

>
>Dan:
>The Buddha taught that there
>are no divisions but those we make in our  own minds and then declare to be
>true. His teachings seem to go way beyond  the social structures of his 
>day,
>or our day for that matter.
>
>Mark 14-10-06: As i said, there was nowhere for the intellectual advances
>the Buddha made to latch so the emphasis on DQ remains.
>Later thinkers explored logic and stuff but DQ remained central.
>I think i understand this.

I'm sorry but I don't. No matter...

>The, 'lack of division' argument is an argument after all. If you read the
>Pali cannon t
he arguments are there to undermine those who insist they know
>they  are right simply because they have social convention on their side. 
>It's
>most  effective.

Again, as my interpretation is bound to differ from yours, perhaps you might 
be good enough to provide a quote along with your commentary for discussion 
here.

>Any empirical experience of a lack of division cannot be encapsulated in a
>'lack of division' argument because such arguments may be challenged.
>The point is, in order to challenge the lack of division argument, you have
>to behave intellectually.

I don't see this as a valid point to what we're discussing.

>
>Dan:
>You seem to be not only trivializing what Robert
>Pirsig is saying, but  the teachings of Buddhism as well. But as I said,
>perhaps I am  misunderstanding what you are saying.
>
>Mark 14-10-06:
>I don't want to trivialise. I want to understand and not live with the
>notion that the Buddha was anything more than a human being, assuming he 
>lived  at
>all (which is contentious) Don't you think we've has enough of placing
>individuals on pillars and then turning them into semi-gods?

Teachings aren't the person.

>
> >
> ><snip>
> >Dan:
> >You're taking a very simple  quote and intellectualizing it into  
>something
> >that runs on and on  like a monkey chasing a monkey. If that seems
> >esoteric,
> >well, then I guess it is esoteric.
> >
> >Mark  13-10-06: I don't think you're being esoteric here.
> >I don't think i'm  intellectualising to the extent you portray.
> >It's simple with a little  reflection - i'm not doing tensor sets or shit
> >like that.
>
>Dan:
>I know you don't think you are intellectualizing.
>
>Mark 14-10-06: I did not say this. I said i don't think i'm
>intellectualising to the extent you portray, which is to say, 
>'Intellectualising  it into
>something that runs on and on like a monkey chasing a monkey.' In  other 
>words, i
>am insisting there is an aim to what i am saying which makes  sense.
>It's too easy to dismiss anything as pointless.

What is your aim? I am missing it and I am interested in this.

>
>Dan:
>I'm like that too. Still,
>often times I find that instead of endlessly  chattering and running around
>with my "monkey mind" looking for that which I  have yet to find, I simply
>settle down.
>
>Mark 14-10-06: Now look here mate, lets leave the Monkey mind to those who
>chitter chatter without any coherent intellectual or informed aim.
>I'm not insulted, but i'm beginning to get the idea that you're right up
>your own arse.

There's the squonk we all know and love!

>
>Dan:
>Once I sit for a while I see it's right there in front of me
>and has  been all along. One day you'll see that too.
>
>Thanks for your  comments,
>
>Dan
>
>Mark 14-10-06: Yes. You are indeed right up your own arse.

Oh yeah? Well...well... you're a dork, so there! (My, aren't we being 
constructive!)


Dan

ps remember boys and girls: drugs are wrong!