[MD] A formalised Code of Art
Squonkonguitar at aol.com
Squonkonguitar at aol.com
Sat Oct 14 20:11:00 PDT 2006
Hello everyone
You would perhaps know that better than I would. Yet in my experience there
is no intellectual basis to zen.
Mark 15-10-06: Hello Dan.
I haven't mentioned Zen. I simply suggested the Buddha used intellectual
patterns to undermine social patterns.
Hardly ground shaking stuff?
Zen developed hundreds of years after the Buddha lived.
>Re Suffering: Drop cast system and stop treating some as less than human
>(no divisions)
Dan:
As you have obviously studied this matter, could you please provide a sutra
(along with your commentary) that supports your hypothesis?
Mark 15-10-06: Oh i see. I have to provide support all of a sudden do i?
And what about you?
>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.
Dan:
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.
Mark 15-10-06: The Buddha wasn't born in a vacuum. He dealt with what he
found.
And what he found was severe ritual in day to day life.
I haven't got the time or energy to start providing a course in Indian
philosophy.
>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.
Dan:
I don't see this as a valid point to what we're discussing.
Mark 15-10-06: All i'm saying is the Buddha utilised intellectual patterns.
He also stressed one see for oneself - empirical experience.
Dan:
Teachings aren't the person.
Mark 15-10-06: I'm not arguing otherwise.
>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.
Dan:
What is your aim? I am missing it and I am interested in this.
Mark 15-10-06: Simple: The early Buddhist teachings - those said to be the
Pali canon - utilise intellectual patterns to undermine social patterns.
They did so in a particular cultural setting which to a great degree shape
them in the first place.
This is not to say don't have value in other cultural contexts.
>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.
Dan:
There's the squonk we all know and love!
Mark 15-10-06: Much imitated, but you know the original is best.
>
>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.
Dan:
Oh yeah? Well...well... you're a dork, so there! (My, aren't we being
constructive!)
Mark 15-10-06: It seems to me you enjoy passing yourself off as a 500
book-a-year polymath and sage with Craig Sterling like powers to assimilate
information, who can read a page almost as fast as he turns it. Well, i would
suggest moving up from the 'Janet and John' blue book series and give, 'Spot's
first Christmas' a go.
Dan
ps remember boys and girls: drugs are wrong!
Mark 15-10-06: Where the hell has this come from Dan?
Love,
Mark
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list