[MD] A formalised Code of Art

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

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