[MD] What a wonderful world

[MarshaV]

Marsha:
>From 'The Dalai Lama at MIT' and pertaining to why some of the Buddhist
tools, like visualization, are necessary.  And maybe why I think the 'world
as is' could be better without the subject/object point-of-view.

"  ... We need to place these efforts in a larger perspective.  They are
part of a more general goal of achieving a transformation of the way we
perceive the phenomenal world as well as the way we conceive of the nature
of the perceiver-- the "I", the subject. 

   Why do we need to transform these things?  What is wrong with the way in
which we ordinarily perceive the world?  Usually when we perceive the world,
we cannot help but assign to it values and judgments.  In some cases, of
course, doing so helps us to function in this world.  If we know something
is very hot, we need to be careful with it.  If we know that something is
dangerous, we keep our distance.  But the process quickly solidifies, and
soon we start assigning or imputing characteristics to external objects that
we feel are intrinsic to them but are not. We might think this floor is
beautiful because we perceive it as such.  But very quickly we tend to
believe that it is intrinsically beautiful, or ugly.  We believe that wounds
are intrinsically pleasant or unpleasant, and so, similarly, in the cases of
taste, touch, and all our sensory experiences.  In fact, there is a deeply
interdependent process between outer phenomena and our mind. We perceive
things and assign values to them; we try to possess things or discard them
based on those judgments; and we start to believe that the characteristics
we impute to object actually belong to the objects.  In this way, we
experience a much stronger compulsion to attract or repulse them.

   The problem is that our experiences of craving or repulsion are at odds
with reality.  Things are not intrinsically beautiful or pleasant. A rose
might be beautiful to our eyes, but its "beauty" does not mean much to a
whale or a bat.  Because our perception is at odds with reality, we end up
with a sense of frustration, torment, inner conflict, and suffering.
Likewise for the perceiver's experience of him- or herself..." 

This might diminish the morality of Protagoras' "Man is the Measure of all
Things", but it does nothing to diminish the morality of Quality.  Imho.  
 

Marsha, the fool     






-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Andre Broersen
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:54 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] What a wonderful world

Marsha to Andre:
Interesting thing, I am not Lao Tsu, nor ever claimed to be someone like
him.  I do claim, though, no matter what I investigate it turns out to be
not this, not that.  If I seem foolish for saying so, than maybe I am
foolish.

Andre:
Which makes you a wise woman Marsha.

Some posts ago there was a suggestion that we lived in a SOM world (or a
world dominated by SOM). What a load of crap. The world is.

We make it what it is ( a bit like chapter 14 in Lila)and Cat Stevens
singing: Love, we make it what it is, love, can seal it with a kiss.

There is always this layer of DQ 'underneath' the static stuff Marsha. It
never is what you may think it is.

You are wonderful and I like your paintings.

Andre
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/