[MD] Buddhism's s/o

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Wed Apr 28 08:20:59 PDT 2010 

John,

What is the question?  



Marsha
   




On Apr 28, 2010, at 11:08 AM, John Carl wrote:

> Marsha,
> 
> When you say, "This is an attempt at psychological manipulation,"
> 
> to which pattern of words are you refering?
> 
> Yours?
> 
> Or mine?
> 
> Or all of ours?
> 
> you me and dmb makes three.
> 
> As for me, I wasn't searching for "adults" to respond; I was asking YOU!
> 
> Silly Marsha,
> 
> Tricks are for kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:54 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> John,
>> 
>> This is an attempt at psychological manipulation, and so was suggesting
>> that god was something to intellectually push against, and so was looking
>> for adults to respond, and so was dmb-dmbs "Unbelievable.".  Do you
>> understand 'pattern'?
>> 
>> I need to be silly.
>> 
>> 
>> marsha,
>>    the undone
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:44 AM, John Carl wrote:
>> 
>>> Marsha,  you don't wish to answer?  Even though I'm not really asking a
>>> question about "the god pattern" but the social pattern as observed in
>> the
>>> light of overcoming the god pattern?
>>> 
>>> Hmmmm...
>>> 
>>> IN-teresting...
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:23 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi John,
>>>> 
>>>> I really appreciate your open-mindedness, but I have nothing to
>>>> say about the god-pattern.  I really have nothing to say, and
>>>> bringing Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny into the discussion
>>>> will not inspire me to change my mind.  I am sorry to say no to
>>>> you.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 27, 2010, at 4:43 PM, John Carl wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Marsha,
>>>>> 
>>>>> You need no argumentation to convince at least me, that Buddhism used
>>>> logic
>>>>> and purely rational philosophical methods to achieve realizations which
>>>> are
>>>>> highly advanced, even today.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Buddha was not only an amazing thinker and philosopher, but a
>> superb
>>>>> teacher as well and his students built on his insights to an
>> astoundingly
>>>>> wonderful degree.  I only have had a small exposure to their teaching,
>> a
>>>>> compilation of the ancient antecedents of zen, called chan where it was
>>>>> born, but that small exposure was enough to make me realize the
>> extremely
>>>>> high quality of intellectual attainment in this line of thinking.  What
>> a
>>>>> gift for the world!
>>>>> 
>>>>> The book was called "The Roaring Stream" and its poetry and power have
>>>> left
>>>>> me wanting more.  Another library book to order from ebay.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> But regardless of this high quality intellectual thinking at the heart
>> of
>>>>> the east, the area under Buddha's purview seems somewhat lacking in
>>>>> comparison to the Christianity-dominated west.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I believe this ties in to a dialogue I wanted to have with you, that I
>>>> tried
>>>>> to raise with you on an earlier thread, but which I never found your
>>>> answer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The dialogue concerns whether it is better for society to have an idea
>> of
>>>>> God to struggle against and overcome, or no idea of God at all in the
>>>> first
>>>>> place.  My analogy centered on whether we should rid our children of
>> such
>>>>> ideas as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and just give them the
>>>> straight
>>>>> facts from birth...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or, whether perhaps, there is an intellectual strength to be gained
>> from
>>>>> attaining to atheism on your own, bucking your parental authority,
>>>> bucking
>>>>> social authority, bucking God Himself! in order to assert your own
>>>>> intellectual being.
>>>>> 
>>>>> See, I see that as a process.  A way of strengthening and in fact
>>>> creating
>>>>> an intellectual "muscle" that wouldn't exist unless it had something as
>>>> big
>>>>> as God to push against.  And that future generations are deprived of
>> this
>>>>> musclular selfdom, by our egoistic assertions of subjective
>> enlightenment
>>>> as
>>>>> absolute.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is kinda what I wondered if you'd ever thought about...
>>>>> 
>>>>> yours ever,
>>>>> 
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:12 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To recap why I think Buddhism cannot be used as an exception to
>>>>>> the Intellectual Level being SOM, I offer these to quotes that
>> indicate
>>>>>> that Buddhism used logic and the scientific method for an objective
>>>>>> study of 'Mind'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "... So at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the Buddha's
>>>>>> path,
>>>>>> observation plays an extremely important role.  This is similar to the
>>>> role
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> objective observation plays in the scientific tradition which teaches
>>>> that
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> we observe a problem we first formulate a general theory followed by
>>>>>> specific
>>>>>> hypothesis. We find the same thing happening in the teaching of the
>> Four
>>>>>> Noble Truths and here the general theory is that all things have a
>>>> cause,
>>>>>> and the specific hypothesis is that the causes of suffering are
>> craving
>>>> and
>>>>>> ignorance."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "   Experience in Buddhism is comprised of two components - the
>>>> objective
>>>>>> component and the subjective component.  In other works, the things
>>>> around
>>>>>> us and we the perceivers.  Buddhism is noted for its analytical method
>>>> in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> area of philosophy and psychology.  What we mean by this is that the
>>>> Buddha
>>>>>> analyzes experience into various elements, the most basic of these
>> being
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> five Skandhas or aggregates - form, feeling, perception, mental
>>>> formation
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> volition and consciousness.   The five aggregates in turn can be
>>>> analyzed
>>>>>> into the eighteen elements (Dhatus) and we have a still more elaborate
>>>>>> analysis in terms of seventy two elements.  This method is analytical
>>>>>> as it breaks up things.  We are not satisfied with a vague notion of
>>>>>> experience,
>>>>>> but we analyze it, we probe it, we break it down into its component
>>>> parts
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> we break down the chariot into the wheels, the axle and so on.  And we
>>>> do
>>>>>> this in order to get an idea how things work. When we see for instance
>> a
>>>>>> flower, or hear a piece of music, or meet a friend, all these
>>>> experiences
>>>>>> arise as a result of components.  This is what is called the
>> analytical
>>>>>> approach.
>>>>>> And again this analytical approach is not at all strange to modern
>>>> science
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> philosophy."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (Peter D. Santina, 'Fundamentals of Buddhism',BAUS)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ___
>> 
>> 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/md/archives.html
>> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list