[MD] The MOQ and Death

[Andre Broersen]

Hi Steve,
I am a bit late in responding to this topic but this has its reasons.
I remember from long ago that Marsha asked me how often I thought of
death...I told her the thought was on my mind every day.

SOM in all of its wonderful varieties suggests that a person is born,
lives..does his or he thing, and dies. End of story. The Christian
view put simply ( resting on Aristotelian premises) emulayes the
former but changes the latter into 'dies' and ends up eternally (
whatever that means) in heaven, hel or purgatory. (I have been brought
up submersed in this concept). Perhaps, if you are so inclined you
could read Dante's"' Divine Comedy'.

Enter Gautama and Nagarjuna's version: You have not been 'born' at
all. You have 'dependently arisen'. Without your parents, you would
not be here, without their parent they would not have been here etc,
etc... follow this for a minute and you conclude that everything and
everyone is not an isolated growth on its own, it has depended on
everything else to arise.

There is not a 'thing' in the universe that is not linked in some way
to something else in the universe. There is nothing that has an
independent 'essense' ( which is something that Ham needs to wake up
to). There is no independent existence called tree, mountain, Andre,
Steve, Pirsig. We have all dependently arisen. 'We' were not born at a
certain point in time and within a certain point in space. So if we
have not been born, how can we speak of dying? As if being born and
dying are separate, independent, essentail processes within something
called 'living' in between.

Gautama never answered questions related to a first beginning... it is
a meaningless question. It is mu.

Given the dependent arising perspective, which I think is fully
endorsed by the DQ/SQ of the MoQ I take comfort in the continuation of
the patterns that have formed and melded into what is socially called
Andre. But these patterns have 'me'. 'I' in this sense am an illusion.
It is useful and practical ( for social reasons). In a conventional
sense but I do not have an independent essence that is born, lives and
is going to die.

The all encompassing idea Nagarjuna places his idea in is called
'emptiness' . The lacking of  'essence', the lacking of an
independently arisen entity. I take comfort in this perspective
because it reflects closely ( does not correspond to dmb) my own
experience.

I am 'dependently arisen' and part of this 'emptiness' from which
developed the patterns that are now (conventionally) called 'Andre". I
am not a lone , isolated individual, estranged from my fellow man or
environment. 'I' came, part of the organic whole, the One, The Void,
Quality, Nothingness, all that is.

I have suffered the Christian perspective and it is hard and difficult
to beat and rise 'above' this SOM mentality. Harder work to join, and
giving in, to the Buddhist experience...leading to the divine dance (
which Arlo and gav so eloquently hinted at)...but all worth it.
DQ/SQ...Lila.

For what it is worth.
Andre