[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[Andre]

David to Andre:
Is a 'referring term' not a definition? I think to some degree that it is..

Andre:
Well, I beg to differ David. I do not think that by referring to [DQ] 
you in any way,shape or form are already defining it.Rather the referral 
is made from that which it is not. The referring is a finger pointing 
to... .

David:
Are you really comparing these thinkers by looking at them from the 
perspective of how good they are? I don't think that you are. If you 
would like to judge how good Christianity is or Northrop is or Buddhism 
is - talk to me about them from the perspective of the best metaphysical 
platform there is - The MOQ.

Andre:
Right, and they all point, in their various ways, their various insights to Quality.

David:
Well, I'm not sure how you define 'contemplative path' however to me it conjures up a path the intellect follows while it thinks about something... i.e. not DQ.

Andre:
I'm thinking of a integration of 'being'(zazen) and 'doing'. Phaedrus sums it up quite nicely:
"This inner peace of mind occurs on three levels of understanding. Physical quietness seems the easiest to achieve...Mental quietness in which one has no wandering thoughts at all [no 'monkey mind]...and value quietness, in which one has no wandering desires at all but simply performs the acts of life without desire...". (ZMM, p 289)

David:
I see what you're trying to do.  That is, to integrate what Wilbur has written about the two schools into the framework of the MOQ.  Something that I suggest we ought to do above.   This is the sort of thing that this board is built to do.

Andre:
I agree.

David:
I don't necessarily agree with the analogies that you are drawing.  While I do agree that the Hinayana school of Buddhism seems only interested in 180 degrees enlightenment, what's wrong with Pirsig's explanation of 180 degree and 360 degrees enlightenment in this regard?

Andre:
I wasn't aware that I suggested Pirsig was wrong with his explanation of the 180 and 360 degrees enlightenment. My comment referred to Marsha's claim that there is no "I" in mindfulness. I disagreed and this can be verified through a reading of the various Vedantic,(Zen)Buddhist and also Sufi and (gnostic)Christian literature. I meant to say no more than just that.

Thanks David.