[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[MarshaV]

Andre,


On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:52 AM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

In Buddhism there is the term 'anatta', no-self.  

    One cannot say that the self (I) exists. 
    One cannot say that the self (I) does not exist. 
    One cannot say that self (I) both exists and does not exist. 
    One cannot say that the self (I) neither exists nor does not exist.

The 'I' is merely a nominal convention for social discourse.  In my experience of mindfulness, there is no 'I'.  I have sought to find an intrinsically existing self, but have found only a flow of bits and pieces of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value patterns.  I will not disagree with you if you say in your experience of mindfulness there is an 'I', but in mine, when I am in that state, there is no 'I' in mindfulness, and there is no 'I' that exists other than as a static convention.  

Marsha