[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[MarshaV]

On Apr 17, 2012, at 3:32 AM, Andre wrote:

> I am not suggesting that no one is entitled NOT to have their version of an moQ. But I am not interested in discussing Marsha's or Mark's or for that matter Tuuka's moQ. I am interested in discussing Pirsig's MOQ. Of course we can disagree saying, hello, this does not line up with my experience in relation to what Pirsig argues, I need clarification here. So then I'd rather be pointed out where my experience is possibly wrong or mistaken IN RELATION TO PIRSIG'S MOQ and why. And I believe it is reasonable to expect from me a more substantial argument than: "well it's MY experience", it's my interpretation and that is the only one that counts!



see below…  


On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:45 PM, MarshaV wrote:  


> On Apr 10, 2012, at 2:41 AM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Marsha to Andre:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Andre:
> Hi Marsha, and I will not disagree with you because that will end up in a yes/no children's game. I would just ask you to read carefully what you write above:"... but in mine (!), when I(!)am in that(!)state, there is no I..."
> 
> Point to ponder perhaps is to ask: who is making this observation? Who is witnessing this so that you can arrive at the statement that there is no I? If there is no "I" how can you speak of 'that state'?
> 
> Over and out.

Andre,

The response was there in my original post.  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.


I have pondered and sought to find an intrinsically existing self, but have consistently found only a flow of bits and pieces of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value patterns. 

The 'I' and 'mine' and 'my' are merely nominal conventions labeling a stream, or flow, of patterns.  These terms are pragmatically used for social discourse.  

In my experience of mindfulness, there is no 'I'. 

Whatever is 'pondering', 'seeking' or 'witnessing':
  it cannot be said that the self (I) exists;
  it cannot be said that the self (I) does not exist;
  it cannot be said that self (I) both exists and does not exist;
  it cannot be said that the self (I) neither exists nor does not exist.


"An example of sammuti-sacca [conventional (relative) truth, or static quality] is the concept of self. Pirsig follows the Buddha’s teachings about the ‘self’ which doesn’t recognise that it has any real existence and that only ‘nothingness’ (i.e. Dynamic Quality) is thought to be real. According to Rahula, the Buddha taught that a clinging to the self as real is the primary cause of dukkha (which is usually translated as ‘suffering’).  Having said this, Rahula (1959, p.55) makes it very clear that it’s not incorrect to ‘use such expressions in our daily life as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘being’, ‘individual’, etc’ as long as it is remembered that the self (like anything else conceptualised) is just a useful convention."
   (McWatt, MoQ Textbook)


Marsha 





 
___