[MD] First Division 2.0

[MarshaV]

Hi David,

I did not mean my question in any condescending way.  I am not a Buddhist, but from the moment I first read a few paragraphs from the Platform Sutra I felt a very deep attraction to Buddhism.  Whether Zen Buddhism or Theravada Buddhism, I believe it is a process of understanding, so please, my questions was not a challenge.  I thought maybe you shared my attraction.  


Marsha 




On Feb 20, 2012, at 4:57 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> Greetings David of the Chess Moves,
> 
> I have no reason to agree or disagree, claim you correct or incorrect, but I was I wondering if your are a Zen Buddhist?  
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 18, 2012, at 8:52 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> It seems our discussion is covering everything related to the MOQ under the sun. But I guess in order for us to find coherence in our viewpoints this is necessary to bring out the assumptions behind what we think..
>>> No forewarning needed. In fact I appreciate any correction for that
>>> allows me to learn and grow. I am not bonded to how I view things,
>>> nor to how anybody else presents things. I am often just a passive
>>> observer and I let my brain do the hard work. If I agree with it,
>>> then I allow this brain to continue. In fact I appreciate
>>> disagreement for that allows a dynamic interplay into the discussion.
>>> Agreement is good, but somewhat passive. With that said, I will
>>> present some arguments in favor of my sq presentation that you kindly
>>> responded to.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> What is this attitude of non-attachment that you have?  What do you point towards when you hold such an attitude?  What is attachment?  
>> 
>> I think that an attachment is a static pattern. It is making a fixed thing out of nothing.  This is what static quality is.  When we act as if there is a static this or a static that, this is attachment. But this isn't how reality is ultimately… For reality isn't fixed like this.
>> 
>> 'Non-attachment' is DQ. Just as DQ is no thing.  To claim that you're 'above' the DQ sq split is a mistake.  It is a mistake because you are completely neglecting the power of the first division of the MOQ in the process.  And the power of this 'non-attached' perspective is incorporated into the first division as DQ. Surely you can see this?
>> 
>> 
> 
> snip...  


 
___