[MD] First Division 2.0

[118]

Hi Marsha,
Is your attraction to Buddhism related to your attraction to MoQ?
Thanks
Mark

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Feb 23, 2012, at 3:00 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> 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...  
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html