[MD] Relativism, a definition

[MarshaV]

Carl,

I prefer Buddhism because of its emphasis on the internal practices of meditation and mindfulness, and the importance it places on the way that you develop your mind rather than social patterns.  It seems to me with the right view, kindness is always the proper course of action.  To me, this is also the message of the MoQ:  head, heart and hand.  As a bridge between East and West, the MoQ lifts both.   


Marsha




Sent from my iPad

On Jan 5, 2012, at 1:04 AM, "Carl Thames" <cthames at centurytel.net> wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Relativism, a definition
> 
> 
>> 
>> Hello Carl,
>> 
> Marsha:
> I can't really say.  I tried very hard to "get" the Hindu philosophy.  I read Patanjali so many times, and other texts, until my head began to swim. I learned and practiced hatha yoga, breathing techniques and meditation.  I spent many weekends going to retreats, and attended a two-week training session devoted to becoming a hatha yoga teacher.  But in the end I gave up because I couldn't "get it" and went back to university to give Western philosophy a try.  I eventually found ZAMM and then LILA.  I knew nothing about Buddhism until one day someone posted a few paragraphs of the Platform Sutra.  Those few paragraphs compelled me to read the full sutra, and then the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra; then I read the MMK and more books on emptiness.  Blah, blah, blah...  The point is that I was ready to hear.  I was ready to see.  It was my experiences with Hinduism and western philosophy that attracted me to the MoQ, and it was the MoQ that pointed towards studying Buddhism and that helped me "get it", even to this low level.  The Wisdom that Buddhism offers is tremendous, yet its all interconnected.
>> 
>> Now, one of my very favorite Hindu books is 'I Am That' by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (a recommendation from someone on the MD).  I cannot really separate Hinduism, the MoQ and Buddhism, and, of course and most importantly: meditation/mindfulness.  I suppose if I reread Pantajali and other of those Veda texts today, they would be far more understandable than back in those early days.  Buddha was Hindu.  I suppose the point is that they are pointing to the same moon.
> 
> 
> Carl:
> The only Hindu philosophy I've read so far has been the Bhagavad Gita.  It's 18 chapters, taken from the Upanishads.  Supposedly, you can understand the chapters on 7 different levels.  I've gotten about 3, most of the time.  The surface reading, and from my understanding of the other levels, it basically boils down to "Do your duty."  That's easier at some times than others.  I think Buddha took that philosphy and boiled it down to a duty to yourself, and focused on that.  Buddha himself said that since we are all connected, he would not be able to enter Nirvana until everyone did.  I studied Buddhism on Okinawa and in Korea, (primarily Zen) and achieved the state it references wherein you're not attached to anything.  The problem with that was that I wasn't attached to my life either, which from a Buddhist perspective is a good thing, but I was being a tourist here.  I really don't think that's the point of our existence.  That realization forced me to detach myself from my detachment.  In the process, I came to the realization that meditation wasn't the destination, it was the vehicle.  As for mindfulness, that's also easier said than done.  It's way too easy to slip into thinking about upcoming events, or past events that may have had an impact on me.  Mindfulness, when done properly, (IMHO) is all about NOW. It's about being totally present in the here and now.  Also easier said than done.
> 
> After that I encountered Shamanism, beginning with the book, "The Way of the Shaman" by Michael Harner.  I did a Shamanic journey, had a fantastic result, and have been studying Shamanism since.  The basic tenets there is that we're all here to learn, to help us grow as a species.  It is interesting to me that the more I study Shamanism, the more apparent it is that the other religions all came from it.  They took an aspect or two, focused on them, and made them the core of their beliefs.  Shamanism provided the entire picture, instead of just parts.
> 
> As for how that relates to MoQ?  I don't know.  I don't remember Pirsig actually mentioning a spiritual context for his philosophy.  It could be that he's using the word "quality" to mean our spiritual essense, which Hinduism calls that part of ourselves that was never born and will never die. It is seperate from ego, and contains both the conscious and the unconscious.  I am thinking about that more and more, and still haven't arrived at any rational understanding, or at least not enough of an understanding that I'm comfortable explaining what I think about it.