[MD] moq self

[118]

Hi Marsha,

Yes, stream is a useful analogy, and it can be suggested that "we" are
such stream, or what we consider as the Self can fall into that
category. The idea that experience exists without such Self would
imply that we have no control over experience and therefore no free
will.  This would of course be nihilistic towards the propagation of
Buddhism itself, since priests would be useless. That there no
experiencer exists as Hagen would have us think, would deny that the
stream exists.  The whole problem is in attempting to objectify the
Self as Static Quality as David is trying to do in posts to me.
However, in MOQ we are constantly using the "I" or "We", implying that
we have a sense of what such a thing is.  We cannot say that such a
"sense" is non-existent, for this destroys the whole purpose of
differentiating between existence and non-existence.  These terms are
just tools for conversation that we can agree on.

If I continue with your analogy, the corks could be considered as the
patterns (SQ), that we create of the stream.  A better analogy would
be ripples or currents.  That is, that in this stream a pattern is
formed (mini-stream).  The question would be what is the reason for
this pattern (its Tao)?  Of course we could say that the pattern does
not exist, but this again would be a useless intellectual exercise.
As you have suggested, patterns do exist.  But, where do they come
from, and what is "our" part in them?  This is what Jan Anders brings
in with his reply, which you found enlightening (your "that's nice"
response).

If indeed we do have free will (and are not just on some misguided
assumption that Buddhism is purely deterministic, and we are nothing
except static quality), then we must abstract something from this
stream within a stream.  We then have to ask, what provides control
(free will) over this stream (or in Buddhist terminology, what is it
that provides us with the impetus to seek enlightenment?)  This would
be the Self which we discuss in MOQ.

Now the jump: We can consider this Self to be Free-Will itSelf.  Since
such free will cannot be defined as a source, it falls into the realm
of DQ, or even Quality.  From this we can surmise that the Self is DQ
itself.

To further elaborate on this description (NOT definition!) we can
speculate that a proposition of value would be to equate this Self
with "creative potential".  This would be creativity that is waiting
to happen.  Here then we enter into the world of Quality itself (not
DQ).  If Quality is "the source of all things", then this could imply
that it is a "potential" from which all things arise.  We then equate
the Self with Quality itSelf.  For it is from such Self, that SQ is
created.  The drive for this creation is DQ.  And so, we are left
with: Quality as source, DQ as process (or creativity), and SQ as
result.

And so, by this analogy, we complete the parameters of Quality, where
the Self is Quality, our creativity is DQ, and what we create
(patterns) is SQ.  Plain and Simple, no?

Mark

On Sep 6, 2012, at 10:28 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> "While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism recently out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen and published by Tuttle Publishing. I recommend you get it because it shows the similarities, between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other I have seen."
>
>    (Pirsig to McWatt, May 6th 1998.)
>
>
>  When the Buddha spoke of individuals, he often used a different term “stream.”  Imagine a stream flowing --- constantly moving and changing, always different from one moment to the next.  Most of us see ourselves as corks floating in a stream, persisting things moving along in the stream of time.  But this is yet another frozen view.  According to this view. everything in the stream changes except the cork.  While we generally admit to changes in our body, our mind, our thoughts, our feelings, our understandings, and our beliefs, we still believe, “I myself don’t change.  I’m still me.  I’m an unchanging cork in an ever-changing stream.”  This is precisely what we believe the self to be --- something that doesn’t change.
>
>  The fact is, however, that there are no corks in the stream.  There is only stream.  What we conceptualize as “cork” is also stream.  We are like music.  Music, after all, is a type of stream.  Music exists only in constant flow and flux and change.  Once the movement stops, the music is no more.  It exists not as a particular thing, but as pure coming and going with no thing that comes or goes.
>
>   Look at this carefully.  If this is true --- how a stream exists, how music exists, and how we exist --- see how it is that when we insert the notion of “I” we’re posited some little, solid entity that floats along, not as stream, but like a cork in a stream.  We see ourselves as solid corks, not as the actual stream we are.
>
>  If we are the stream, what is it that experiences the flux, the flow, the change?  The Buddha saw that there is no particular thing that is having an experience.  There is experience, but no experiencer.  There is perception, but no perceiver.  This is consciousness, but no self that can be located or identified.
>
>
>  (Hagen, Steve, ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, p.128)
>
>
>
>
> 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