RE: MD Consciousness/Awareness/the property market in London

From: Gary Charpentier (gcharpentier@baneng.com)
Date: Tue May 08 2001 - 14:15:05 BST


I think this enlightenment of which you speak, this "satori", is really just
a realization of one's true position in the universe. Once you quiet the
mind and put the ego to sleep, you can sort of "tune in" to the Dynamic
Quality that exists all around you. It is certainly apriori to language, to
any articulated thought really. Very humbling, but at the same time
liberating. It is the kind of epiphany that allows one to approach life in a
more peaceful, compassionate way, but more importantly to be _satisfied_ in
doing so. The ego-driven self disappears, replaced by something much smaller
by itself, but part of something much, much larger. This is so difficult to
discuss in our ego-centric English language, but I don't have the luxury of
studying Chinese at this point in time.

=GC=

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Marty Jorgensen
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 8:29 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: RE: MD Consciousness/Awareness/the property market in London
>
>
> Hi Platt - You asked:
> PLATT:
> Marty, I have read much the same as you in the Buddhist literature about
> compassion, based I believe on what Elephant properly describes as
> the enlightened experience of Oneness or Self with a capital S. Having
> like you never been enlightened to the best of my knowledge, I must
> bow to the testimony of those who have. Since we appear to be in the
> same state of unenlightenment, I wonder how you react to my
> comments above about compassion as it pertains to a divided world
> that most of us experience. Incidentally, I agree with Elephantís
> assertion that one need not spend years in meditation under the
> tutelage of a swami to become enlightened to the fact that reality exists
> prior to the self/other division. But, having realized that,
> where does that
> leave us in guiding our daily lives?
>
> My response:
>
> Certainly everyone who claims to be compassionate is not what we would
> consider to be 'enlightened', which is why I disagree with Elephant's
> equation of enlightenment with compassion; all enlightened people may be
> compassionate, but not all compassionate people are enlightened. Now you
> could argue that those who use compassion towards their own ends are not
> really compassionate, and you would have a good argument, but for the
> purpose of general language usage, they would APPEAR to be compassionate.
> But that is the trivial question, the real meat is in your point about the
> result of all this compassion in the world - what good does it do us?
>
> It is my opinion that if one is TRULY enlightened in the sense we
> have been
> discussing, and not just using compassion / helping others as a
> way to help
> themselves, than a true positive effect in the world would be the result.
> One would be compassionate not for the benefit it might bring, whether
> emotional or physical, but because it is the only action that
> makes sense -
> not because 'to ignore the suffering in others is to ignore the
> suffering in
> one's self' but because to ignore suffering does not decrease the
> suffering
> that exists.
>
> But this doesn't answer your question; "Given the divided world most of us
> experience, how does the compassion of the enlightened help us in guiding
> our daily lives?"
>
> The only answer I can give to this question relates back to the pursuit of
> Dynamic Quality - if we can break out of the static patterns of behavior
> that routinely hold us back and look at the world as it really is AND ACT
> ACCORDINGLY, then perhaps we can have a positive effect on the
> world around
> us. I believe no matter what we read, learn or intuit won't help anybody
> until we actually DO something, and that real action IS Dynamic Quality,
> with no need for names, referents or explanations. We can learn from the
> experiences of those who have been touched by enlightenment; we can learn
> from their example of living, but it only means something if we
> do more than
> learn and do something about it - and that 'doing something' is dynamic.
>
> There is much more to be said, but I must be on my way. The search
> continues...
>
> marty j
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 5:22 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Consciousness/Awareness/the property market in London
>
>
> Hi Elephant, Marty, All:
>
> PLATT: (previously)
> Am I to assume that both you gentlemen have been enlightened and
> thus can claim from personal experience of the relationship between
> enlightenment and compassion? Or, is the relationship something you
> have gleaned from the testimony of others? I do not find it in the MOQ.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> A Proper question Platt. I should say that there is a tiny bit of both:
> testimony of others (Simone Weil, Iris Murdoch, Buddhism, even
> Pirsig), and 'personal' experience. Remember: all that this personal
> experience needs to amount to is the realisation that subjects and
> objects are not the first cut. I should say that this is pretty much co-
> determinate with ceasing to be selfish, and one can test (in ones own
> case) how much one has translated an intellectual insight into a
> heartfelf certainty by just this fact.
>
> PLATT:
> If I understand you correctly, it's impossible to be selfish when one
> comes to realize that reality is prior to the division of self/other and
> that
> what I call myself is an illusion, just as space and time and other
> divisions are illusions. Thus the truth of the phrase, "Ask not for whom
> the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."
>
> Therefore it follows that compassion is merely what anyone in his right
> mind would hold as a high value since to ignore the pain and suffering
> of another is, in reality, to ignore the suffering of oneís self.
> But wait
> a
> minute. That canít be. There is no self. How do you express the moral
> value of compassion in world where individual selves do not exist?
>
> I ask because itís been my experience that behind many acts of
> compassion there is self-congratulation and pride in taking and
> holding the moral high ground against less enlightened beings. In fact,
> those who are in a position to help or be compassionate hold power
> over the helpless, not only risking a rising dependency among the
> helpless but the use of compassion as weapon in the battle for
> political power.
>
> What Iím driving at is that itís one thing to theorize from the experience
> of enlightenment and logic that weíre all One, but quite another to put
> the theory into practice in a world of competition and fierce struggle
> between value levels, whether those levels are thought of as
> independent divisions or as embodied in their entirety in human
> beings.
>
> I think Pirsig touched on this problem in Chap. 24 of Lila:
>
> "What the Metaphysics of Quality indicates that the twentieth-century
> intellectual faith in the manís basic goodness as spontaneous and
> natural is disastrously naive. The ideal of a harmonious society in
> which everyone without coercion cooperates happily with everyone else
> for the mutual good of all is devastating fiction."
>
> So while itís easy to agree that compassion is a good thing,
> compassion may not always be our best moral guide in our practical
> world of static quality, especially when it comes to fending off
> dangerous biological values. Isnít that what Pirsig is driving at in Chap.
> 24?
>
> MARTY:
> I can't speak for Elephant, but if I'm enlightened, someone forgot to tell
> me about it. My opinion is based on what I have read outside of the
> MOQ - it is a subject that interests me greatly, but I have no personal
> experience to draw from. There are probably hundreds of descriptions
> of what it means, as well as a lot of personal intuition; my definition
> basically comes from Buddhist literature.
>
> PLATT:
> I have read much the same as you in the Buddhist literature about
> compassion, based I believe on what Elephant properly describes as
> the enlightened experience of Oneness or Self with a capital S. Having
> like you never been enlightened to the best of my knowledge, I must
> bow to the testimony of those who have. Since we appear to be in the
> same state of unenlightenment, I wonder how you react to my
> comments above about compassion as it pertains to a divided world
> that most of us experience. Incidentally, I agree with Elephantís
> assertion that one need not spend years in meditation under the
> tutelage of a swami to become enlightened to the fact that reality exists
> prior to the self/other division. But, having realized that,
> where does that
> leave us in guiding our daily lives?
>
> Platt
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>

MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:16 BST