Re: MD Varieties of Buddhism, and the Social Level

From: Matt poot (mattpoot@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jul 17 2005 - 05:28:40 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society"

    very good.'

    thanks.

    POOT

    >From: Khoo Hock Aun <khoohockaun@gmail.com>
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >Subject: Re: MD Varieties of Buddhism, and the Social Level
    >Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:40:07 +0800
    >
    >Hi Sam & everyone,
    >
    >I would like to intercede on this thread while Scott and Ant ponder
    >their answers.
    >
    >The Eastern comsmological view is that we are all beings each in our
    >respective phases of development, some having limited capacity to
    >understand the reality of the universe as it were, others, far far
    >developed through lifetimes of experience and karmic momentum.
    >
    >You dont get to remember each lifetime when you arrive at this plane
    >and think that this is all there is. It is easy to fall for the idea
    >that you must have been created anew and after this there is only an
    >eternity, either in heaven or in hell.
    >
    >The Eastern cosmology is one of continuous progression, and
    >interrelatedness among all lives, as we all impact on each other, by
    >all our thoughts, deeds and actions.
    >
    >Buddhism is only a label for this understanding of how this universe
    >is; and it may be called by any name, Quality, the Metaphysics of
    >Quality if need be.
    >
    >To each of us so called individuals living out our lives as selves,
    >Buddhism will be appreciated differently.
    >
    >When I was a samanera ( a novice monk - sort of a very temporary
    >experience of the sangha - in theravada buddhism - this is encouraged
    >for young individuals to find out more) a senior monk told me that
    >intellect was not the route to enlightenment.
    >
    >In fact for enlightenment ( for which I will regard as full and final
    >understanding of reality ), the individual should have come prepared
    >into this lifetime, after countless ones developing and progressing on
    >the 31 planes (different permutations of mind and matter) of
    >existence. In fact, humans, having the right combination of mind and
    >matter is the only plane where enlightenment and realisation as a
    >buddha is possible.
    >
    >Three requirements are essential for enlightenment and they are
    >wisdom, morality and devotion. Wisdom itself without morality and
    >devotion is also not enough.
    >
    >My mother, for instance, is not wise enough yet to appreciate the
    >insights of buddhism that can be yielded by the practice of
    >meditation. But she can be very moral. Morality - right thought, right
    >action etc - minimises the karmic baggage from lifetime to lifetime
    >until one arrives at a level ready to develop wisdom.
    >
    >And for the moment, what propels her forward positively is her
    >devotion to buddhism, even if she worships an idol that for all
    >intents and purposes cannot in itself do anything for her.
    >
    >She will readily go to the Buddhist temple and request for blessings.
    >And there are several of these blessings as chants as they were, which
    >soothe the suffering of many whose karmic actions have been negative
    >and reinforce the merits of those who have done good deeds.
    >
    >In this sense, compassion is a central tenet of buddhism, where we are
    >all fellow travellers on the same motorcycle ride, some needing better
    >directions than others, some needing more advice on motorcycle
    >maintenance, some just need a lift !
    >
    >So Sam, if you have seen different varieties of buddhism, there are
    >just as many varieties of this perception of reality and understanding
    >of what Quality is. Just as there are as many religions and
    >denominations within the religions. Just as there are many on this
    >list with their own ideas of the MOQ.
    >
    >The underlying reality, unnamed, undescribed, uninterpreted, remains the
    >same.
    >
    >Rgds
    >Khoo Hock Aun
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >On 7/16/05, Sam Norton <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
    > > Hi people, especially Scott and Ant, to whom I address a specific
    >question
    > > at the end,
    > >
    > > Much to my chagrin, I couldn't make the conference with RMP, but I had
    >the
    > > small compensation of two weeks holiday in China and Mongolia to
    >distract
    > > me. Amongst many fascinating things were trips to several Buddhist
    >temples,
    > > in Beijing and Chengde, which were eye opening in many senses. There
    >were
    > > several ways in which the practice of religious observance in the
    >temples
    > > was social level. The most striking, for me, was when we were told by a
    > > guide that it was common practice (as a 'minimum observance') to come to
    >the
    > > monastery once a year and ask a monk to pray on your behalf. Hardly the
    > > 'intellectual level' that I thought was the essence of Buddhism!
    > >
    > > What really struck me was the way in which the impression of Buddhism
    >that I
    > > had formed (largely as a result of various conversations on this site)
    >was
    > > of something very austere and intellectual. That impression didn't long
    > > survive a direct acquaintance with the actual practice. It seems to me
    >now
    > > that there is a distinct strain of idealisation involved in many of the
    > > descriptions of Buddhism relied on here (and also a reverse strain of
    > > denigration towards Christianity). It's as if Christianity were to be
    > > assessed only by considering the Eckharts of the tradition, whilst all
    >the
    > > Lourdes type stuff were quietly ignored.
    > >
    > > The specific question to Ant and Scott: the temples/lamaseries I saw
    >were
    > > all part of Tibetan Buddhism; to what extent is the MoQ tied in only
    >with
    > > Zen buddhism (and therefore incompatible with the Tibetan variety)? It
    >would
    > > seem - to this beginning student - that Zen is much further removed from
    > > these social level practices than the Tibetan sort, with their 30 foot
    >high
    > > wooden buddhas used as a focus for worship.
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > > Sam
    > > http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > Mail Archives:
    > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > Nov '02 Onward -
    >http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > 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 Archives:
    >Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    >Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    >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 Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 17 2005 - 06:19:44 BST