Hi Marsha,
I can relate to your frustrations.  When I first read ZAMM, I was embarked on a similar journey, which has never ended.  My marriage vows had much Taoism in them, which neither the audience or the judge understood, but he faithfully recited many years ago.

Indeed yoga was perhaps the principle way in which Buddha reached his enlightenment.  The intellectual followed as a means of teaching.

Currently I find the teachings of Hermeticism to be somewhat enlightening, and the foundations of such come from millennia before Buddha, the Upanishad, and even the Egyptian dynasties.  As Summerian teachings, they are from before the flooding of civilizations which are documented in over 200 writings from all over the world.  Buddha is a young whipper-snapper in comparison.  Western philosophy even more so.

Have fun practicing!

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Feb 23, 2012, at 9:33 AM, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:

>
> Hi Mark,
>
> By the time I read ZAMM, I had some exposure to both Eastern and Western philosophy.  Initially, Hatha Yoga lead me to Raja Yoga and Patanjali and others, and meditation.  I became frustrated, most likely by my own expectations.  So I went back to school to get an undergraduate degree from UCONN in a program similar to what dmb describes called General Studies.  The area was Humanities and I chose all the philosophy courses available within my working schedule (taking some classes using vacation time), including A.I., logic, epistemology, ethics and metaphysics.  If Eastern philosophy frustrated me, Western philosophy was even more frustrating.  Western philosophers seemed to be speaking with marbles in their mouths and quills up their butts.  ZAMM seemed like an understandable bridge between the two.  I can say the same about the MoQ, that it seems a beautiful bridge between East and West.  Both pointing towards an awakening.  My exposure to Buddhism only happened a few years ago, and with it the appreciation of some clearly written translations and scholarly works presenting Buddhist wisdom.  
>
> I remember when I first read of RMP's trip to India, I did so identify with it.  I am sure I would have found such a trip just as unappealing, though I often dreamed of going.  I am truly a skeptic.  Yes, I suppose my attraction to Buddhism was initially inspired by the MoQ, but now I see them as interconnected.  
>
> But then I see all as interconnected.  
>
>
> Marsha.
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 10:25 AM, 118 <ununoctiums@gmai...> wrote:
>
>> 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@att....> 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@gmai...> 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
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