Anthony stated to Platt August 24th:
Firstly, you have (yet again) put that weasel word individual
in the phrase a far cry from the MOQ goal of a morality based
on intellectual principles of individual freedom. However, part
of the remit in the MOQ (being a Zen Buddhist derived philosophy)
is to remind us that the concept of individual is a convenient fiction
that needs to be recognized as such to reduce karmic suffering.
It should therefore be avoided in the context of the MOQ and
used only with qualification.
Ham commented August 25th:
I take exception to your statement that individual is a weasel word -- a
convenient fiction -- particularly in the context of Freedom.
Ant McWatt comments:
Ham,
I can understand your exception as we in the West are taught from an early
age to put much emphasis on individual freedom. I have, therefore, first
quoted some sections from the MOQ Textbook (before addressing the remainder
of your post), to help you understand exactly where Im coming from here:
5.5. NAGARJUNA
In addition to the Dynamic Quality viewpoint of the MOQ corresponding to
what Nagarjuna terms sunyata (i.e. the indeterminate or the world of
Buddhas), the static quality viewpoint of the MOQ also corresponds to
sunyavada (i.e. the conditioned component or world of maya) of Nagarjuna.
Sunyavada includes all conceptions of reality including metaphysical views,
ideals, religious beliefs, hopes and ambitions; in other words, using MOQ
terminology, static quality patterns.
Moreover, Nagarjuna (Maha-Prajñaparamita in Nagarjunas Philosophy,
1966, p.251) shares Pirsigs perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic)
is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static):
In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and
contingency belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by also
saying that all things ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma or that
within the heart of every conditioned entity (as its core, as its true
essence, as its very real nature) there is the indeterminate dharma. While
the one expresses the transcendence of the ultimate reality, the other
speaks of its immanence. The one says that the ultimate reality is not an
entity apart and wholly removed from the determinate, but is the real nature
of the determinate itself.
Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types of truth;
the static conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and the Dynamic ultimate
truth (paramattha-sacca).
5.6. THE NOTION OF THE SELF
An example of sammuti-sacca is the concept of self. Pirsig follows the
Buddhas teachings about the self which doesnt recognise that it has any
real existence and that only nothingness (i.e. Dynamic Quality) is thought
to be real. According to [Walpola] Rahula, the Buddha taught that a
clinging to the self as real is the primary cause of dukkha (which is
usually translated as suffering). Having said this, Rahula (1959, p.55)
makes it very clear that its not incorrect to use such expressions in our
daily life as I, you, being, individual, etc as long as it is
remembered that the self (like anything else conceptualised) is just a
useful convention.
5.6.1. SCOTT-PECKS NOTION OF THE SELF
This view is also supported by some modern psychologists and physicists.
For instance, the psychiatrist Scott Peck (The Road Less Travelled, 1978,
p.262) notes:
I am I and you are you. The I-entity is my identity and the you-identity
is your identity, and we tend to be quite discomfited if our identities
become mixed-up or confused
Modern physicists, concerned with relativity,
wave-particle phenomena, electromagnetism, et cetera, are becoming
increasingly aware of our conceptual approach in terms of entities. But it
is hard to escape from. Our tendency to entity-thinking compels us to want
to locate things, even such things as God or grace and even when we know our
tendency is interfering with our comprehension of these of matters.
Scott-Peck makes the important point that ego boundaries must be hardened
before they are softened (1978, p.97). The infant (as mentioned in James
description of pure experience in Section 2.5.) may not recognise ego
boundaries but that is from the (selfish) point of view that it is the
universe. A mystic, may also not recognise ego boundaries (as real) but
that is from the (selfless) point of view that the self is a part of the one
universe. Though on the surface, both points of view seem similar, there is
the full circle of spiritual growth (of the individual) between them.
It may seem to many that the ultimate requirement - to give up ones self
makes our existence a sort of bad joke and which can never be completely
accepted. This attitude is particularly true in present-day Western
culture, in which the self is held sacred and death is considered an
unspeakable insult. Yet the exact opposite is the reality. It is in the
giving up of self that human beings can find the most ecstatic and lasting,
solid, durable joy of life. (Scott-Peck, 1978, p.72)
When Scott-Peck states that the ultimate requirement is to give up ones
self, he is not only inferring that its metaphysically incorrect to hold
the view that the self is real but that such a belief in a self is at the
root of much psychiatric illness. Scott-Peck (1978, p.71-72) concludes, as
the Buddha originally did, that the ultimate pattern of thought which must
be given up to achieve successful transition into greater maturity is the
notion of the self.
Ham continued August 25th:
This assertion demonstrates once again the failure of Pirsigs philosophy to
recognize the individuality of human experience, which is fundamental to a
metaphysical understanding of existence.
Ant McWatt comments:
I think if you carefully read a text such as Scott Pecks quoted above or
Walpola Rahulas 1959 text What the Buddha Taught you will eventually
realise that the MOQ tells you more accurately what the individual is than
any SOM based philosophy. As such, it will improve the quality of your life
as you wont be clinging to harmful illusions such as a permanent, separate
self.
Ham continued August 25th:
By deferring to the Buddhist notion of karma to explain away the
individual, youve brought my differences with Eastern mysticism into sharp
focus.
Ant McWatt comments:
That would be good if it was only true.
Ham continued August 25th:
The doctrine of Karma is the predetermined fate of the soul carried
through numerous reincarnations
Ant McWatt comments:
And according to some Christians, the world is only 12000 years old and
dinosaur bones are there only to test our faith. Reincarnation is a
doctrine of karma not taught by the Buddha. He didnt believe in it and
neither does Pirsig. (My educated guess is that these ideas of
reincarnation might not have arisen in the first place if the theory of
evolution had been thought of 2000 years ago but thats another story).
Ham continued August 25th:
and is therefore directly opposed to the concept of individual freedom.
Ant McWatt comments:
No, the doctrine of karma is concerned with freeing the individual (as far
as a separate, static, individual can be said to exist) from desiring a
permanency in things of the everyday world which is a property they dont
have. If you know any _thing_ (i.e. static pattern) _not_ subject to
continual change, flux and impermanency Id like to know.
Ham continued August 25th:
Steve Hagen is quoted as saying in his Buddhism Plain and Simple:
True freedom doesnt lie in the maximization of choice, but, ironically, is
most easily found in a life where there is little choice.
Ant McWatt comments:
Firstly, the above quote is near the beginning of Chapter 3 of Hagens book
(on page 38 of my edition) if anyone is interested. Anyway, when the quote
is put into context with the rest of Chapter 3, it becomes apparent that
Hagen is talking about _petty_ choices here:
When petty choices occupy the mind, necessity is forgotten, and wanting and
craving, picking and choosing take over. The mind is ill at ease and
dissatisfied for want for the next petty thing.
Ham continued August 25th:
If as you say, this view is described by Pirsig as being the closest
Buddhist text in outlook to the MOQ, it points out very clearly why I
cannot subscribe to it. Since I maintain that choices express our values,
any restriction of free choice is a diminution of value sensibility, which
is counter to the principle of a value-directed life.
Ant McWatt comments:
I think that Pirsig would maintain that values direct our choices.
Furthermore, whether or not a restriction of free choice is a diminution of
ones quality of life depends on the type of choices being offered. For
instance, if a town has only a Burger King and a McDonalds is there a food
choice there worth spending any time wondering about? However, if a town
has a Burger King and an organic vegetarian restaurant, then maybe there is.
Duhkha suffering, pain is associated with [petty] choice. The more we
fail to understand this, the more well be caught up in duhkha. And the
more well not _see_ the subtlety of it. (Hagen, 1997, p.38)
Ham continued August 25th:
The primary characteristic of existence is its differentiation.
Ant McWatt comments:
The primary characteristic of existence is the _quality_ of its
differentiations.
Ham continued August 25th:
In my philosophy, the universe is so designed that subjective awareness is
individually separated from its undifferentiated source to provide an
extrinsic perspective of absolute Essence. Thus, the life-experience is the
singular journey through finitude in which the individual can participate in
making Value aware.
Ant McWatt comments:
Ham, Im not too sure what those two last sentences mean in plain English (I
thought you didnt take drugs banned by Reagan?) though if I understand you
correctly, I think Nagarjuna (the Second Buddha) as seen in the above
quote, has a better hold of how the conditioned relates to the
unconditioned. To put it in MOQ terms, the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is
the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static) rather than the latter
being some form of subjective awareness [that] is individually separated
from its undifferentiated source. This is illustrated by David E. Cooper
(Emptiness: Interpretation and metaphor in Contemporary Buddhism, Vol.3,
Issue 1 (May 2002), p.18):
When enlightened [a person] is once again aware of the mountains as
genuinely present, but in a quite different register of awareness from his
original, naïve one. It is not simply that he appreciates their dependent
status: rather he has become capable of those double exposures through
which a mountain both dissolves into and condenses a world, and is both
a unique, palpable particular, yet an expression of a wondrous and
advancing whole.
In the following quote, Pirsig explains this mountains-and-rivers analogy
in MOQ terminology:
This mountains-and-rivers analogy is used in Zen to explain the
contradiction between statements made in the context of the everyday world
and statements made in the context of the world of the Buddhas. From an
everyday world Dynamic Quality is like an undefined perfume which attaches
in different ways to the objects of the world. In the world of the Buddhas
the perfume is the whole thing and objects are merely transitory patterns of
the perfume. In the Buddhas world Dynamic Quality is the dharma, the only
order there is. (Pirsig to McWatt, December 4th 1994)
Ham concluded August 25th:
To escape the vicissitudes of life by denying ones individuality and
freedom is to live a meaningless and unfulfilling existence.
Ant McWatt concludes:
To attempt to escape the vicissitudes of life by denying the truth of ones
individuality and freedom is to imprison oneself in an existence full of
dukkha. This is partly why Pirsig wrote his books with (North) Americans
and other Westerners particularly in mind. They need help in shifting their
understanding of reality towards the Buddhas more than nearly any other
world culture. As such, they dont need yet another SOM philosophy such as
your Theory of Essence. Its analogous to adding a Wendys burger bar to a
town that already has only a Burger King and a McDonalds.
Best wishes,
Anthony
.
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
