Hi Ant --
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 replies]:
> 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 I'm coming from here:
I'm afraid I'm not enough of a scholar to do justice to your analysis of
mysticism.
However, I've commented [in brackets] on some of the assertions made in your
presentation.
>
> 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 "Nagarjuna's Philosophy",
> 1966, p.251) shares Pirsig's perception that the indeterminate (or
> Dynamic)
> is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static):
[Does Nagarjuna also share Pirsig's use of the terms "dynamic" and
"static" with respect to "indeterminate" and
"conditioned", respectively? I assume you've inserted these qualifiers
into Nagarjuna's theory to harmonize them with the MoQ.]
> "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."
[You realize, of course, that I reject the notion that things have an
"ultimate nature".
Ultimately all things, all differences, are One in Essence.]
> 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).
[The notion that there is an "ultimate truth" is questionable.
"Conventional truth" is
usually regarded as knowledge that can be verified objectively (i.e.,
universally).
Objective truth presupposes a "knower". To suggest that there is a
knower or
"subject" for ultimate truth implies a divided source or Essence, which
violates
the "non-conditionality" of Nagarjuna's "indeterminate dharma."]
> 5.6. THE NOTION OF THE SELF
>
> An example of sammuti-sacca is the concept of self. Pirsig follows the
> Buddha's teachings about the 'self' which doesn't recognize 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 it's 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.
[That "only nothingness is thought to be real" seems to defy common
logic.
It would imply that the true or ultimate Reality, the primary source of
conditionality, is nothingness. Does Pirsig consider DQ nothingness?]
> 5.6.1. SCOTT-PECK'S 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 recognize ego
> boundaries but that is from the (selfish) point of view that it is the
> universe. A mystic, may also not recognize 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 one's
> 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 one's
> self', he is not only inferring that it's 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.
[What does one "give up self" to? The joy of life comes from the value
of
experience, and "spiritual growth" is attained by participating as a
self
in the (dynamic) process of making value aware. I do not see this as
giving up the self.]
> Ham continued August 25th:
>
> This assertion demonstrates once again the failure of Pirsig's 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 Peck's quoted above or
> Walpola Rahula's 1959 text "What the Buddha Taught" you will eventually
> realize 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 won't be clinging to harmful illusions such as a permanent,
> separate
> self.
Sorry, Ant, but SOM is part of any philosophy, including the MoQ. I accept
the Buddhist view that the "I" or Self is negational or illusory.
Nevertheless, it is the active agent in the differentiated (conditional)
world that we all share, and there is no way we can live out our existence
without it. I do not agree with Scott-Peck that "belief in a self is at the
root of much psychiatric illness." Obsession with irrational values is at
the root of psychosis, whether the cause is psychic or organic. Indeed, the
individual who is comfortable in his "selfness" is better able to achieve
his life goals and improve the world for mankind.
> Ham continued August 25th:
>
> By deferring to the Buddhist notion of karma to "explain away" the
> individual, you've 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 didn't 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 that's another "story").
I see no connection between reincarnation of the soul and the evolution of
Nature.
> 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 don't
> have. If you know any _thing_ (i.e. static pattern) _not_ subject to
> continual change, flux and impermanency I'd like to know.
Change is the only permanent thing in existence. However, I don't believe
it is natural or common to desire permanency, per se. We all want to grow
and participate in the freedom of this (dynamic) process. I believe we have
become overly materialistic in this process, which has diminished our sense
of value and brought on the "cultural psychosis" of irresponsible behavior.
This must be corrected before we totally regress to a jungle morality.
[Skipping over Hagen's argument, which was relevant only to the extent of
Pirsig's allegiance]...
> 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, I'm not too sure what those two last sentences mean in plain English
> (I
> thought you didn't 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):
Well, I'm not sure what Nagarjuna's tenets "put in MOQ's terms" means,
either. So, I guess that makes us even. I can't speak for the MoQ, but it
seems to me that Buddhism is an empty philosophy, almost nihilistic in its
outlook. My philosophy of Essence views existence as a reduction of the
absolute source. In contrast, Buddhism reduces existence to nothingness,
encouraging its adherents to annihilate the self as well. Where's the joy
in that?
> "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."
I don't know if that's Nagarjuna speaking, but I prefer to think of this
kind of realization as the appreciation of value The more we nurture our
value-sensibility, the more pleasure we gain from the wonders of existence,
whether we perceive it as "a whole" or "in part".
Thanks for the dissertation, Anthony, and good luck in reconciling the MoQ
with Buddhism.
As for me, I plan to stay with Western Philosophy.
Essentially yours,
Ham
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/
