Hi Ant, > Platt originally asked Sept 15th: > > Can anyone explain the Buddhist idea that you have to take care of > yourself? > > Khaled replied Sept 15th: > > Ant, Platt > > Here is how I see it. > > Its like when the oxygen mask drops down in the airplane due to lack of > pressure. First you have to put on that mask, before you attempt to help > others. If you think that you are the capable, and able person, the one > siting by that emergency door, you need to be able to function. Putting the > oxygen mask on your children first (if you are a parent), may causes you to > pass out before you are done rendering you useless when more emergencies > arise. > > Having taken care of yourself first, --and here again, you know that you are > in charge of your family and need to take care of them, and no you were not > democratically elected to that position-- now you are able to take care of > the rest. > > Ant McWatt commented Sept. 16th: > > Sounds like a good answer to me, Khaled. BTW, if the self is fundamentally > an illusion so is selfishness. Anyway, I think most people eventually > grow-up and get beyond the selfishness stage especially after they have > children. > > Platt then asked Sept 16th: > > Some doublespeak going on here. First Khaled says you have to take care of > yourself first. Ant agrees. Then says the self is a fantasy. So which is it > fellas? Is yourself real or a spook? > > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Platt, > > Doublespeak it is because it depends whether youre looking at the self from > the static viewpoint of the MOQ (where the self is real) or from the Dynamic > perspective where its just a spook. To clarify, in the section of Lilas > Child titled Questions and Answers, note Pirsigs answer here: > > The Buddhists would say [the self] is certainly central to a concept of > reality but it is not central to or even a part of reality itself. > Enlightenment involves getting rid of the concept of I (small self) and > seeing the reality in which the small self is absent (big self). > > This analogy is explained further by Pirsig in the following quote: > > In Zen Buddhism Big-Self and small-self are fundamental teaching > concepts. The small-self, the static patterns of ego, is attracted by the > perfume of the Big-Self which it senses is around but cannot find or > even identify... Through suppression of the small-self by meditation or > fasting or vision quests or other disciplines [such as taking peyote or LSD > in a controlled environment], the Big-Self can be revealed in a moment > sometimes called 180 degrees enlightenment. Then a long discipline is > undertaken by which the Big-Self takes over and dissolves the small-self > into a 360 degrees enlightenment or full Buddhahood. (Pirsig to McWatt, > January 15th 1994) > > As already noted in my earlier Pirsigs idea of the individual post of > August 30th to Ham, an enlightened person is once again aware of [static > patterns such as] 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 [Dynamic] whole. > > David E. Cooper, Emptiness: Interpretation and metaphor in Contemporary > Buddhism, Vol.3, Issue 1 (May 2002), p.18 > > Furthermore, as already noted in my earlier Pirsigs idea of the > individual post from September 15th, the MOQ understanding of the self can > be written in the form of a (positive) tetralemma: > > The self is real (i.e., it exists in static reality along with everything > else we derive from experience) > > The self is not real (from a Dynamic perspective) > > The self is both real and not real (it is real from a static perspective but > not from a Dynamic perspective) > > The self is neither real nor not real (neither ultimately real from a > Dynamic perspective nor completely non-existent from a static perspective) > > The positive tetralemma is an expression of the conventional validity of > the two truths. The positive import of the two truths is that whilst it is > stated that nothing is inherently real, i.e., nothing exists by virtue of > its own independent essence, the familiar everyday world is, nonetheless, > conventionally real and exists in a way which does not contradict > experience. With this acceptance of conventional truth we are not left with > an absurd conception of reality in which nothing exists in any sense > whatsoever. Thus the contradictory standpoints of (naïve or philosophical) > reification and nihilism are repudiated in favour of a middle way. The > four formulations of propositions are traditionally presented in an order in > which each view presents a progressively better expression of the middle way > perspective whilst each is valid with qualification.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems you are pointing out what mystics have claimed all along, namely, that whatever we can think about or put into words is not ultimate reality. Although you are concentrating on the word "self" the same goes for any noun in any language including the word "being" and Pirsig's word "Quality." In Lila, Pirsig made this point clear, saying mystics believe that in doing metaphysics "You can say goodbye to any genuine understanding of reality." But, he added, "The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born-and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure." I consider myself in the category of the less pure "rest of us" and wonder why, having admitted that he has settled for something "less pure" than mystic reality Pirsig reverses himself when the question of "self" comes up. I don't find jumping from one viewpoint to another viewpoint that denies the validity of the first viewpoint to be persuasive. It reminds me of that dishonest capitalist selling technique of "bait and switch." :-) At least I hope you can see where I'm coming from in this discussion. I do appreciate the time and effort you've put into it. Regards, Platt 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/
