S-A asked:
I searched through the archives and can't find Scott and Paul's series of
posts. Is the thread called tetralemma? Maybe a year if you know it? Any
push in the correct direction would help.
thanks,
SA
Ant McWatt comments:
S-A,
I think if you look at the MD thread titled "Quality, DQ and SQ" from
November 2005 that will be a good start.
I saved two posts from the thread which, FYI, I've pasted below,
Best wishes,
Anthony
===============================
>From : Paul Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent : 23 November 2005 15:54:18
To : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject : RE: MD Quality, DQ and SQ
Scott,
>Scott:
>In this I am pretty much on your side, which is to say, against Pirsig. My
>talk about contradictory identity is roughly based on the same objection to
>the MOQ that you have (with a couple of differences -- see below).
>Basically, I see the way the MOQ treats DQ and SQ as overly dualistic,
>leading to such non-Buddhist statements like "evolving toward DQ", and of
>privileging DQ over SQ. Instead, I prefer the formulation of Coleridge,
>which he described as "two forces of one Power, one expanding, and one
>confining". Also, I see the MOQ as violating the basic principle of
>philosophical Buddhism, from the Heart Sutra, that "form is formlessness,
>formlessness is form". Which leads me to the differences:
Paul: I thought we had resolved, or at least gone some way to resolving
these 'difficulties' when I introduced Chi-tsang's "Three Levels of Two
Truths" device? I tried to bring out the idea that the MOQ of LILA operates
at the 'first level' while Pirsig has since made comments with respect to a
'second-level' understanding of the MOQ. I argued that it is best to
understand all 'levels' of truth as prajnapti, and not get too attached to
any, including the perspective of the Heart Sutra which is only the second
level of the two-truths.
I include the original post below in case you have forgotten my efforts in
this regard. More likely I suppose that you found some way to tell me I
was, once again, wrong and that the MOQ, as usual, is fundamentally flawed.
--------------------------------------------------
Before jumping into Magliola's book I found an article he has written
entitled NAGARJUNA AND CHI-TSANG ON THE VALUE OF "THIS WORLD". In it I
found an interesting device, accredited to Chi-tsang, called "The three
levels of the two truths."
This device describes two truths (fairly common in Buddhism)
1) mundane, conventional truth
2) supreme, ultimate truth.
(Pragmatists, bear with me with the Buddhist terminology!)
The first level of two truths is basically this - the 'mundane' truth is
that reality is divided into particular forms and the 'supreme' truth is
that all particular things (static patterns) are empty of inherent
self-existence. I think this (i.e. Dynamic Quality, as equal to undivided
emptiness/nothingness/nirvana, is the ultimate reality) is the level of
truth proposed by the MOQ (as is ostensibly presented in LILA at least*).
The second level of two truths is that the division between (static) form
and (Dynamic) emptiness is itself a mundane truth and the supreme truth is
that the 'extremes' of static forms and undivided Dynamic emptiness must be
"cut off" leading to the 'middle-way'. Madhyamikans describe this as
"emptying out emptiness."
These, I think, are the two positions that Scott, DMB and I have been
discussing. In addition to this, Chi-tsang suggests a third level of
truths, which he describes this way:
"Although the deluded ones, on hearing the second form of two truths,
abandon the two extreme ideas of [PT:static] "existence" and [PT:Dynamic]
"emptiness", they in turn get bogged down in the idea of "middle-way."
Hence, the Buddhas address them the third time, and explain that not to
become attached to the "middle-way" after leaving far behind the two
extremes of "existence" and "emptiness" is the supreme truth, and that the
two extremes and the middle-way are all mundane truths."
Magliola goes on to say this:
"At first glance, it may appear that Chi-tsang's argument implies a unitary
formation negating the particularities of the mundane world (recall that the
'mundane' is Reality according to samvrti-satya's [static] perspective);
and/or maybe that Chi-tsang's argument implies a transcendent Emptiness
attained by ladder-like ascent of the three levels. To quote Nagarjuna's
often-cited caveat, a misperception of emptiness is "Like a snake
incorrectly seized" (MK XXIV:11b)."
"Chi-tsang's 'three levels of two truths' do not broach a unitary formation;
and they do not broach a transcendent Emptiness; and they do not
constitute a 'ladder' climbing to such an Emptiness...."
"In terms of samsaric particularity, concreteness, differentiation
(existential
features), what interests us is that the three levels are not-discarded....
because they are not best conceived as a climbing-ladder. They are
prajnapti
[PT: pointers], yes, but not a ladder. A ladder suggests that one climbs the
rungs, and then leaps from the top to a transcendent, discarding the
ladder...
[but] experientially the three levels are not a ladder, nor are they meant
to
lead to a mystical experience that transcends the ladder. Indeed, regarded
from the experiential perspective, the supreme truth of the third level even
seems to off/circle back to the first level, 'existence' [mundane truth] and
'emptiness' [supreme truth]. The practitioner stays with the 'ladder', but
it is
no ladder-to-be-climbed in any teleological sense. Non-attachment is to
scramble up and down the ladder at will."
------------------------
Paul: My initial thoughts on this are that it struck me while reading
Scott's posts that the middle-way of the Madhyamikans could become yet
another attachment, so I'm pleased that Chi-tsang, and Magliola, are aware
of that. I think Scott, with his use of the tetralemma, probably is too.
The second thing is that I like the way the MOQ can fit into Chi-tsang's
'ladder' as the first level*. I think this is where it is the most
beneficial right now and it is understandable that LILA was written from
this level as, to most westerners, this still represents a real change in
perspective. So, in this larger context, Scott can work on a 'second' or
'third-level' MOQ without 'discarding' or really contradicting the MOQ of
LILA as it is still necessary to "scramble up and down" the levels as
appropriate.
Another way of incorporating Chi-tsang's device into MOQ terminology
occurred to me. If we equate mundane truth with static truth and supreme
truth with Dynamic truth then we may have a different perspective on the MOQ
to the one I've described above. The MOQ could be said to 'contain' the
truths of all of Chi-tsang's levels. In this way, the supreme 'Dynamic
truth' at one 'level' becomes the mundane 'static truth' at another. I like
the way the 'third-level' truth circles back to the first in this respect.
This is in accordance with the idea that Dynamic Quality defies any final
realisation and needs to be continually rediscovered.
Anyway, these are just some first thoughts. Check out the article at:
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/jc117216.pdf if you're interested.
Regards
Paul
*I think post-LILA Pirsig has outlined a 'second-level truth' MOQ which is
more in accordance with Madhyamaka. I think Ant's thesis goes into this
with reference to 360 degree enlightenment. I agree with Scott though that
LILA more or less presents a 'first-level truth' perspective.
=========================================
>From : Case <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent : 23 November 2005 00:59:29
To : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject : RE: MD Quality, DQ and SQ
[Case]
Weird, Scott. I don't think we disagree even as much as you think. See
comments.
Scott:
In this I am pretty much on your side, which is to say, against Pirsig. My
talk about contradictory identity is roughly based on the same objection to
the MOQ that you have (with a couple of differences -- see below).
Basically, I see the way the MOQ treats DQ and SQ as overly dualistic,
leading to such non-Buddhist statements like "evolving toward DQ", and of
privileging DQ over SQ. Instead, I prefer the formulation of Coleridge,
which he described as "two forces of one Power, one expanding, and one
confining". Also, I see the MOQ as violating the basic principle of
philosophical Buddhism, from the Heart Sutra, that "form is formlessness,
formlessness is form". Which leads me to the differences:
[Case]
I have a general feel for Buddhism and I think Buddhists and Taoist have
never had much quarrel.
Scott:
- I do regard DQ as undefinable, because it is the force that defines. It is
formless, since it is the force that breaks form to create new form. Part of
this is to say that I agree with Pirsig that his use of 'dynamic' must be
distinguished from the physicist's meaning.
[Case]
I would say DQ is change but conceptual as well as physical change. A
hurricane changes peoples attitudes as well as their front yards. Perhaps
what you are calling undefined is what I am talking about as uncertainty.
Scott:
- I don't see DQ and SQ as "emerging" from Quality. Rather, I see Quality
(that is, experience, value, meaning) as being both the cause and the result
of the interplay of DQ with SQ. (Take this "both cause and result" as the
language of causation breaking down.)
[Case]
Hmm, I see Quality as the formless and DQ and SQ as the two forces in their
dance of expansion and confinement.
Scott:
- I disagree with your view that harmony is the good. Rather, I see it to be
good to move in and out of harmony. Music would be boring without
dissonance, for example. Too much of either harmony or dissonance is bad.
[Case]
Rather I think you show how harmony is good across two levels. It is harmony
in the sense of balance as well as resonance.
------end---------
_________________________________________________________________
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/
