Thanks Ant,
I was beginning to read the first post you
pasted, and found Paul mentioning this, "Chi-tsang's
"Three Levels of Two Truths". When I yahooed it, this
article came up, and some MD posts came up, too,
including an [MD] Snakes and Ladders post. I'll
search through the archives for the [MD] you
mentioned, as well. Thanks, lots to get started on.
morning trees shade the sun,
Spiritual Adirondack
--- Ant McWatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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."
>
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on
Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
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/
