----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Gauntlet
Marsha
On 20 July you wrote:
No I never meant Prasagika insight is an intellectual pattern. It is
not an intellectual pattern. (Forgive me, I am not a Buddhist or a
scholar.) I think the Prasagika's offer an intellectual path to such
an _insight_. It's hilarious that I, with such a tiny skull (and the
help of friends), would be one to pursue this path. And you, with the
big brains, won't venture past static, Western cliches about Buddhist
philosophy.
"An intellectual path to such an insight". OK, that's different, as
said it was the missing foundation under (what was to become)
SOM or Intellect that was young Phaedrus' path, first to his lateral
drift and later to the insight that SOM is an Quality off-shoot, what
he called INTELLECT in the first MOQ.
But you said to Mati
" This is intellect! See for yourself"
Greetings Bo,
Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, which I believe is at the base of
Mahayana Buddhism, is 100% intellectual. It's beautiful. I would say it is
not subject/object thinking, but more a 'not this, not that' kind of
analytical approach. Reading it took my breath away.
Again, I don't know what YOU can say about RMP's insight (with lateral drift
or not). I think you might be caught in your own insights, which can be
disorienting.
Marsha ctd.:
Bo, I believe no one. I've been an extreme skeptic since I was a
little girl. And you have not presented a convincing argument. But
I am beginning to think that there is a lot of subject/object thinking
happening here.
OK, you are a skeptic, but skepticism is usually directed against
religious dogmas, astrology, healing and such that can't be verified
scientifically. The scientist may be skeptical in the sense of not
accepting claims (not even scientific such) but demand that the
experiment can be repeated endlessly and yield the same result
(ZAMM page )
When I think of formal scientific method an image
sometimes comes to mind of an enormous juggernaut, a
huge bulldozer...slow, tedious lumbering, laborious, but
invincible. It takes twice as long, five times as long, maybe
a dozen times as long as informal mechanic's techniques,
but you know in the end you're going to get it.
Yet, science (particularly physics) is sure that there IS an objective
reality "out there" that is governed by laws that are independent of
what we (subjectively) think about it ... AND THIS ATTITUDE IS
INTELLECT!
Get it?
Bo
You tell me if this is what you believe intellect to be? Do you think there
are independently existing laws that govern reality? I sooo DO NOT. And
as Ron has suggested, I do not think that type of thinking is the consensus
anymore, either.
Marsha
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/
