----- Original Message -----
From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's
{Marsha]
A thing-in-itself (inherently existing object) would be an entity that has
an existence independent of thoughts and perceptions, an entity that
exists
from its own side. Both Buddhism and the MOQ deny such an entity.
Buddhism says that entities are empty of inherent existence. I surmise
that
the idea of a pattern is opposed to the idea of an inherently existing
entity.
[Krimel]
How is it that a pattern is more likely to "exist" the a "thing"? The
point
is not that patterns or thing do or do not exist the point is that all we
can know is our experience of them. I am "that" because "that" "for me" is
my experience of "it". My reality, all of it every last bit is subjective.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Patterns are interrelated and changing
conceptions. An inherently existing entity (as opposed to a convention
entity) is thought to exist from it's own side.
I would imagine a pattern is built from prior experiences and definitions
delivered by the culture.
There's two truths: Absolute and Conventional. Absolute is empty of
inherent existence. Conventional is illusion but functional.
[Marsha}
That things appear to have an independent existence would be illusion.
That
we think they have an independent existence is the source of all
suffering.
That the world appears to function like things independently exist is its
conventional operating procedure. Not to understand the two different
modes
of existing is ignorance.
[Krimel]
So how is the claim that a thing or pattern does not have it own existence
any less of an illusion? (Is that a double or triple negative? I lost
count.)
That an entity is empty of inherent existence is the truth. That a entity
inherently exists is false.
[Krimel]
I think that Buddhism holds is that it is the clinging to the patterns
that
is the source of suffering. Trouble arises from the belief that this or
that
pattern or the lack of patterns is THE pattern.
Buddhism holds clinging to things that are merely conceptions and that have
no inherent existence is the source of suffering. Or that a pattern is a
inherently existing object rather than a conceptual pattern.
[Marsha]
It is not that I value the notion of no structure, it is that I value
existing closer to the truth. As I see it that means the world is built
on
conceptions.. Maybe shared, patterned conceptions, but conceptions
none-the-less.
[Krimel]
Isn't getting closer to some kind truth what everyone wants? Well that and
a
cheeseburger and maybe an evening with Selma Hayek or Kate Beckensale or
_______________ fill in the blank, I guess. Still our perception of truth
is
structured by the tools we bring to bear in our search for it. Those
tools,
our senses and our nervous systems, have evolved over the last 4 billion
years to successfully interact with the world we are born into. We are
pattern detectors. We are makers of meaning. The great task of living is
to
reduce uncertainty and to create shared meaning. It is hard for me to see
how we can accomplish this by denying that there is anything there.
Those tools do not inherently exist. They are conceptions. We are makess
of meaning and isn't it a great story (mythos). The great task of living
is___________fill in the blank. It's your story of the great task of
living. Here from MMK:
"If one reifies phenomena--including such things
as one's own self, characteristics (prominently
including one's own), or external objects--and
if one thinks that things either fail to exist or exist
absolutely, one will be unable to attain any peace.
For one will thereby be subject to egoism the
overvaluing of oneself and one's achievements
and of material things. One will not appreciate
the possibility of change, of the impermanence
and nonsubstantiality of oneself and one's
possessions. These are the seed of grasping and
craving and, hence, of suffering. The alternative,
Nagarjuna suggests, and the path to pacification,
is to see oneself and other entities as non-substantial,
impermanent, and subject to change and not
appropriate object of such passionate craving."
[Marsha}
The Middle Way, as I understand it, is between thinking objects are
exactly
as they appear (reificationists) and thinking there is no bases for
anything
at all (nihilists).
[Krimel]
All I have to go on is my Sparknotes so if you say so but how is that
different from what I said earlier?
I think there is a difference. No leap of faith - there are no things (and
that covers a lot) that inherently exist. Ones participation in the
conventional world hopefully falls to creating high quality experience for
one and all, rather than getting the most.
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/
