Mark and anyone else remotely interested,
There are many on this list who have come into contact with Buddhism and
have also speculated on its connection with the Metaphysics of Quality.
But before anyone can discuss this relationship sensibly, one has to
"know" Buddhism in its full context and framework. Anything short of this
will only yield a situation of the blind leading the blind and
misguided ideas of constructing an 'alternate' Buddhism.
Although in 1862, the first translation of the*
*Dhammapada<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/Misc%20Writings/canon/khuddaka/index.html#dhp>was
made into a Western language (German) and in 1879, Sir Edwin Arnold
published his epic poem *Light of Asia,* which became a best-seller in
England and the USA, stimulating popular Western interest in Buddhism it was
only in 1881 that the Pali Text Society was founded in England by T.W. Rhys
Davids; most of the Tipitaka is published in roman script and after that in
English translation. Only in 1899 was the first Western Theravada monk
(Gordon Douglas) ordained in Burma.
While it is appreciated that understanding is difficult, the practice hard,
please bear in mind that being Eastern does not make it any less difficult.
Access to Buddhist centres, temples, teachers and fellow practitioners may
be better, but one's progress depends how far one has come on the journey
than the actual circumstances of the moment.
That said, it must be understood that the fruits of Buddhism are not only
limited to a few, but it is open to all. In fact it is open to all beings,
even those that are not yet born human. Rather than being an elitist
religion appealing only to intellectuals, its mass following is offered
opportunities for deliverance from their karmic history and further progress
in future lives.
This said, two integral parts of the Buddhist religion have to be explained,
(and I call it a "religion" here more than a philisophy because they require
the individual to accept them on their own merits), and they are (i)
reincarnation and (ii) karma.
Reincarnation takes place across 31 planes of existence divided into 6
realms and right now, we occupy the human plane. Each plane of existence is
a permutation of mind and matter combination or in some exclusively mind or
matter. The human plane is the only one where the mind and matter
permutation allows permanent release from constant rebirth/reincarnation.
Karma drives reincarnation and determines its trajectory across the 31
planes of existence. This much you may already know but in Buddhist
Abhidhamma, there is considerable treatment of the nature of thought, the
metaphysics of the physical universe, its formation as patterns that arise
and disappear. I rather prefer to use Ilya Prigogine's 'dissipative
structures' which manifest as stable patterns of matter, life and then
beings.
The interesting thing about this is that it is a picture of universal moral
order driven by a force that organises pattern upon pattern upon pattern
that is 'exists' as long as the force maintains its presence. This is the
universe of the subject object split which depends very much on the driving
force of karma. Karma, ironically depends on the attachment of the patterns
to the false idea that they exist, independent of causation. That must be
the ultimate illusion, because this attachment is a powerful force that
drives entities to life after life, to enjoy pleasures of the senses and of
the mind. Deprived of the pleasures, suffering ensures and therein the basis
of Buddhist heavens and hells found across 31 planes of existence even in
our own plane.
The goal of Buddhism then is to offer a pathway for all beings, humans,
especially because they belong to this special zone where they need not be
reborn again. In all other planes, even in the heavenly ones where mind
predominates over matter and where beings live for thousands of years, all
beings die and have to be reborn human to acheive the state of Buddhahood
where there is no more rebirth. In other words, if you can achieve a zero
karmic weight, you can end it all here and now. Each human holds a ticket to
Nirvana. Screw it up and you go back to the end of the queue.
You cannot however arrive at enlightenment through intellect. The mind
perceives objects through the five sense doors and also creates its own
objects. This process of abstraction is the intellectual level. Every man
has the capability to do this. It is the very definition of man and gives
him the ability to manifest society and an existence as far as his
imagination will allow. It does not matter if he is one in a desert island
or if he is in a remote village in Papua New Guinea or if he is in a
metropolis in Europe. As long as man dallies in his intellect he can and
creates his own mental objects, These mental objects are also patterns that
have a life of their own and the sense of "self" or the "ego" is one of
them. You must remember that karmic force drives the creation and
maintainance of these objects, a special case aggregation of which is the
"subject", thinking it has an existence different from the other objects.
The argumentation of the MOQ is that the process of intellectual abstraction
and conceptualisation is the highest level in human evolution. That the
humans can conceive of 'mental objects" and manipulate them is on this plane
an apex achievement and direct the course of human civilisation. This is
what is meant by the intellectual level and not the "subject-object split".
The moral force, or karma drives the "patterning" process either upwards or
downwards, in terms of organisational complexity, and therefore
"intellectual objects" as they form, have implications for society and the
Earth as a whole.
And this goes on, no matter what. the wheel of samsara turns and karma takes
it course. There is nothing anyone being can do about it. But there is
everything each being, particularly, a human being, can do about his own
karmic baggage. Every thought, every act has its own weight, but much as one
may intellectulise about it, being an intellectual, getting caught up with
and attached to "mental objects" is as bad a getting attached to my million
dollars or house on the beach or a bufori. Note how some offer their pet
ideas and get attached to them for years. Hence, for the individual the
intellect is a dead end if one wants to get out of the samsaric system. For
society, the intellectual level makes us all smarter but not any wiser.
The idea is to reduce the creation of objects/patterns if you will, the self
as subject included until as a process it ceases altogether. There are two
avenues for doing this: (i) let the present karma run its course {ii)
engage only in karma-neutral activity. The first part is generally regarded
as the fatalistic part of Eastern culture but the second acknowledges that
we can be deliberate and deterministic about ourselves if we want to be.
What you call ritual is really the practise of meditation designed to do the
above. The practise entails mindfulness or direct experience of the full
process of pattern formation as they come about, stay and disappear. This
happens all the tiime and it is not difficult to do this at all. However, if
we get too caught up with the dazzle of the objects we cannot see the forest
for the trees. That is why it is good to take a step back sometimes, even
from a forum like this list. Direct experience, awareness of patterns and
their temporary nature allows for detachment. Detachment allows wisdom
essential for the perception and expression of Quality.
Mark, your reference to the Buddha's method of enlightenment does not do
justice to the thousands if not millions of his past lives culminating in
this attainment of enlightenment. His four noble truths certainly revolved
around suffering, but not as a result of his princely upbringing, but
because he had lived through and experienced every conceivable type of
suffering there was in his previous lives and sought to offer the ultimate
solution to the problem of existence. The dissolution of the iillusion of
separate selves means that we all share in our sufferings. If Bo is
disappointed that no one accepts his "SOLAQI" argument or accept that the
Intellectual Level being the Subject-Object split, we also feel his
disappointment along with him, not because he actually is incorrect, but
because he has invested so much in that idea. We have each done worse to
feel the same pain.
Mark, you also say that some (because they dont suffer) may not feel the
need to escape this samsaric wheel of pleasure and pain. Certainly to each
his or her own. Pain and suffering is a distinctly personal thing and each
has his or her own karmic account, accumulated throughout all their past
lives and even in this life by the morality of their actions, Pirsig was
driven by his pain to write his books and to point to the morality of our
thought and actions, at all levels, as the originator of all that we see and
act on; the everyday objects of our lives.
That Pirsig maintained a perspective through the mindfulness of the journey
he undertook, the motorcycle maintenance and the boat trip is his literary
device to keep us in the eternal present, in the "reality zone of direct
experience" while he attempted to take us through the mechanics of subject
object metaphysics and to develop the Metaphysics of Quality. Buddhism, just
as the Metaphysics of Quality, attempts to provide us with an explanation of
everything-as-it-is, and one cannot be truer than the other. Everyone looks
at each and takes over different things. And all argumentation over what is
meant in the passages of ZAMM or LILA is such a expenditure of energy.
Best regards
Khoo Hock Aun
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 12:52 PM, markhsmit <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Bo,
>
> A possible relationship between MoQ and Buddhism are the teachings
> on Nothingness. This does not mean void, but as has been explained
> to me may mean No-Thing. That is transcendence of the characterization
> of things (or objects).
> Through SOM we create the objective world,
> that is, the world of things. I think that your understanding of MoQ has
> similarities to my understanding of Buddhism. It's a tough path to follow.
>
> Methods for achieving MoQ dictates are indeed useful discussions.
> As I see it the subject/object interface has to be removed. This can
> be done through intellect, but it is also perhaps easier to do through
> ritual. This is why, imo, Buddhism is not just a hobby (as MoQ may
> be at present), but a way of life.
>
> In my opinion, to look at it objectively (like a psychologist) one has
> three options. Either one has to remove the sense of subject, that
> is, that the "I" does not exist (or is illusionary), or, one has to remove
> the sense of object, that is we are just a brain in a vat, or finally, one
> has to assume he is everything. All these certainly take effort
> and could be considered a state of mind (as our current SO may
> be) but that is an SOM interpretation.
>
> However, it seems that it may be the case that to create such
> an enlightenment is at the exclusion of all other ways. So, the question
> then is, is the grass greener on the other side? Buddha thought so.
> Because of his upbringing, he was very stricken by the appearance
> of suffering. His method of enlightenment seems to be based on
> a perseverance over suffering (clinging). So he found a way out.
> Many of those who followed him also wanted to stop suffering.
> Now, if suffering is not part of one's problem, then another path
> must be followed. But in such a case, one has to have a
> powerful reason to want to escape (or be released). I believe that
> any reason to want to become enlightened can work, provided one
> works at it incessantly. It is quite possible that all paths lead to
> the same place.
>
> If MoQ provides the path to enlightenment, once you get there
> you have to return as a Bodhisattva, in the same way Buddha
> did and then explain it. I do not think it is possible to explain
> until you've got there and come back. Many choose not to
> return to explain, this is a decision that Buddha fought with
> as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>
> Hi Khoo
>
> 3 Feb.
>
> Bo before:
> > > How I envisage the MOQ as a "western buddhism" I have told many times
> No
> > > particular enlightenment is required except understanding the MOQ, but
> > > that seems to be the needle eye for the camels.
>
> Khoo:
> > But how would it work if there is no enlightenment necessary? Is there
> > a methodology to achieve the understanding of the Metaphysics of
> > Quality ? How would you guide the enquirer/camels through the needle
> > into a proper understanding of the Metaphysics of Quality? Is there an
> > "aha" moment ? Is there a need for a Guide? Or is it a Do-it-Yourself
> > kind of process ?
>
> Good (perhaps sarcastic?) questions. Yes i have wondered why
> Pirsig's ideas in ZAMM hit me so hard, why I in an flash saw the point,
> but have found that only one so tormented by (what I knew as) the
> mind/matter abyss as I were would recognize the immense relief in
> the prospect of my tormentor wasn't reality itself but a "metaphysics"
> having arrived at some point in time, and will go away the moment the
> MOQ takes hold. Well, it has taken hold of me so I am free, those poor
> buggers who don't know they are SOM captives can't be helped.
>
> At first in this discussion I thought this was why all people came to this
> site, but have been forced to realize that most are chatterbugs not
> having the least interest, wish or need for escaping SOM except
> seeing their posts "published", some professional "twitters" partaking
> on several lists simultaneously. But never mind the greatest
> disappointment was Pirsig himself launching a travesty of the ZAMM
> epiphany of SOM being Quality's creation ... CALLED INTELLECT.
> This is the hub, kernel,crux of it all. About 3 levels before the 4t. -
> intellectual - is perfect, but that one must be SOM or the MOQ is just
> more SOM!
>
> And I thought that you - of Oriental origin at least - knew that to
> achieve enlightenment the "intellect" must be transcended. The silliest
> of discussers make a great point of me insisting on the MOQ being
> something beyond the intellectual level, but it the perspective where
> the "Q-context is seen. Like the Buddha being the stance from where
> Buddhism context is seen. To say that the MOQ is an intellectual
> pattern prevents its release from SOM. OK, all this is what I said in
> "my string of reasoning", your objecting to it and me trying to bring it
> across again - will only result in more turns of the screw and I am a bit
> worn.
>
> Bodvar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> 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/
>
--
[email protected]
6016-301 4079
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/
