Bo: On 5th Feb, you wrote:
> Good (perhaps sarcastic?) questions. Khoo: But Bo, my questions are not sarcastic. They are asked with the intention to understand your development of a Western Buddhism. If you feel that they are good questions, then perhaps you will take the time to answer all of them as in my first post on this thread. if you are tired, take a break and return with the answers refreshed. We have all the time in the world. Bo: > 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. Khoo; If this is the "insight" moment from your direct experience, Bo, I have to ask, how does one arrive at this point ? Is there a replicable process, a step by step that you can offer your enquirers of this momentous achievement ? Bo: > 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. > > Khoo: Your freedom from the hold of SOM is to be congratulated, Bo. But if you offer a Western Buddhism that can free the SOM captives, that would be the next step would it not ? To secure your legacy. Remember your alternative "Metaphysics of Quality" has to be such that it can be economically explained. The gift of insight is that it provides a new way of explaining the world to the jaded. Shouldnt your explanation be that crystal clear ? Bo: > 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. Khoo: Never mind about the others Bo, if you can explain it to one that would be good enough. Bo: > 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! > Khoo: This is the one where you attributed to a 5th level called super-rationality. I hope you do not mind if you can explain again what super-rationality is? If you answer the questions from my first post, we would have covered this ground already. But I wonder why you would be so upset with Pirsig himself. If you have a better explanation, his shortcomings are for you to build on. Bo: 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. Khoo: Now Bo, dont accuse me of being Oriental or anything like that. I just have a different set of experiences from everyone else which might even be very different from being Oriental whatever that may mean. And what would one mean by being Oriental anyway? How does this relate to the Metaphysics of Quality or Buddhism? An Oriental does not make a better Buddhist or may be more inclined to understand a Metaphysics of Quality. However, I have explained that the route to enligthenment is not the "intellect". It is not even "through" an intellect that has to be "transcended". Direct experience is rather non-intellectual. Again I have to ask, what is this process that takes one to the enlightenment which you speak of? You have introduced a new term here: "the Q-context". How is this context of Quality different from Quality itself? If it is not different why dont we just use Quality itself ? Bo: > 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. Khoo: Is there no difference therefore, from where you see things, between Quality and the Metaphysics of Quality ? Is not one Reality and the other an intellectual explanation of it ? Quality is outside SOM and does not needs to be released. Reality is outside SOM and does not need to be released by an inversion that the explanation is the reality. While we are at this; what it the Buddhism context? Bo: > 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. Khoo: An insight is an insight. Experience of Quality does not require too many turns of the screw. In fact we should be striving towards an economy of explanation if the insight is crystal clear. Bo, I do not want to tire you so please do not respond to this immediately. Think it over and maybe take a break, take a step back and become detached for a while. When you are fresh and ready, come back with the answers, especially the ones from my first post. Best regards Khoo Hock Aun 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/
