Khoo,
I am always interested in what you post and thank you for doing so.
Marsha
On Feb 6, 2010, at 8:05 AM, Khoo Hock Aun wrote:
> 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/
___
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/
