On Monday, 3/8/10 at 5:09 AM, Andre wrote:
Hi Ham, Bodvar, There are no 'Absolutes'. This is taking a SOM static/fixed point of view and not a MoQ, DQ/SQ point of view!! Nagarjuna argues from between an Absolute and Nihilist position: the Middle Way i.e.conventionally and 'from' an 'emptiness' pov. The MoQ subscribes to these two perspectives: a dynamic and a static one (see Anthony's PhD). Both do not have an inherent existence. They are dependently arisen. The Tao 'argues' in similar ways.
I haven't read Buddhistic philosophy in a long time, but among Nagarjuna's works is a 'Hymn to the Absolute Reality". Also, in an analysis at Orientalia.org,, Plamen Gradinarov mentions at least one "absolutist" interpretation of Nagarjuna's teachings:
"The concept of sunya is pointing to the fact that everything is relative in this world, that everything is lacking (sunya) its stable, absolute metaphysical basis. This... interpretation was namely absolutist, the one proposed by T.R.V. Murti in his classical now 1955 book The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. It has influenced many a scholar and "lay" reader. By negating all types of reality of the dharmas (bhava, svabhava, and parabhava), Nagarjuna were apophatically pointing to the Absolute Reality of Dharmata, Tathata, Dharmakaya, or even Sunyata."
It would seem to me that the much-touted Middle Way is an attempt to straddle differentiated existence and absolute reality, which is a metaphysical impossibility.
Quality does not have inherent existence. It is therefore 'empty'. This does not mean that it does not exist or is 'unreal'.
The S/O (existentialist) pov sees the Absolute as "empty" because it is not experienced. The essentialist understands that experience is infused with nothing. Since he knows that nothingness is not real, he views Essence as "absolute fullness" rather than as "emptyness". Pure Value (Quality) represents this fullness in existence, but human experience can only make value realizable as a relational world of discrete objects and events. It is this pluralistic world of which we have direct knowledge and from which we make intellectual conclusions.
[Ham, previously]::
I see no inconsistency in the reality of existential birth and Gautama's phrase "we have all dependently arisen." However, I don't agree with your assertion that "were not born at a certain point in time ...and space," or your suggestion that we have not even been born!
[Andre]:
In the MoQ 'we' are static patterns of value capable of responding to DQ (inorganic,organic,social and intellectual). This view indeed radically challenges our conceptions of 'birth' and 'death'.
Apart from the fact that, as "created beings", we are all dependent on an uncreated Source, please tell me how our response to Quality or Value changes our conception of birth and death.
[Ham]:
It's one thing to speculate that birth and death "don't count" in the overall scheme of things, but quite another to dismiss the fact that in a space/time world these events mark the beginning and end of our existence.
[Andre]:
Space and time receive the same treatment in the Midde Way dialectic and resulting perspective.
[Ham to Marsha]:
Andre's notion that birth and death are not processes of the life-experience, for example, is more of an impediment than a clarification of the nature of existence.
[Andre]:
I would suggest the 'impediment' lies within a s/o process thinking. And as dmb points out 'intellect is what you use to attack SOM' and this type of thinking.
All we can know is what we as subjects experience of an objective reality. Human thought and reasoning are necessarily limited to this experience. Intellect is indeed our capacity to reason. However, "attacking subject-object" to make it disappear is hardly the most propitious application of intellect I can think of.
Essentially speaking, Ham 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/md/archives.html
