This replaces my last post where there are obvious mistakes in my quote
On Jan 9, 2011, at 1:12 AM, X Acto wrote:
>
>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Changes in 2011
>
> Marsha to Andre quoting Anthony's Phd and:
>
> In Buddhism it is Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.
> (Heart Sutra)
>
> Andre:
> So? Is this your 'evidence' or justification for saying DQ=sq? And, if so,
> how
> does this add to Pirsig's MOQ? By making a distinction between DQ and sq did
> Pirsig commit a grave error?
>
> Ron:
> This seems to be what is being wrestled with, the arrival at the idea that
> forms
> are empty
> of material objective "permanance" which is useful in breaking a static
> conventional prejudice,
> but once the point has been made, what sort of meaning is wrought by resting
> on
> it?
> Philosophical discussions should begin here, not end.
>
Marsha:
Here's another interesting quote from the MoQ Textbook where:
"Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types of truth;
the ‘static’ conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and the ‘Dynamic’ ultimate
truth (paramattha-sacca)."
(MoQ Textbook, p102)
But I am confused. My response may contain ideas about the intellectual level,
SOM and reification, and I have been told we are not hear to learn what I
think, but to learn what RMP thinks.
___
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
