Hi Marsha, On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:49 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >[Marsha] > Mark, > > I know you've said you do not have access to the MoQ Text book, so > I will present the quote one more time: > > > "Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the > indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or > static:. > > In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and > contingency belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by also > saying that all things ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma or > that within the heart of every conditioned entity (as its core, as its true > essence, as its very real nature) there is the indeterminate dharma. > While the one expresses the transcendence of the ultimate reality, > the other speaks of its immanence. The one says that the ultimate > reality is not an entity apart and wholly removed from the determinate, > but is the real nature of the determinate itself. > > 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)." > > (McWatt,f Anthony, 'AN INTRODUCTION TO ROBERT PIRSIG’S METAPHYSICS OF > QUALITY', P. 102) > > > My interpretation is as much based on my experience as what I've read. - > Within > Buddhism, in the Heart Sutra, it states that “Form is emptiness; emptiness is > form. > Form is not different than emptiness; emptiness is not different than form.” > And > in spite of this statement, there is still reams written discussing the > 'conventional' > or conditioned, and 'Ultimate' or indeterminate, as different. While the MoQ > is not > a form of Buddhism, because of the similarities between the static & the > conventional > and the Dynamic & the Ultimate it is interesting to consider and then > research through > ones own experience. > > I think the fact that DQ is the fundamental nature of sq should be > considered. In > fact, I do believe RMP states, in the Oxford dvd, that the rational and > mystical sides > of the MoQ can both be discussed . >
[Mark] Yes, I am aware of what you present. I didn't know it came from the text book. My only point was that MoQ presents a division into DQ and SQ for rhetorical purposes. Of course both are the same since both are Quality. However, once we know that we move forward into the explanation through a dichotomy. It doesn't make sense to me to point towards the begining again since we already know what Quality is. I would say that Quality is the fundamental nature of sq, not DQ. Otherwise the separation would not make much sense to me. Oh, is there an Oxford dvd too? The division of the rational and mystical is also provided as a presentation. They do not really exist as you know. But yes, like Dq and Sq they can be discussed as different. Cheers, Mark > --- > > Do you like Tilsit? [Mark] Who? > > 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 > 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
