Everything is conventionally real. Nothing is ultimately real. Everything is both conventionally real and ultimately unreal. Nothing is either conventionally unreal or ultimately real.
On Aug 9, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Marsha said: > > Let's not forget that bullets as patterns are ever-changing, inter-dependent > and impermanent processes. imho > > Free-will is a static pattern of value, a conventional belief, not something > ultimately real. So I neither accept 'free-will' nor reject 'free-will'; it > is irrelevant from a MoQ point-of-view. > > Andre: > I have lumped these lines together as they show the brilliant thinking, > understanding and reasoning by a person called Marsha. She's been dogging > this discuss for a while and it must be made absolutely clear that her > thinking, reasoning and understanding has very little to do with Pirsig's > MOQ. Rather it confuses it and misrepresents it in a most horrific way. > > If 'bullets' are what she says they are they would, within the MOQ not be > termed "bullets". The reason why 'bullets' can be designated as 'bullets' > within the MOQ is precisely because they are stable inorganic patterns of > value. They manifest in time. In fact their manifestation in time (and > space)is so stable that they can be identified and designated as such. It > seems very clear that Marsha has never been hit by this 'ever-changing' > process. In other words she has never experienced it. She speaks 'theory' and > imagines all sorts of weirdo scenarios. > > The only positive was her disclaimer: "imho', which, to me indicates that she > is aware of the bucket she's in,the role she plays and the fun she has. > > Marsha also argues that because something is only conventionally real, and > not ultimately real she doesn't accept it as being relevant FROM A MOQ > POINT-OF-VIEW! > > Now this is serious. > > Apart from the 'free-will' discussion that has been going on for a while > Marsha claims it is irrelevant! Why is it 'irrelevant'? Because it isn't > 'ultimately real'. > > She cites Buddhist insights, Garfield, Nagarjuna and a host of others to > substantiate her claims and fundamental position (of non-acceptance of > anything...seemingly). > > But my question to Marsha is "why"? What point are you trying to make? What > contribution are you trying to make to the MOQ by maintaining this position? > > Did Siddharta Gautama, after his enlightenment experience say to the world: > "Fuck you!" Nothing is ultimately real anyway so I accept nothing anymore? > Nothing is real. You are all deluding yourself because all is ultimately > unreal? > > The really huge mistake you are making, my dear is that you imply that there > IS something ULTIMATELY REAL. To wit: by constantly arguing that there is a > notion of 'the way things REALLY are' and in this way separating it from > 'convention' is misrepresenting the MOQ and misrepresenting Nagarjuna. It > confirms my suspicion that you operate from theory alone (despite your > counter that your meditative practices lead you to such a position as you > hold and argue). I think you need a proper teacher! > > Your notion and judgement of loads of discussions and references referred to > on this discuss as reflecting merely 'conventional belief' and therefore 'not > something ultimately real' is according to the Madhyamika incoherent. > > You fail to see the point. As you apparently fail to see that (from your > point of view 'despite' and from us [mere mortals] point of view 'because') > Gautama Buddha developed his eight-fold path. Pirsig wrote ZMM and LILA, > Christ left his legacy, Eckhart, Krishnamurti...there are of course scores of > persons throughout history doing things with the insight that there is a > ground stuff, a Quality, a Void, a Nothingness. > > But they recognised it and BUILT on it! With compassion, care and dedication. > They recognised that without sq there is no way of 'knowing' DQ. > > YOU my dear nullify, disarm, annihilate and evaporate any well meant > discussion about anything even remotely relevant. And all imho of course. > > Time to have something to eat. 'Cos even though ultimately my food is not > real, only being an ever changing inter-depending permanent process...it > keeps my sq going . (See the stupidity of your thinking, reasoning and > understanding? !!) > > > > > > > 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
