Hi Ham, I was going to get to these quotes of Marsha's, but I am fine to follow your lead. As stated, the Western interpretation of Buddhism (a term coined by the West in the early 1900's, over two thousand years since such teachings have been in existence) is insufficient since it relies primarily on words, logic and Western concepts of reality which are based around the Ego. As we know, words can be misleading, and the only way to get around this is through direct conversation. This includes the possibility of asking questions as well as the preponderance of meaning coming through intonation and emphasis, something lacking in the written word. As such, words are trivial, a concept firmly held by the Ch'an Masters (later called Zen) in their golden age 700-1000 AD.
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Marsha -- > > Since you went to the trouble of quoting generously from Ant's doctoral > thesis, I thought it might provide a useful reference for squaring some of > my differences and agreements with the Quality thesis. In this way you, > Arlo, and others may see that I am not here to condemn the MoQ, nor am I > "totally antagonistic" toward Pirsig's tenets. > > ------------- > > "This formulation is a tool towards understanding concepts such as the > not-self (or anatta) doctrine that is not handled particularly well by > binary logic. So, as with every static value pattern, the notion of the > ‘self’ in Buddhist philosophy is not simply considered an ‘illusion’ or an > entity (as claimed by some Christian understandings of the ‘soul’) with an > inherent self-existence. > > "That is, everything exists by being related to everything else > (‘dependent co- > origination’ is the usual term), but does not exist by itself. There is no > way to > state this in a way that conforms to Aristotelian logic. Hence the need for > the > logic of contradictory identity. The self exists by negating itself, as > Nishida puts > it. So, the phrase ‘the self is an illusion’ is just as much an error in > Buddhist > philosophy as ‘the self exists’. The traditional Buddhist formulation is > the > tetralemma: > > One cannot say that the self exists. > One cannot say that the self does not > exist. > One cannot say that self both exists and does > not exist. > One cannot say that the self neither exists nor does > not exist. > (Roberts, 2004)" > [Mark] Well this is redundant since "one" cannot say anything. As Buddha is said to have said, "I do not have a mouth". This is quite correct in Buddhist training, and therefore to say "One cannot say.." is imparting a Self as existing. For there has to be a Self to say. Again, words are very misleading here. > ------------- > > Except for the Tetralemma (which exploits contradiction for poetic purposes) > and the notion of self-negation (only Essence can negate itself), I have no > problem with this analysis of Buddhist ontology. I particularly like the > first sentence: "everything exists by being related to everything else > (‘dependent co-origination is the usual term), but does not exist by > itself." Indeed, existence is the relational mode of being in which finite > things and temporal events are presented to the self for evaluation and > cognitive (logical) interpretation. [Mark] Contradiction implies Truth as opposed to Quality. Therefore this form of speech is not necessary in MoQ training except at the very beginning. MoQ forces one to drop SOM structured thought and look beyond that. In "Buddhist training, techniques such as trying not to think and then trying not to try not to think are common until the student gets beyond this first hurdle and can really start learning on his/her own. > > As for "the existence/non-existence of self" paradox, this can be resolved > simply by recognizing that, unlike objects and events which constitute the > phenomena of experience, selfness is the conscious locus of what exists. > That is why the self is designated as the 'subject' of existence rather than > as an 'existent' per se. For the sake of clarity, I use the term > "sensibility" to describe the conscious self and "phenomena" to define the > physical objects of its experience. > [Mark] A better way to put this is that Self in the Western Tradition is akin to Ego as presented by Freud and others. A primary objective of Buddhist training is to remove the Ego. Therefore the teacher states that the Self does not exist. This is of course a techniques and cannot be taken literally. If it was, then further Buddhist training would be impossible. Once released from Ego, the student can once again realize that self exists, and the end goal of Buddhism is to become utterly selfless and companionate to all "sentient" beings. Of course the concept of sentient was a philosophical one at that time. Now that that term has been completely blurred, I would state that the end goal is to profess humility to all things. By doing so, one becomes completely free, and nothing can touch him/her. Trust me, it is like feeling weightless and transparent. To be selfless does not mean to abolish the Self, just to remove that part which is the Ego. > ------------- > > "Though he doesn’t knowingly employ the logic of the tetralemma, Pirsig does > share numerous ontological beliefs with Buddhist philosophy such as > Nagarjuna’s (c.300a, p.251) perception that the unconditioned (or Dynamic) > is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static): [Mark] I will have to take the Ant's word on this, I am not sure how much he understands about Buddhism. But equating the unconditioned to the Dynamic is a useful analogy if one has understanding of one of the terms. > > 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. > (Cooper,2002) [Mark] Yes, exactly, in their ultimate nature things exist. This is similar to what Plato wrote. Interesting that Plato (or more appropriately his teacher Pythagorus) and Buddha were alive at around the same time. This is not a coincidence, just like Lao Tsu was also around at the same time as well as many great Indian, Jewish, and Arabic philosophers who came out of the beginning of this Axial Age. Things do not enter the indeterminate Dharma, they exist there. Cooper is confusing DQ with sq here, and is still stuck in Western Thought. It can be said that the Self realizes such Dharma, or wakes up, as it were. This is not entering, it is uncovering. This is a big difference since there is nothing to enter, we are already there. Of course Cooper then corrects himself with the last sentence which gives "entering" an unusual meaning as he uses it. But lets take that last sentence and analyze it. This ultimate reality is said to exist; it also says that such existence is not apart or removed from SQ, but that DQ is the contingent nature of sq. Again, as I have said before, sq is an apparition of DQ, or one could say that both DQ and sq are expressions of Quality. Much like sunlight is an expression of the sun. The sun does not contain sunlight, it expresses it, from the sun we then get the sq which is in the form of light, heat, and all else. In the same way, we do not contain Quality, we express it. DQ and sq are two sides of the same coin. I have never seen a coin with one side (or heard one hand clapping) but if I did, that would be Quality. > > (McWatt, A Critical Analysis of Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of > Quality,pp.55-56) > > ------------- > > Although these two pages deal specifically with Nagarjuna's ontology, I > assume the Cooper excerpt was included to demonstrate its metaphysical > parallel or commonality with Pirsig's philosophy. If so, what Cooper > describes as "the ultimate nature of things" represents Pirsig's Dynamic > Quality, while "conditionedness and contingency" are the experienced aspects > of static quality. [Mark] Yes, Nagarjuna's ontology AS EXPRESSED WITH WESTERN CONCEPTS; this implies translation in which much is lost. I would say that the ultimate nature of things is Quality which can be subdivided into DQ and sq for rhetorical purposes. > > I was pleased to note Cooper's choice of words in describing the > "indeterminate dharma" which expresses the transcendence of ULTIMATE > REALITY. "As its core, as its true ESSENCE, as its very real nature there > is the indeterminate dharma" [which] "speaks of its immanence." He goes on > to explain that "the one ...is not an entity apart and wholly removed from > the determinate, but is the real nature of the determinate itself." This > is, in fact, the fundamental fundamental premise of Essentialism. > Unfortunately, it is missing (possibly hidden?) in Pirsig's exposition. It could well be that your Essence is my Quality, and I have said this before. We do differ on the importance of man and his role in all of this, however. I do not believe the premise you point to is missing from Pirsig's exposition, but entirely compatible. I will have to get some quotes sometime from Lila and ZMM to demonstrate this. Of course this would be with my interpretation of what Pirsig wrote which may be incompatible to many of those who are lost in MoQ in this forum. Briefly, from my understanding, we are all made up of Quality (Essence, or indeterminate Dharma (and Karma for that matter)). Quality is like most metaphysics providing an analogy for the nature of things. MoQ can be easily applied to Western understanding as shown by ZMM which was a best-seller. It's underlying form is much harder, as shown by the lackluster sales of Lila. Pirsig needs to come out with a third book which contains a synthesis of the fundamental theory, and its practice. To do this a third form of Quality needs to be created. As I have suggested before, this could be IQ or Interactive Quality. This would fit well with the analogy of co-dependent arising. MoQ should be taught through practice, not through words, otherwise it will never catch on. Regards Ham-o Mark > > Thanks for this opportuity, Marsha. I hope I have not misconstrued the > metaphysics that Ant (and Cooper) outlined above. > > 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 > 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
