Hi Marsha, OK, so the world is one of appearances, that is why we call it Quality. I am on board all the way, Any doubts? Thanks for the quotes which are an attempt at explanation, I would much rather quotes from Suzuki, however.
I assume you provided the quotes with MoQ in mind. Below is a very brief critique, which only covers the surface of problems. If the author wanted to stay true to form, he would have said "we hear" (full stop). We do not hear music, the music is created in our heads. In the same way, if I were interpreting Buddhism in some kind of publication, I would not say " the eyes that see it [the wall], for the same reasons. We do not see the wall, we see. If the author wants to describe being outside of subject object he may need more practice. Perhaps he deals with his contradictions later on, and he establishes that this was written for the Western mind of subject object. He is talking about the social level when he claims "for convenience". Yes, language is a tool, and a very real one for it is one of the bondages of the social level and it brings much pleasure and pain, which is also as real as it gets, appearances aside. I do not see how claiming that a collection of seats is any different. If he wants to divide concepts up into particulars, I do not see the point, Buddhism and MoQ are holistic. He could have said that a car is Zoom, honk, wind in the hair, security, and the thousand other things a car is. A collection of seats is silly. Nagarjuna was not presenting an idea, he was presenting Reality. An idea is a clever thought. Pirsig is presenting Reality (at least outside the hallowed walls of philosophy). Using the Western meaning of Emptiness, he is dead wrong with what he claims, not even close. Perhaps he is trying to scare Westerners with Nihilism. Quality is anything but empty. So there you have it, my critique using the tools of MoQ. Mark On Oct 12, 2011, at 2:32 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, > > > "Emptiness and Appearances in Buddhism: > > "Does this mean that nothing at all exists? No; the fact that one perceives a > world of objects means that at least perceptions exist. So without an > enduring essence, all objects exist provisionally. They exist as appearances. > > More specifically, all objects exist in relation to each other. A wall is an > appearance, no more or less real than the eyes that see it. Music exists only > insofar as instruments produce it and ears hear it. The keyboard exists as > long as fingers feel it. And ideas exist insofar as there is the means to > communicate them and minds to think on them. > > "The same analysis applies to all objects. In some sense, a car both is and > is not a car. It is “really” a collection of seats, a steering wheel, an > engine, a body, wheels, etc. But it is called a car for sake of convenience. > > "The school of thought that advanced this idea was the Madhyamaka and its > founder, Nagarjuna, flourished in the second or third century CE. He taught > that to understand this philosophy one must employ the idea of two truths: > The conventional truth is the acceptance of the appearances the world offers. > The ultimate truth is the truth that all things are empty. For Nagarjuna, > awakening meant knowing this ultimate truth while living in a world of > conventional appearances. Even nirvana is of the nature of emptiness. > Therefore, according to Nagarjuna, there is no distinction between nirvana > and samsara." > > > > Marsha > > > ___ > > > > > > > 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
