Sent from my iPad
On Dec 18, 2011, at 6:09 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi there, Marsha -- > > > On Sat. 12/17/2011 at 2:13 PM, Marsha V [email protected] wrote: > > [Quoting Nagarjuna, previously]: > >> "Two thousand five hundred years ago, the Buddha was able to realise >> "emptiness" (s. sunyata). By doing so he freed himself from >> unsatisfactoriness (s. dukkha). From the standpoint of enlightenment, >> sunyata is the reality of all worldly existences (s. dharma). It is the >> realisation of Bodhi — Prajna. From the standpoint of liberation, sunyata >> is the skilful means that disentangle oneself from defilement and >> unsatisfactoriness. The realisation of sunyata leads one to no attachment >> and clinging. It is the skilful means towards enlightenment and also the >> fruit of enlightenment." >> >> This too is very interesting... >> >> "Emptiness too, does not exist by way of its own being, as it is without an >> essential nature. Emptiness is an absence, not an essence. When a person >> discovers that what he or she thought existed does not, the realization is a >> stunning absence. We think that things correspond to their appearance and >> exist in this same way. We take objects to be exist as their own things, >> including the self of persons and when such identity, when the establishment >> of true entities cannot be found, its absence is astonishing." > > Interesting as they may be, I feel the need to disabuse you of the "truths" > you have been promulgating to the Pirsigians. This isn't a personal rebuke, > for I know you mean well, and I can well understand the appeal these Mahayana > teachings have for you. But in addition to the fact that they are > inconsistent with the Quality thesis and so will continue to provoke the > loyalists, they are simply not a source of wisdom or knowledge about reality. > I think I can convince you of this by analyzing the assertions that > constitute Mahāyāna doctrine. There are most certainly inconsistencies, but there are also similarities. Buddhism comes from an Asian part of the world with its own pair of cultural glasses. There are bound to be inconsistencies. RMP has asserted as the MoQ thesis the central idea that the world is nothing but value; this is original and inconsistent with most Western philosophies too. I am exploring the MoQ as a bridge between Western science and Eastern wisdom. I am not suggesting that they are totally identical. > First, let's establish the "conventional" meaning of the term "emptiness". > The synonyms are 'vacant', 'blank', 'void' or 'vacuous', and the dictionary > definition is: "lacking contents, especially of usual or normal contents." In > other words, emptiness is the absence of discrete objects or finite entities. > Yet Nagarjuna says Emptiness is not an essence. How does he know that? Through Buddhism's use of rational argument, the tetralemma, and the insight-introverted practice of meditation/mindfulness (experience). > According to Wiki: "The two truths doctrine holds that truth exists in > conventional and ultimate forms, and that both forms are co-existent. Some > schools hold that the two truths are ultimately resolved into nonduality as a > lived experience and are non-different. "Ultimate truth" is unknowable, > however. The doctrine is an especially important element of Buddhism and was > first expressed in complete modern form by Nāgārjuna, who based it on the > Kaccāyanagotta Sutta." But, as D.T. Suzuki points out, "Without a theory of > cognition, Mahayana philosophy becomes incomprehensible." I suspect that a theory of cognition will be presented in the explanation of the five aggregates (skandhas). I certainly read a little about them, but most of my effort has gone to understanding Emptiness, or dependent arising, as it has been presented to the West, and synthesizing that with my own experience. > "Within the Mahāyāna presentation, the two truths may also refer to specific > perceived phenomena instead of categorizing teachings. Conventional truths > would be the appearances of mistaken awareness--the awareness itself when > mistaken--together with the objects that appear to it. To put it another > way, a conventional truth would be the appearance that includes a duality of > apprehender and apprehended and objects perceived within that. Ultimate > truths, then, are phenomena free from the duality of apprehender and > apprehended." Yes. > But since all knowledge is acquired by the "apprehender" from what is > "apprehended", it cannot be "free from this duality"; therefore, we cannot > know that what we experience as "emptiness' (nothingness?) is devoid of > essence. Alexander Berzin (2007) says, "All knowable phenomena must be > members of the set of either one or the other true phenomena, with nothing > knowable that belongs to either both or neither of the sets. Consequently, > understanding the two truths constitutes understanding [the nature of] all > knowable phenomena." This is humanly impossible. The universe is not empty, > and Absolute Truth remains unknowable. The Ultimate Truth is that all entities are empty of inherent existence and are dependently arisen. It is not that they do not exist; it is that static patterns (entities) or conventional truths (entities), arise conditionally co-dependent. The nature of all phenomena is as empty of inherent existence. Phenomena, the static, conventional variety, is conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized. Both Dynamic Quality and Buddhism's Ultimate Truth is indeterminate. - I will say there is conceptual (patterned) experience, perceptual (patterned) experience and unpatterned experience. But this is my own conclusion in my own language. It is the conceptual experience that is dualistic. > The Wiki article goes on to say: "During meditation, emptiness is experienced > as non-conceptual and without subject-object duality. However emptiness > teachings resist reification, turning this absence back into an independent > essence. And so it is said that emptiness too, is empty. Emptiness is not > the substance of phenomena, not its “filler,” substratum or indicative of the > absence of all phenomena. Emptiness is not an independent entity, but is > inseparable from form and countless dependent conditions, though all empty > ones." > > So, dear Marsha, while it is nothingness ("emptiness", if you prefer) that > differentiates objects and entities in experiential existence, we cannot > conclude that nothingness is the ground of existence, but only that it is a > necessary contingency of our relational world. Moreover, to repeat myself, > nothing comes from nothingness, which should intuitively suggest that the > Primary Source (i.e., ultimate Reality) is "full" (as Eckhart taught) rather > than "empty" as Nagarjuna implies. That "nothing comes from nothingness" is a conventional, static statement too. It does not represent the Ultimate Truth. I have read, with convincing argumentation, that, for instance, Mayayana Buddhism's emptiness and the Advaita Vedanta's fullness both end in nondualism. (Loy,David, 'NONDUALITY') > Again, I'm not trying to put down Buddhism and there's nothing personal > intended. However, if you think about the assertions you are accepting as > "truths" in any logical context, I believe you will see they are flawed > tenets unsuitable for the development of a metaphysical cosmology -- Eastern > or Western. All 'tenets' by their very nature, conventional and static, are flawed, if by flawed you mean not Absolute. If I have missed any questions, ask again. I will try my best to answer. > Enjoy the Christmas holiday, and all the best in 2012. And the best to you too. Marsha > Ham, the Essentialist > > 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
