Hi Dan, >> So it's relative? > > Dan: > Not sure what you mean... relative to what? Or relative to who? You > are not suggesting enlightenment is a 'thing' apart from oneself, a > thing to be sought after... are you? I would say there is no > enlightenment apart from the self, which is itself a static construct > to keep stable the overwhelming force of Dynamic Quality. But that is > just me saying so.
I would say that we(sq) exist and that's better than nothing. :-) >> Not by words. One can however describe how to experience it. A finger >> points to the moon.. > > Dan: > If this is so, what is there to experience? I guess that's what I'm > asking... isn't saying there is such a thing as enlightenment somewhat > akin to saying there is such a thing as God? I don't really think so, but with a stretch you could say so.. Enlightenment(DQ) is something you experience. If you want to equate DQ with God then that's fine and it's not incompatible with the MOQ IMHO. But personally I find bringing a monotheistic religious term such as God into the equation confuses things and doesn't really bring any further clarity. That said, I find a 'belief' in anything, including God, to not be compatible with the MOQ. Quality isn't something you believe in, it's something you experience. >>> David H: >>> I think enlightenment (or perfection) (or Dynamic Quality) does exist >>> and is not merely a mistaken belief. But there is more to life than >>> just Dynamic Quality. This is what the MOQ says and this is where it >>> differs from Zen Buddhism. >>> >>> Dan: >>> We know Dynamic Quality by what it is not... would you agree? >> >> Yes. Intellectually we do. But we also 'know' it by experience - >> before these words capture it and thus point out what it is not. > > Dan: > Good point, yes. I would say too that experience and Dynamic Quality > are synonymous so to experience reality is to know Dynamic Quality. > But when we label experience and package it into intellectual terms > like enlightenment and yes even the term Dynamic Quality we are moving > away from reality we seek to know and not toward it. Yes. But is this to say we don't 'experience' static quality? I think we do. I think that we could say direct experience is Dynamic Quality but then even that is probably saying too much :-). I think the MOQ would say that you can break experience into DQ and static quality. But even the recognition of this fact is sq.. So DQ, the best thing to say is, 'Not this, not that.' >>>> David H: >>>> Well, not as much disagreement here (relative to the amount of time I put >>>> off responding) as I was expecting Dan. The only point of contention in >>>> this post was whether you think enlightenment exists or is just a mistaken >>>> belief.. >>> >>> Dan: >>> If a person believes in enlightenment I would say good for them. >>> Personally, I do not share that belief. But I would not go so far as >>> to say it is a mistaken belief. It is like those people who profess to >>> having a belief in God... I am not about to discount such beliefs >>> though I do not share it. >> >> I too think that enlightenment isn't something you believe in, but I >> do think that it is something you experience. > > Dan: > Then it is. Whatever you think 'it' is, or want 'it' to be, it is. I > have no argument with this. Well, I don't see how it's whatever one thinks it is. But it's good that you have no argument.. > >> >>> On the other hand, I know what I know but I have no way of sharing >>> that knowledge other than through my interpretation of analogies like >>> the gate-less gate. That analogy suggests (to me) that for those who >>> know there is no enlightenment... so what is it that the seekers seek >>> if not themselves? >> >> I think the gateless gate analogy is about the moment of enlightenment >> itself. It's that moment when you realize that the thing which you've >> been striving for was there all along. > > Dan: > And so everything you've been seeking is in the mirror staring back at > you. Then what is it you're seeking if you already have it? The instant there is a 'you' or a 'me' to do the seeking then we are no longer DQ and are once again separate from it and thus once again seek enlightenment (DQ). We can't capture enlightenment or DQ. It isn't something we can 'have' as we are only sq. But we are(thanks to being alive!), able to respond to DQ. And we are(thanks to enlightenment), able to wake up to this fact. There is a great distinction here which may clear this up - between 180 degrees enlightenment and 360 degrees enlightenment. 180 degrees enlightenment is the 'realisation' that DQ exists and is the source of all things. This is something we can 'have'. But then there is 360 degrees enlightenment and this is the application of this realisation back to everyday life. This is something which continues forever and in this regard enlightenment is not something we can 'have' but we can experience each and every day. > Thank you, > > Dan > > PS Been reading the AHP transcripts (thank you Ant and Andre) and came > across this excerpt which might (or might not) be pertinent to our > discussion... what do you think?: > > Question: 'In other words do you see a monistic "It" as static or Dynamic?' > > Pirsig: 'If I am intellectualising, that's one thing. If I am > experiencing… getting into a problem here… [that's another thing]. > There's the Quality of Zen and there's the Quality of the MOQ and they > are not the same thing any more because the MOQ is an intellectual > static pattern and already it has been polluted plenty to get into > that pattern and all of a sudden there's… you're taking sides and > things, you're picking and choosing you know and in Zen you're not > supposed to do that: you don't pick and choose.' > > 'I'll give you that koan, that's a good one: "The Way is not difficult > except to avoid picking and choosing" that's a famous koan and the > Quality that's Quality is arrived at not by picking and choosing.' Yes. This is the contradiction that to understand the MOQ you need to forget it. Dynamic Quality is not an idea, it's an experience. Thank-you Dan, -David. 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
