RE: MD The individual in the MOQ

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Aug 29 2004 - 15:38:50 BST

  • Next message: Charles Roghair: "Re: MD MOQ and The Problem Of Evil"

    Paul,

    [Paul said]> As I understand :-) it, Nagarjuna used his logic to prove that
    nothing
    > that can be captured in a conceptual logical formulation can have an
    > inherent self-nature because it does not exist in isolation from
    > something else, everything depends on something else, e.g. its opposite,
    > for its identity i.e. all is, in itself, "empty." This goes on and on so
    > even existence and non-existence are seen as empty (this is the first
    > "truth") until eventually "emptiness" itself is shown to be empty, and
    > enlightenment occurs.

    [Scott:] Yes. (Well, I could do some nit-picking, but then there would be
    nits to pick in that, etc.)

    >
    > Put into MOQ terms, we could say that all differentiated static patterns
    > are empty of inherent existence, that they have a conditioned and
    > impermanent nature. The enlightened recognizes that this understanding
    > itself is static, and therefore conditioned and impermanent.

    [Scott:] Well, one doesn't have to be enlightened to understand that. But,
    again, yes.

     In other
    > words, the conceptual "staticness" of the static patterns is itself a
    > static pattern, a conceptual differentiation. Following this logic, the
    > conceptualised static quality and the conceptually unknown Dynamic
    > Quality can not be distinguished for then they would be related to each
    > other as conceptual opposites. Thus, the second truth of Nagarjuna has
    > the consequence that this whole static world is ultimately identical to
    > Dynamic Quality, that there is really no division between static quality
    > and Dynamic Quality. Quite simply, if Dynamic Quality is undivided, it
    > can't be divided from static quality!

    [Scott:] Yes indeed. I will again refer to Franklin Merrell-Wolff who had
    an Awakening, but it wasn't until he had a second one a little later that
    he realized that in the first there was still a very subtle duality, which
    in MOQ terminology would be that in the first he experienced pure DQ (he
    called it "Pure Subject"), but in the second even that duality was
    overcome, a state he called "High Indifference".

    >
    > The first truth of Nagarjuna teaches us to become free of the illusion
    > that the static world is itself real, while the second truth teaches us
    > that it is real after all, not in the sense in which we tend to think it
    > is, but in the sense it always has been.

    But now there is need for a third, that the form "DQ and SQ are united in
    something beyond our understanding" must be deconstructed. Here's something
    from Tanabe Hajime (from The Philosophy of Metanoetics): "...if absolute
    contradiction could be reduced to self-identity, the contradiction itself
    would have to be considered as having vanished at the same time. For it is
    not a matter of contradiction being *overcome* from a standpoint that
    envelops and transcends it, but of being *recovered* -- pardoned and
    redeemed -- through metanoetic self-consciousness, without thereby ceasing
    to be contradiction".

    - Scott

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 29 2004 - 16:00:38 BST