From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 21:35:49 GMT
Platt,
Not sure I agree that Scott's answer "nails" self,
other than confirming that
whilst it's weird, it is not an "illusion".
It's hard nailing jelly to a wall,
but jelly is not an illusion.
A few points ...
You say ...
Of such conundrums and paradoxes
[like those baffling koans]
Buddhist "philosophy" appears to thrive.
I say ...
The philosophy is not in the koans.
You don't find it by solving them.
The koans are just an aid to thinking.
You find the philosphy in reflection and introspection,
and the states of consciousness to which it takes you.
You say ...
such a philosophy hardly appeals to the practical-minded.
I disagree ...
I'm a pragmatist and constantly accuse Pirsig / MoQ of being supremely
pragmatic.
You say ...
Paradox and humor get close to the fire of truth
I usually say ...
Many a true word spoken ...
in jest, riddle, aphorism, metaphor, whatever.
Same as it ever was.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: MD People and Value in the MOQ
> Scott:
>
> > Buddhist philosophy does not quite say that the self is an illusion.
What
> > is said is that the self, like everything else, does not have 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.
>
> Thanks, Scott. Makes sense in a weird sort of way. What Buddhist
> philosophy does, in essence, is deny philosophy. "Thought is not a path to
> reality,." itself a thought that is neither real nor unreal, etc.
>
> Of such conundrums and paradoxes Buddhist "philosophy" appears to thrive.
> Like those baffling koans.
>
> Of course, the problem is such a philosophy hardly appeals to the
> practical-minded, like those who find it of value to survive in a world
> where lions, tigers and bears don't understand paradox and exhibit no
> sense of humor. (E.B. White wrote, "Paradox and humor get close to the
> fire of truth.")
>
> Be that as it may, you've nailed the Buddhist (and Pirsig's) notion of
> "self." I'm grateful for being enlightened. :-)
>
> Best,
> Platt
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Wed Nov 24 2004 - 21:39:04 GMT