From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Wed Mar 16 2005 - 18:56:12 GMT
Ant, Sam, Erin, other interested parties,
Ant McWatt notes:
I thought it was Nagarjuna's idea of "contradictory identity" rather than
Scott's?
It is Nishida's, further developed in Nishitani's "Religion and
Nothingness", but in any case a very different interpretation of Nagarjuna
than can be found in Northrop and Pirsig (I have managed to get a copy of
Northrop. I haven't by a long shot read all of it, but did read his account
of Buddhism. Nothing there leads me to change my criticisms of Pirsig.
Northrop, by the way, consistently refers to Nagarjuna's thought as "the
nihilistic Mahayanistic Buddhism of Nagarjuna" [p. 350 and elsewhere].
However, it should be noted that he approves of it, that is, he is not using
"nihilistic" pejoratively. Also, it was common in Northrop's time for
Western commentators to describe Nagarjuna as nihilistic. Since then,
though, that has been largely rejected. See C. W. Huntington's introduction
to "The Emptiness of Emptiness" for more on the various interpretations of
Nagarjuna. Unfortunately, Pirsig is using Northrop's nihilistic
interpretation.)
Ant said:
Anyway, the nihilistic part is examined in ZMM (i.e. Dynamic
Quality); the "double exposure" part is examined in LILA (i.e. static
quality patterns through Dynamic Quality). Moreover, the criticism of Zen
philosophy in being nihilistic is dismissed by D.T. Suzuki in Chapter 3 of
"An Introduction to Zen Buddhism". For instance:
"When Zen denies, it is not necessarily a denial in the logical sense. The
same can be said of an affirmation. The idea is that the ultimate fact of
experience must not be enslaved by any artificial or schematic laws of
thought, nor by any antithesis of 'yes' and 'no', nor by any cut and dried
formulae of epistemology. Evidently Zen commits absurdities and
irrationalities all the time; but this [is] only apparently. No wonder it
fails to escape the natural consequences - misunderstandings, wrong
interpretations, and ridicules which are often malicious. The charge of
[Scott's] nihilism is only one of these, [Sam's Kantian problematic is
another]."
And:
"Mere negation, however, is not the spirit of Zen [though] naturally Zen
would proclaim 'Not this, not that, not anything.' But we may insist upon
asking Zen what it is that is left after all these denials, and the master
will perhaps on such an occasion give us a slap in the face, exclaiming,
'You fool [Scott], what is this?' Some [such as Matt K] may take this as
only an excuse to get away from the dilemma, or as having no more meaning
than a practical example of ill-breeding. but when the spirit of Zen is
grasped in its purity, it will be seen what a real thing that slap is. For
here is no negation, no affirmation, but a plain fact, a pure experience,
the very foundation of our being and thought."
Scott:
I don't much appreciate being called a fool, but anyway, how do you know
that it isn't Pirsig who gets slapped? See below.
Ant said:
As noted above and in my PhD, ZMM and LILA should be considered together as
following the circle of enlightenment starting from 'the world of form'
(typically perceived dualistically, as in SOM) through to an understanding
of 'formlessness'/'Dynamic Quality' (as seen in ZMM - 180 degrees
enlightenment). We then return full circle (360 degrees) with this new
understanding of Dynamic Quality into 'the world of form'/static quality
patterns (as seen in LILA).
Scott:
This is pretty much the same as Northrop describes, and my point is that it
*isn't enough*. What it does not do is empty out emptiness. The "new
understanding" is *also* wrong -- it is a view, but as Nagarjuna says: "The
emptiness of the conquerors was taught in order to do away with all
philosophical views. Therefore it is said that whover makes a philosophical
view out of "emptiness" is indeed lost." Note: in a very different way it
could be said that I am also making a view of emptiness,(but then maybe I
don't think Nagarjuna has the last word -- actually I am quite up in the air
over this). However, I maintain that what Northrop and Pirsig are doing is
precisely what Nagarjuna is objecting to. They are placing DQ/Emptiness in
the center, seeing SQ/transitory reality as derivative, *instead of* seeing
SQ/transitory reality as identical to DQ, *instead of* emptying out DQ.
There is not a whisper, in Northrop or in Pirsig, of the notion that Nirvana
is Samsara.
The "return" that you describe is not the "return" that Nishitani describes.
What you say here amounts to "Now that we know that everything is really
empty (nihilism) we shall return to the world with this knowledge."
Nishitani's turn is quite different. It amounts to saying: the next step is
to learn that what we learned in the first turn is itself empty. With the
second turn we no longer see the self and world as either substantial, nor
as empty, but as existing by not existing, as a non-substantial substance.
Again, not a whisper of this in Pirsig.
Ant said:
"In Buddhism, the world can be described in terms of 'The First Principle',
sometimes called 'Formlessness' or 'nothingness' or 'freedom' which
parallels the treatment of Quality in ZMM. The world can also be described
in terms of 'The Second Principle' of 'Form' or 'order' which parallels the
treatment of quality in LILA. In Buddhism, form and formlessness, freedom
and order, co-exist." (Pirsig to McWatt, January 12th1999)
If Pirsig had just left it at ZMM (180 degrees enlightenment) then Scott's
nihilist criticism may have had some substance to it - though even in ZMM,
Pirsig was employing the Northrop based notions of romantic and classic
quality - and Northrop certainly is no SOM philosopher.
Scott:
Again, "co-exist", or having two descriptions, is a far cry from
contradictory identity. They (in Pirsig's and Northrop's view) exist side by
side, with Form being derived out of the Formless (as Erin points out, how
else can Pirsig justify capitalizing Dynamic but not static?), while in
"contradictory identity", they are not other than each other, while they
contradict each other.
- 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 : Wed Mar 16 2005 - 21:02:25 GMT