From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Apr 23 2005 - 03:47:54 BST
Scott, Ant and all:
Scott Roberts said to Ant:
Nagarjuna wanted his philosophy understood as a "skillful means". And yes,
that does mean "just going round in circles" in a sense -- see Magliola's
"interminable lapse (slide)" again. One cannot say the self exists, one
cannot say it does not exist, one cannot say it exists and does not exist,
one cannot say it neither exists nor doesn't exist. That last horn says one
cannot stop the question either. That is the difference between centric Zen
and differential Zen. The point is that centric Zen/the MOQ *does* try to
stop the question, by seeking transcendence to something called DQ, and by
doing so has not emptied out emptiness.
dmb says:
If one of the most important features of a good idea is clarity and
simplicity, then it seems to me that this is a pretty bad idea. Isn't the
point really just that the nature of reality is beyond logic and
rationality? Isn't that point revealed by both methods? Don't both show the
futility of reason when it comes to ultimate realities? Seems to me that
you're twisting yourself into the shape of a pretzel to make distinctions
that don't really make a difference. If emptiness is really empty, then why
bother trying to empty it. Isn't that like trying to take the air out of a
perfect vaccum. It makes no sense and I think that is the point - to make no
sense, to show it as senseless. Or maybe the whole thing is just too subtle
for me.
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 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 03:54:19 BST