From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Jul 11 2005 - 17:25:28 BST
Hi Reinier --
Polishing up our minor differences . . .
You said:
> You reply on my statement that buddha-nature concerns:
> Both other and not-other, there's no difference.
Your meaning here was somewhat ambiguous. If your assertion is that
buddha-nature (Essence) encompasses both beingness (other) and nothingness
(not-other), I agree. However, I took your statement to mean that there was
no difference between other and not-other, which is of course false logic.
> The only real objection is the start of your statement:
> "Logically, of course", which implies that my vision is logically
incorrect.
The "vision" you've expressed is quite valid. It's just that Euclid's logic
does not apply to concepts such as Buddha-nature and Essence.
Since any metaphysical proposition should be supportable by logic, let me
try to express Cusa's theory in my own way. I quoted Prof. Clyde Miller's
statement:
"For any given non-divine X, X is not other than X, and X is other than not
X. What is unique about the divine not other is precisely that it is not
other than either X or not X ."
By the logic of existents, for any given "X", X = not other, Y = other, and
Z = other.
But Essence (Buddha-nature) is not an "existent", hence existential logic
does not apply.
For Essence "E", an existent is a "not-other", and the logic is as follows:
E = not other, X = not other, Y = not other, and Z = not other.
In other words, for Essence every existent is a not-other; indeed, all
existence is not-other. But this "not-other" is "not other than Essence"
because Essence = not-other.
> I understand your points about essence and existence,
> now better then before, and indeed they're not wide apart
> from 'my' unity/duality theory.
That's great, Reinier!
I asked:
> Do you have any problems with the Cusan theory of Not-other as the Source?
You replied:
> Depends how you regard the individual self, the ego.
> For me this is a manifistation of duality. But the true Not-other
> is Not-other from any perspective? Then I guess I would regard
> that as a good theory for the source.
The individual self (negate) really has no beingness of its own (see my
Eckhart quotes). Its epistemological nature is the beingness borrowed from
other. The brain and nervous system -- the instruments of its sensibility
and rationalization -- are other to the self, as are all the entities that
are "objectivized' as the content of proprietary awareness.
I haven't read much of Buddhism, but I think it holds to a similar view.
Which may also explain why Pirsig has so little to say about the self.
> For me the start and end and the source is Unity (DQ).
> From a Unity-point of view there's nothing but that,
> or else it would not be unity. Still this is not what we
> experience. The big-bang may have been a disruption
> of this unity, which instantly create duality.
I repleid:
> Unity can't be "disrupted", Reinier. It's immutable.
You then added:
> Indeed 'disrupted unity' isn't unity. Stories I read somewhere
> come to mind.... When you meditate your whole life to become
> enlightened and you finally reach your goal and pass that gate,
> and then you look back over your shoulder. You will see there
> has been no path and no goal and no gate.
That's a rather sombre apotheosis. I can't define a particular "path" but I
believe there is a goal. That goal is to develop our sensibilities to the
extent that we can find enrichment from the values of the life-experience,
to discover the sanctity of human life, and to defend the Freedom that is
every individual's potential. These "conditional" values represent what we
are essentially; which is to say, Value is the essence of man.
> If you choose to see duality, you will see duality. If you choose nothing
> but just see, then there's unity. Unity never ceased to exist, it's always
> been there, but always isn't the right word cause there's no time in
unity.
> We can say 'duality and unity are two different things' but from a unity
> 'point of view' there is no duality, only unity which is everything,
> undifferentiated.
Well put and "essentially" true.
Reinier, if you can see your way to arguing for Unity as the Primary Source,
I'll be happy to join you in a renewed effort to present it to the
"nihilists" in this MoQ community. Are you prepared to wage such a battle?
We'll need plenty of "acceptable" literary references as support material.
(I can come up with some.)
Let me know your reaction to that idea.
Essentially yours,
Ham
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 : Mon Jul 11 2005 - 17:40:58 BST