From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Jul 13 2005 - 01:26:42 BST
Hi Reinier --
> What I meant was more precisely that there is no difference
> when it comes to buddha-nature between X and not-X (Y)
> when X, Y and Z are not-devine. Because for Z they're both
> not-Z, for Y the others are both not-Y, etc.
> So because X, Y and Z are all in turn other or not-other,
> they all posess buddha-nature, they're all rooted in Essence.
Tnere is no "difference" in Essence or buddha-nature. That I assume to be
true by the definition: Absolute Oneness. The only reason for the "logic"
is to present the concept as an SOM proposition, even though it relates to a
non-SOM entity. (Philosophers need this kind of formal support.)
> There's a point in metaphysics, where logic looses its meaning.
We are in agreement here. I also presented the following:
> 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.
Okay, I agree.
So we're essentially in agreement on the metaphysics. Would you also agree
that the buddha-nature or Essence discussed above may be defined as "the
essential or primary source" of experiential existence? Or. must we hash
that out, too? (I could really use your support on that concept.)
In response to your question re: reality of the "self", I said:
> 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.
You replied:
> I'm not sure about this one. I feel our ego or self is indeed
> a product of duality, or in your words "Its epistemological
> nature is the beingness borrowed from other".
> But I do not think it's a product of the brain and the
> nervous system. ...
Note that I didn't use the term "product of"; my wording was "instrument
of", giving priority to the negate (self) over its organic contingency. The
brain and nervous system are "objectivized" constructs of man's reasoning
just as are extracorporeal entities like stoves and stars. I'm still with
you, Reinier!
You continue:
> From a Buddistic point of view (and I may be wrong as
> I'm by no means an expert), as long as your mind still has
> attachments (I say 'is dualistic') you will re-incarnate
> into another live. When you're free of all attachements,
> of all judging, so if you just see and don't judge/value/label,
> the cycle of re-incarnation will end. The Nirvana then equals
> unity or essence. In Pirsig's terms: a Quality Event is when
> DQ causes a new pattern of SQ (maybe not exact).
> I say, this is not the goal, let DQ be DQ and get rid of SQ.
Although I don't believe in reincarnation in the Buddhustic sense, by your
description I understand Buddha better than Pirsig. Compare that view with
the Eckhart quote that concludes my thesis:
"Further, I say that if the soul is to know God, it must forget itself and
lose itself. ...But when, for God's sake, it becomes unself-conscious and
lets go of everything, it finds itself again in God; for knowing God, it
therefore knows itself and everything else from which it has been cut
asunder, in the divine perfection."
Isn't Eckhart saying the same thing?
The problem, of course, is that he mentions the G-- word, which is verboten
in Pirsig's Quality Land. In the one reply I received from Prisig
concerning my thesis, he wrote, "positivists usually deny 'essence' as
something like 'God' or 'the absolute' and dismiss it [as] experimentally
unverifiable, which is to say they think you are some kind of religious
nut." So anti-theistic are the MoQ people that they cringe from a full
metaphysical thesis for fear of being labeled "religious"! They've accused
me of having a "religious agenda". So I sincerely hope you are not also
offended by a concept that most people equate with a deity.
You said this about my buddhist path comment:
> I'm just not sure if this is 'development' of sensibilities,
> or 'loosing the filters on your senses'.
That's probably a better analogy than my statement that "man is programmed
to perceive reality only in finite terms." (I shall have to make use of
your "losing the filters" metaphor.)
About my suggestion to battle the nihilists:
> I'm not big on literature reference. I can defend only
> what I feel is true, and in order to feel it I must really
> understand it, or so to say, I must make it 'my own'. ...
I appreciate your intellectual integrity, Reinier, and I don't normally get
my kicks from battling the aggressors. lt just seemed that we would make
good allies in defense of a primary source, and could present our case from
two different perspectives. I'll let the matter drop for now, although I'm
quite sure that you will sooner or later find yourself caught in the
clutches of a passionate nihilist who won't be happy until he's made you
feel his pain. I know very few others here who will come to your support.
However, I shall take your advice, and continue my efforts to "make more
sense" than the "other";-).
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 : Wed Jul 13 2005 - 03:23:12 BST