From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Wed Jul 13 2005 - 16:10:58 BST
Hello Ham,
You say:
>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.)
It's all there is in an absolute sense, so yes I agree.
About the self you say:
>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're right, I mis-read that part. I agree with the wording above.
Then you say:
>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?
I say it's exactly the same, essentially.
You then explain:
>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.
Yes, as far as the G-word is concerned, I'm not a big fan of this word either. It's too associative for many people. Religion has made a mess of this over the last couple of thousands year. So I'll never talk about 'God' in that way, I'll never say 'I believe in God' or 'I believe in a God'. But then again, there's no need to say 'I believe in essential existence, or I believe in unity' because for me is the only thing that is real. Discussion in this area are always cluttered by somebody's feeling with the G-word. And by calling it God you label it, you turn it into a person.
You also say:
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.
Well, given the few recents posts, I'd say you've already build up a case with some MOQ'ers. ;-)
And BTW, as far as discussing is concerned, I would welcome anyone questioning my theories. Your thorough questioning has done no harm to my believes.
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
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 - 16:46:55 BST