From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 16:49:11 BST
Hi all,
-- Warning to MSH and other Heymanists. This post may contain an inordinate
amount of angels-on-pinheads counting! --
Before jumping into Magliola's book I found an article he has written
entitled NAGARJUNA AND CHI-TSANG ON THE VALUE OF "THIS WORLD". In it I
found an interesting device, accredited to Chi-tsang, called "The three
levels of the two truths."
This device describes two truths (fairly common in Buddhism)
1) mundane, conventional truth
2) supreme, ultimate truth.
(Pragmatists, bear with me with the Buddhist terminology!)
The first level of two truths is basically this - the 'mundane' truth is
that reality is divided into particular forms and the 'supreme' truth is
that all particular things (static patterns) are empty of inherent
self-existence. I think this (i.e. Dynamic Quality, as equal to undivided
emptiness/nothingness/nirvana, is the ultimate reality) is the level of
truth proposed by the MOQ (as is ostensibly presented in LILA at least*).
The second level of two truths is that the division between (static) form
and (Dynamic) emptiness is itself a mundane truth and the supreme truth is
that the 'extremes' of static forms and undivided Dynamic emptiness must be
"cut off" leading to the 'middle-way'. Madhyamikans describe this as
"emptying out emptiness."
These, I think, are the two positions that Scott, DMB and I have been
discussing. In addition to this, Chi-tsang suggests a third level of
truths, which he describes this way:
"Although the deluded ones, on hearing the second form of two truths,
abandon the two extreme ideas of [PT:static] "existence" and [PT:Dynamic]
"emptiness", they in turn get bogged down in the idea of "middle-way."
Hence, the Buddhas address them the third time, and explain that not to
become attached to the "middle-way" after leaving far behind the two
extremes of "existence" and "emptiness" is the supreme truth, and that the
two extremes and the middle-way are all mundane truths."
Magliola goes on to say this:
"At first glance, it may appear that Chi-tsang's argument implies a unitary
formation negating the particularities of the mundane world (recall that the
'mundane' is Reality according to samvrti-satya's [static] perspective);
and/or maybe that Chi-tsang's argument implies a transcendent Emptiness
attained by ladder-like ascent of the three levels. To quote Nagarjuna's
often-cited caveat, a misperception of emptiness is "Like a snake
incorrectly seized" (MK XXIV:11b). Chi-tsang's 'three levels of two truths'
do not broach a unitary formation; and they do not broach a transcendent
Emptiness; and they do not constitute a 'ladder' climbing to such an
Emptiness....In terms of samsaric particularity, concreteness,
differentiation (existential features), what interests us is that the three
levels are not-discarded....because they are not best conceived as a
climbing-ladder. They are prajnapti [PT: pointers], yes, but not a ladder.
A ladder suggests that one climbs the rungs, and then leaps from the top to
a transcendent, discarding the ladder...[but] experientially the three
levels are not a ladder, nor are they meant to lead to a mystical experience
that transcends the ladder. Indeed, regarded from the experiential
perspective, the supreme truth of the third level even seems to off/circle
back to the first level, 'existence' [mundane truth] and 'emptiness'
[supreme truth]. The practitioner stays with the 'ladder', but it is no
ladder-to-be-climbed in any teleological sense. Non-attachment is to
scramble up and down the ladder at will."
------------------------
Paul: My initial thoughts on this are that it struck me while reading
Scott's posts that the middle-way of the Madhyamikans could become yet
another attachment, so I'm pleased that Chi-tsang, and Magliola, are aware
of that. I think Scott, with his use of the tetralemma, probably is too.
The second thing is that I like the way the MOQ can fit into the Chi-tsang's
'ladder' as the first level*. I think this is where it is the most
beneficial right now and it is understandable that LILA was written from
this level as, to most westerners, this still represents a real change in
perspective. So, in this larger context, Scott can work on a 'second' or
'third-level' MOQ without 'discarding' or really contradicting the MOQ of
LILA as it is still necessary to "scramble up and down" the levels as
appropriate.
Another way of incorporating Chi-tsang's device into MOQ terminology
occurred to me. If we equate mundane truth with static truth and supreme
truth with Dynamic truth then we may have a different perspective on the MOQ
to the one I've described above. The MOQ could be said to 'contain' the
truths of all of Chi-tsang's levels. In this way, the supreme 'Dynamic
truth' at one 'level' becomes the mundane 'static truth' at another. I like
the way the 'third-level' truth circles back to the first in this respect.
This is in accordance with the idea that Dynamic Quality defies any final
realisation and needs to be continually rediscovered.
Anyway, these are just some first thoughts. Check out the article at
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/jc117216.pdf if you're interested.
Regards
Paul
*I think post-LILA Pirsig has outlined a 'second-level truth' MOQ which is
more in accordance with Madhyamaka. I think Ant's thesis goes into this
with reference to 360 degree enlightenment. I agree with Scott though that
LILA more or less presents a 'first-level truth' perspective.
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 : Fri Aug 12 2005 - 00:13:15 BST