From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Sun Aug 21 2005 - 12:20:04 BST
DMB, Paul,
DMB said:
Paul explained Magliola's article, NAGARJUNA AND CHI-TSANG ON THE VALUE OF
"THIS WORLD", where he "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.
>
>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*).
dmb says:
I'll be interested to learn what you find in the book and I'm glad you
offered up this much already. It seems to me that you are translating these
ideas into the terms of the MOQ. And I think it works quite well. This is
exactly what Scott doesn't do. Instead, it'll be construed as opposing the
MOQ and that's what frustrates the hell out of me. Instead of expanding or
clarifying the concepts of the MOQ, Scott will use this stuff to bash the
MOQ or confuse the issues. ARRRG! I wish I had your patience.
Scott:
So do I (wish that DMB had Paul's patience). I started out in this forum
hoping to take the MOQ as a framework for metaphysical discussion (I accept,
for instance, DQ and SQ, and levels of SQ, as useful concepts), but when I
tried to show how in moving from Chi-tsang's stage 1 one gets somewhat
different results, I received (from DMB, mainly) denunciation -- either an
accusation of talking gibberish or of being SOM-bound (the latter because
DMB could only interpret what I said about intellect as it is understood by
those stuck in stage 1). The thing is, if one doesn't take stage 1 as the
basis, one gets a different metaphysics. Not entirely different, but
different. When I pointed out these differences, I got attacked. So it
became easier to describe myself as a MOQ dissenter.
>
[Paul said:]>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."
dmb says:
At the risk of oversimplyfying things, it seems to me that this second level
of truth is very much like the recognition that the static/Dynamic split is
itself an intellectual construct, that reality is actually undivided and
that we can use that analytical knife to slice it up anyway we like. Or even
better, as you mentioned before, its a matter of 360 degree enlightenment
rather than just 180 degrees. In either case, these levels of truth seem to
be differing levels of appreciation of the static/Dynamic split. I think
this sort of material can only deepen and enrich our understanding of the
MOQ and does nothing to undermine it.
Scott:
It has the problem that you are still saying "reality is actually
undivided", that it exists prior to, and hence is privileged over, any
"intellectual construct".
>
[Paul said:]>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."
Scott:
As I see it, the fourth horn of the tetralemma ("one cannot say neither X
nor not-X) prevents one from taking the middle way as a supreme truth. For
example, substituting "divided" for X, one cannot say that there is some
balance between the divided and undivided poles, and one cannot just stop
thinking about it. It is the contradictory identity between X and not-X that
is important, which one misses if one simply tries to reject both X and
not-X (this is also the difference between Buddhist logic and pragmatism, in
that the latter just wants to ignore the "nest of dualisms", while the
former sees thinking about them as being a "skillful means").
dmb says:
Same goes for this idea. One of the things I did in my conference paper was
try to show that the hero's journey happens at different levels. The two
examples I used were Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz and a Pythagorean version
of Orpheus. In the former our hero's transformation leads from childhood to
adulthood. Its basically a story about the natural maturation process. In
the latter, our hero is transformed from a musican to a prophet and a god.
Its basically a story about the process of enlightenment. They both take a
journey and are transformed by it, but these transformations happen at
different levels. And this is not to say that Orpheus is better than
Dorothy. Its just that we're never supposed to stop having these
transformational journeys. One of Campbell's asserttions is that the task of
the hero is to constantly shatter the crystalizatons of the moment. That is
to say, each Dynamic realization will, in time, become just another static
trap, another stale ghost. I think this is what this third level of truth is
basically saying and so there are really an unlimited number of levels in
that sense. I think this is an inherent aspect of the evolutionary process
both individually and collectively. Yesterday's news isn't news anymore and
DQ is ever fleeting too.
Scott:
No, this is still not getting it, which is not to say you are wrong about
the continual need for self-transformation. But you are continuing with the
division into "crystallizations of the moment" versus "Dynamic realization"
moments. This is still on the first Chi-tsang level: there is SQ which DQ
overcomes to produce new SQ, which is privileging DQ over SQ. Instead, one
needs to confront the contradictory identity of DQ and SQ: form is not other
than formlessness, SQ is not other than DQ.
Paul also said:
>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.
dmb says:
I think that's right. Continually rediscovered is another way of expressing
Campbell's idea of constantly shattering the crystalizations of the moment.
We're looking at a snake shaped ladder, a spiral staircase that keeps on
going. I don't mean to suggest that Pirsig, Campbell and Chi-tsang are all
reading from the same script, but I do think they are all talking about the
same issue and generally agree on it. This kind of comparison can be very,
very helpful. I only wonder why Scott ends up doing the oppostie with his
comparisons.
Scott:
This sounds like Hegelian dialectic, which is not the logic of contradictory
identity. With the latter there is no ladder of crystallizations. There is
just the "interminable sliding" that Magliola and Chi-tsang refer to. That
is, we are talking about two different things here. There is intellectual
progress, which can often be described as a spiral. But there is also
intellect itself, as opposed to the particular SQ that intellect produces.
Intellect itself (or Quality, or Emptiness) can only be approached with the
LCI.
- Scott
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 : Sun Aug 21 2005 - 12:47:10 BST