From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 22 2005 - 20:04:04 BST
Scott
Is there any difference between your intellect and DQ
therefore difference is just the name?
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@cox.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: MD Snakes and Ladders
> 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
>
>
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 : Tue Aug 23 2005 - 01:59:15 BST