From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 06 2005 - 19:15:51 GMT
Scott,
>Here is a classic case of disagreement arising from not working through the
>Buddhist tetralemma. In conventional truth, one says "the self is permanent
>(or has 'inherent self-existence')". The article says "one cannot say that
>the self is permanent", which is the first-level understanding of the
>Buddhist two truths doctrine (and is also the MOQ's understanding).
Paul: I agree about the article being a first-level understanding of
Buddhism. This is what I was referring to when I said to Platt that some
aspects of it were not too good. I also pretty much agree that the MOQ, as
Pirsig has formulated it, is an expression of the first level of two-truths.
Any signals of a second-level formulation have come from correspondence and
have not been fully worked out. Like you, I am convinced that a Nagarjunian
formulation of the MOQ is the right direction to go in as far as developing
the MOQ is concerned. I'm currently studying the Mulamadhyamakakarika with
this in mind.
I'm not yet convinced about some of your own attempts to reformulate the MOQ
along these lines but it is interesting to read nonetheless. I also think
the first-level formulation of the MOQ as laid out in LILA is valuable and
shouldn't be tossed aside entirely in favour of a middle-way formulation.
Regards
Paul
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 06 2005 - 20:08:04 GMT