[MD] Re Proposed solution to SOL/Intellectual level

[Joseph Maurer]

On 1/23/10 4:50 AM, "Khoo Hock Aun" <khoohockaun at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Bo and all, Khoo earlier asked:
> Is this what the Western MOQ is about ? Truth Seeking, Reality Seeking,
> Morally Speaking ? Evolution on to Better State, Or an Ultimate Reality,
> an Ultimate Good ? That is better than the other "Good"s? Always better,
> never lesser. 
 
Bo comments :
"Ultimate Reality" matches best IMO. And apropos this issue, I hope
you agree with me that there is not a Buddha different from the one
that Buddhism talks about, which corresponds to the silly Quality/MOQ
"meta-metaphysics".
 
Khoo:
This may seem to be a game of 20 questions, with kudos for whom might offer
the best answers. However, there are no best answers that are found in mere
words.
 
Buddhism, and if you must, an overarching Eastern worldview has less
deference for names and labels, categories and levels. What is more
important is the underlying insight that comes from understanding and the
perception of reality. And to answer your question, yes, there would be a
Buddha that would be different from the one that Buddhism talks about !
This Buddha, as also referred to in Buddhism, IS reality, silly, as it may
seem.
 
And if there is a "Bodvarism" that represents the means to the ultimate
reality of the MOQ, Buddhism, offered as one pathway among many, would
really have no beef with that. No one would, or anyone who cares more about
arriving at direct experience rather than through an intellectual construct
called the MOQ.
 
We have had this conversation before, way back in 2003 on the "Buddhism and
the MOQ" thread and I dont want to go through old ground with you so at risk
of being pedantic I post it again in full:
<snip>
 
Hi Khoo, Bo, and all,
 
Khoo writes:
³Buddhism, and if you must, an overarching Eastern worldview has less
deference for names and labels, categories and levels, categories and
levels. What is more important is the underlying insight that comes from
understanding and the
perception of reality.²
 
Pirsig proposed DQ/SQ as reality.  William James sees a difference between
³percept² and ³concept².  To my way of thinking James suggested a foundation
for the MOQ, DQ/SQ with ³percept² being undefined DQ and ³concept² being
defined SQ.  
 
Imho Khoo is seeing the written concepts SQ and wants to emphasize ³the
perception of reality² DQ.  It is very difficult to have a written
conversation using only words that are undefinable.
 
Singing and talking are different from writing in that singing follows a
musical octave relationship, and talking employs gestures and facial
expressions. A verbal conversation with word intonations and gestures and
singing are more dynamic than reading written words.
 
Joe 

> Hi Bo and all, Khoo earlier asked:
>> Is this what the Western MOQ is about ? Truth Seeking, Reality Seeking,
>> Morally Speaking ? Evolution on to Better State, Or an Ultimate Reality,
>> an Ultimate Good ? That is better than the other "Good"s? Always better,
>> never lesser. Bo comments :
> "Ultimate Reality" matches best IMO. And apropos this issue, I hope
> you agree with me that there is not a Buddha different from the one
> that Buddhism talks about, which corresponds to the silly Quality/MOQ
> "meta-metaphysics".
> 
> Khoo:
> This may seem to be a game of 20 questions, with kudos for whom might offer
> the best answers. However, there are no best answers that are found in mere
> words.
> 
> Buddhism, and if you must, an overarching Eastern worldview has less
> deference for names and labels, categories and levels. What is more
> important is the underlying insight that comes from understanding and the
> perception of reality. And to answer your question, yes, there would be a
> Buddha that would be different from the one that Buddhism talks about !
> This Buddha, as also referred to in Buddhism, IS reality, silly, as it may
> seem.
> 
> And if there is a "Bodvarism" that represents the means to the ultimate
> reality of the MOQ, Buddhism, offered as one pathway among many, would
> really have no beef with that. No one would, or anyone who cares more about
> arriving at direct experience rather than through an intellectual construct
> called the MOQ.
> 
> We have had this conversation before, way back in 2003 on the "Buddhism and
> the MOQ" thread and I dont want to go through old ground with you so at risk
> of being pedantic I post it again in full:
> 
> Date: Fri Dec 26 2003 - 13:45:03 GMT
> 
>  MOQ.ORG <http://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 at darkstar.uk.net<horse at darkstar.uk.net?Subject=Re:%20MD%20Buddhism%20and%
> 20the%20MOQ%20(Was%20Sit%20on%20my%20faith)>
> 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/