[MD] Some Abominable Beliefs-Part 2

[Case]

[Dan]

Hi Case
I feel you have misunderstood both what I am saying (I honestly have no idea

what orthodox Hinduism is) as well as what the MOQ is saying. From Dr. 
McWatt's PhD thesis:

Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsigs perception that the 
indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or 
static):

"In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and 
contingency belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by also 
saying that all things ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma or that 
within the heart of every conditioned entity (as its core, as its true 
essence, as its very real nature) there is the indeterminate dharma. While 
the one expresses the transcendence of the ultimate reality, the other 
speaks of its immanence. The one says that the ultimate reality is not an 
entity apart and wholly removed from the determinate, but is the real nature

of the determinate itself."

Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types of truth; 
the static conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and the Dynamic ultimate 
truth (paramattha-sacca). (page 77)

[Case]
Sorry, I did not mean to call you a Hindu. I reflexively associate the idea
of "world as illusion" with Hinduism.

I have only read about Nagarjuna but wasn't his aim to show that each of
those views of truth leads to its own set of internal contradictions? What
is indeterminate dharma?

Didn't he found the Middle Way in response to those two positions? Are you
saying he believed truth is dual natured?

The Buddha said: "The world exists because of causal actions, all things are
produced by causal actions and all beings are governed and bound by causal
actions. They are fixed like the rolling wheel of a cart, fixed by the pin
of its axle shaft."

This does not strike me as a ringing endorsement for saying life is but a
dream. 

Dan comments:

So, as I explained in a previous post, the world is real from a conventional

(static quality) point of view. There is no such distinction from a Dynamic 
point of view. From your point of view, the world is real. From my point of 
view, the world is illusion. The MOQ would say we both are right. That's not

to say one point of view isn't better than the other, however. It is. 
Dynamic Quality is what's better.

[Case]
If you define better as better it just gets better and better. If you say
truth is spilt into two, how can one of them be better than the other?

> [Case]
>The idea that theism does not offer up genuine mystical experience seems
>just wrong to me. While there are the Sufis and the Kabbalists out there, I
>am more familiar with garden variety holy rollers. They are grounded in
>having members experience a personal relationship with the infinite.
>Speaking in tongues, faith healing and handling snakes are direct personal
>mystical experiences. Theology aside, what makes this different from
>philosophical mysticism in terms of its experiential Quality? Practitioners
>of these arts will say their beliefs are confirmed by direct experience and
>they will invite you share in these experiences.

[Dan}
I think you'll find that Robert Pirsig discusses this in LILA. Having read 
it 6 or 8 times I shouldn't have to tell you where, right?

[Case]
It seems to me he doesn't talk about Christianity much at all except with
reference to the Victorians and Lila's hallucinations about her childhood.
He talks about pictures of saints and how bishops don't like saints in their
pews. He doesn't seem to know or care much about even mainstream
Christianity. He mentions Moslems twice and Jews once. These don't seem to
concern him either. 

Pirsig may indeed hold the view that mysticism is a higher Quality belief
than theism, many here would agree. But to say that the personal experiences
of believers in God are less valid than the personal experiences of
believers in "whatever" or nothing all seems disingenuous to me.

Perhaps it seems better because:

"... the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,
should shine unto them."
-2 Corinthians 4:4 

[Dan]
You obviously haven't been paying attention. I find it disheartening to 
spend so much time working up these posts only to be ignored.

[Case]
I can't say for sure if I understand you or not. But I do know that
understanding does not mean agreement. I am sorry if you feel you have
wasted your time.

>
>Case concluded:
>I choose to value materialism and I choose to devalue theism and mysticism.

[Dan]
I know. But, hopefully, you're young and have time yet to cultivate wisdom.

[Case]
"A young man who is a conservative has no heart. An old man who is a liberal
has no brain." 
- Various

Two of my childhood heroes were Peter Pan and the Scarecrow.