[MD] Ham thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomenology

[Heather Perella]

Hello Mark,

    [SA]
> 'The part about "...inventing new ways of
> rationalizing everything" is  
> an experience of the samsara world.'

     [Mark]
> I had not thought about it this way before SA.
> May i ask a question? Well, maybe two?
> Do you think Nirvana is a move away from, 'inventing
> new ways of  
> rationalizing everything'

     This is a very, very, did I mention - very
difficult question.  Let me take a stab at it, though.
 
     First off, how can I shake off, or totally rid
samsara, that tragic world where life eating life,
lust, and conquering wills exists on this earth. 
Another tragic backlash in believing samsara does not
exist, thinking I've reached somekind of Nirvana, that
backlash is ignorance.  With ignorance I wouldn't have
the wisdom to even notice any kind of Nirvana in the
first place.  Where I work gives me a first hand
experience in this tragic world.  Girls with lust and
'top dog', 'queen of the hill', in other words,
intimidation to conquer others wills can abound.
     This leads into a second look.  Tibetan monks are
highly known for their compassion and empathy.  These
acts acknowledge death/life, lust, and conquering
wills (brute force), and this acknowledgment deters
ignorance.  Compassion and empathy is their weapon
against the contamination of samsara.  Thus,
acknowledgment of samsara and yet, a way out of
samsara (therefore living closer to Nirvana) all at
the same time.  This might be the Nargarjuna style you
speak of, I have not read Nargarjuna, though I've seen
this reference on the MOQ.org many times.  As the
Tibetan monks have been able to bridge Nirvana and
samsara with compassion and empathy, I also look for a
bridge between the two.  This is not as simple as
CREATING a mind-set and BELIEVING in a certain Way. 
It is as complex as LIVING a certain Way.  There are
those that achieve Nirvana and to use the full extent
of what Nirvana means, samsara does NOT exist anymore.
 Then there are the Tibetan monks who have reached
Nirvana and yet, as the Dali Lama does, he comes back
into the world of samsara to help others achieve
Nirvana.  He leaves samsara and yet, comes back to
samsara.  
     Thirdly, we come closer to my view.  I am a
spiritual warrior noticing three motivations called
fear, lust, and will power.  Each of these motivations
can turn outward, thus, take on the skin of any
individual and in the skin of the psyche this outward
direction takes on the form a more hardened Ego.  Then
there is the inward direction of fearing the current
world, desiring to leave the current world, and I try
to overcome my will power to live in this current
world - remember this is the inward way of
experiencing, so, as some may say, don't think of what
I just stated too literally.
     What is this current world/skin/skin of the
psyche?  In Pirsigs terms, I will describe this
holistically.  The current world is the current world
view centered on a cultural view that leads to all
kinds of societal behaviors, and the more my mind
sticks with this current world view, the more a skin
in my psyche hardens known as the Ego.  To fear this
current world view, desire to leave it, and thus,
overcome any Ego or will power that I have attached to
it has been accomplished, in Pirsigs terms, I view the
static patterns has being changed via the
acknowledgment of dynamic quality and a Body of Truth
(dharmakaya light) larger than me enters my life.
     With all of this as a background, do I think
Nirvana is a move away from, 'inventing new ways of
rationalizing everything'?  I would say Nirvana is a
move away from, but as long as we don't ignore fear,
lust, and will power we will keep on trying to explain
what Nirvana is.  We will invent new ways of
rationalizing everything.  As the Buddha realized
Nirvana and then realized he will not be able to
explain Nirvana is anybody, yet, we always think,
always talk, therefore, we will come up with all kinds
of creative ways to discuss our motivation to fear the
current world view, desire to leave it, and thus,
overcome our psyche stance, Ego, in maintaining and
willing this world view.  Thus, to keep on
rationalizing everything, or if this means, to keep on
stating the same thing over and over again.  On the
level of bridging Nirvana with samsara as the Tibetan
monks do with compassion and empathy, bridging with
explanations and thus, to use Pirsig's intellectual
level over and over again to connect Nirvana and
samsara or in other words to connect/bridge dynamic
quality and static quality, I may do this again and
again, but I try not very much.  


     [Mark]
> I have tended to think the MoQ integrates Samsara
> and Nirvana by using the  
> DQ/sq division.

     You see, as I stated above, Nirvana is samsara
overcome, not rid of, but a different use of samsara. 
The motivations of samsara turned into a 'higher'
calling, a calling turned spiritual and a release of
the dark side of these motivations that can have one
suffer.  These motivations can be used for good or
evil; enlightenment or ignorance, however you want to
put it.  Therefore samsara, as I understand Nirvana,
is intergrated when one experiences Nirvana.  Samsara
is unintegrated and Nirvana is integration of these
motivations.  Samsara and Nirvana are not opposites as
in one being a happy state and one being a sad state. 
Nirvana is integration in the same way you state the
MoQ integrates.  At least, that's how I understand it.


> I don't mean to overly criticise Ham for his
> rationality, but Pirsig felt  he 
> identified a problem with rationality grounded in
> Subject/Object duality - a  
> problem which dissolves if one recognises Quality as
> the groundstuff of 
> reality  rather than Subjects and Objects.

     The problem that I have had with Ham's thesis is
Ham does not CONNECT essence with Subject/Object
duality.  How does essence join subject and object
distinction in the current world?  Tibetan monks join
this with compassion and empathy, and Pirsig with
quality.  Pirsig joins quality with S/O duality,
whereas, Ham makes a jump, leaves a gap between
essence and S/O duality.  I can't trace a connection
between essence and S/O duality.  If I were to say,
which I going to say, a tree is One with All that is,
Ham's essence can't make that connection to a tree. 
Essence is not-other and therefore can't be a tree (a
thing).  So what connects essence to tree?  I focus on
connections, and relationships.  I focus on what
happens inwardly, spirituality is a side (that
ultimately is not a side but a whole) to this world
that is not mere Ego dreaming or skin deep dreaming. 
When those three motivations are turned inward, I am
noticing a world that goes much deeper, is creative,
is a release, and is an ever-changing sound behind the
scenes where my mind-heart-spirit is a receiver, an
antenna, another sense of this universe lurking
everywhere diversely expressed and when realized
through birds in the trees it is a realization that
has a melody and color recognized as a blue jay,
black-capped chick-a-dee, and as the wind blows my
mind goes with wind tracing the spirit everywhere even
as I settle upon a green maple leaf until I turn my
head upon the dark, gray clouds in the sky.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com