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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Mark: Hello SA.
After reading this i laughed out loud and felt good.
Later, i began to analyse it and felt not so good.
 
I'm going to get back to after i've given this some contemplation.
There is no hurry is there?
Love,
Mark
 
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.