[MD] Instant Karma

[Ant McWatt]

Anthony stated to Platt August 24th:

>Firstly, you have (yet again) put that weasel word “individual”
>in the phrase “a far cry from the MOQ goal of a morality based
>on intellectual principles of individual freedom”.  However, part
>of the remit in the MOQ (being a Zen Buddhist derived philosophy)
>is to remind us that the concept of “individual” is a convenient fiction
>that needs to be recognized as such to reduce karmic suffering.
>It should therefore be avoided in the context of the MOQ and
>used only with qualification.

Ham commented August 25th:

I take exception to your statement that “individual” is a “weasel word” -- a
“convenient fiction” -- particularly in the context of  Freedom.

Ant McWatt comments:

Ham,

I can understand your “exception” as we in the West are taught from an early 
age to put much emphasis on individual freedom.  I have, therefore, first 
quoted some sections from the MOQ Textbook (before addressing the remainder 
of your post), to help you understand exactly where I’m coming from here:

5.5. NAGARJUNA

In addition to the Dynamic Quality viewpoint of the MOQ corresponding to 
what Nagarjuna terms sunyata (i.e. the indeterminate or the world of 
Buddhas), the static quality viewpoint of the MOQ also corresponds to 
sunyavada (i.e. the conditioned component or world of maya) of Nagarjuna.  
Sunyavada includes all conceptions of reality including metaphysical views, 
ideals, religious beliefs, hopes and ambitions; in other words, using MOQ 
terminology, static quality patterns.

Moreover, Nagarjuna (‘Maha-Prajñaparamita’ in “Nagarjuna’s Philosophy”, 
1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s 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).

5.6. THE NOTION OF THE SELF

An example of sammuti-sacca is the concept of self.  Pirsig follows the 
Buddha’s teachings about the ‘self’ which doesn’t recognise that it has any 
real existence and that only ‘nothingness’ (i.e. Dynamic Quality) is thought 
to be real.  According to [Walpola] Rahula, the Buddha taught that a 
clinging to the self as real is the primary cause of dukkha (which is 
usually translated as ‘suffering’).   Having said this, Rahula (1959, p.55)  
makes it very clear that it’s not incorrect to ‘use such expressions in our 
daily life as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘being’, ‘individual’, etc’ as long as it is 
remembered that the self (like anything else conceptualised) is just a 
useful convention.

5.6.1. SCOTT-PECK’S NOTION OF THE SELF

This view is also supported by some modern psychologists and physicists.  
For instance, the psychiatrist Scott Peck (“The Road Less Travelled”, 1978, 
p.262) notes:

“I am I and you are you.  The I-entity is my identity and the you-identity 
is your identity, and we tend to be quite discomfited if our identities 
become mixed-up or confused…  Modern physicists, concerned with relativity, 
wave-particle phenomena, electromagnetism, et cetera, are becoming 
increasingly aware of our conceptual approach in terms of entities.   But it 
is hard to escape from.  Our tendency to entity-thinking compels us to want 
to locate things, even such things as God or grace and even when we know our 
tendency is interfering with our comprehension of these of matters.”

Scott-Peck makes the important point that ego boundaries must be hardened 
before they are softened (1978, p.97).  The infant (as mentioned in James 
description of pure experience in Section 2.5.) may not recognise ego 
boundaries but that is from the (selfish) point of view that it is the 
universe.  A mystic, may also not recognise ego boundaries (as real) but 
that is from the (selfless) point of view that the self is a part of the one 
universe.  Though on the surface, both points of view seem similar, there is 
the ‘full circle’ of spiritual growth (of the individual) between them.

“It may seem to many that the ultimate requirement - to give up one’s self… 
makes our existence a sort of bad joke and which can never be completely 
accepted.  This attitude is particularly true in present-day Western 
culture, in which the self is held sacred and death is considered an 
unspeakable insult.  Yet the exact opposite is the reality.  It is in the 
giving up of self that human beings can find the most ecstatic and lasting, 
solid, durable joy of life.”  (Scott-Peck, 1978, p.72)

When Scott-Peck states that the ‘ultimate requirement is to give up one’s 
self’, he is not only inferring that it’s metaphysically incorrect to hold 
the view that the self is real but that such a belief in a self is at the 
root of much psychiatric illness.  Scott-Peck (1978, p.71-72) concludes, as 
the Buddha originally did, that the ultimate pattern of thought which must 
be given up to ‘achieve successful transition into greater maturity’ is the 
notion of the self.

Ham continued August 25th:

This assertion demonstrates once again the failure of Pirsig’s philosophy to 
recognize the individuality of human experience, which is fundamental to a 
metaphysical understanding of existence.

Ant McWatt comments:

I think if you carefully read a text such as Scott Peck’s quoted above or 
Walpola Rahula’s 1959 text “What the Buddha Taught” you will eventually 
realise that the MOQ tells you more accurately what the “individual” is than 
any SOM based philosophy.  As such, it will improve the quality of your life 
as you won’t be clinging to harmful illusions such as a permanent, separate 
self.

Ham continued August 25th:

By deferring to the Buddhist notion of karma to “explain away” the 
individual, you’ve brought my differences with Eastern mysticism into sharp 
focus.

Ant McWatt comments:

That would be good if it was only true.

Ham continued August 25th:

The doctrine of Karma is the “predetermined fate” of the soul carried 
through numerous reincarnations…

Ant McWatt comments:

And according to some Christians, the world is only 12000 years old and 
dinosaur bones are there only to test our faith.  Reincarnation is a 
doctrine of karma not taught by the Buddha.  He didn’t believe in it and 
neither does Pirsig.  (My educated guess is that these ideas of 
reincarnation might not have arisen in the first place if the theory of 
evolution had been thought of 2000 years ago but that’s another “story”).

Ham continued August 25th:

…and is therefore directly opposed to the concept of individual freedom.

Ant McWatt comments:

No, the doctrine of karma is concerned with freeing the individual (as far 
as a separate, static, individual can be said to exist) from desiring a 
permanency in things of the everyday world which is a property they don’t 
have.  If you know any _thing_ (i.e. static pattern) _not_ subject to 
continual change, flux and impermanency I’d like to know.

Ham continued August 25th:

Steve Hagen is quoted as saying in his “Buddhism Plain and Simple”:

“True freedom doesn’t lie in the maximization of choice, but, ironically, is 
most easily found in a life where there is little choice.”

Ant McWatt comments:

Firstly, the above quote is near the beginning of Chapter 3 of Hagen’s book 
(on page 38 of my edition) if anyone is interested.  Anyway, when the quote 
is put into context with the rest of Chapter 3, it becomes apparent that 
Hagen is talking about _petty_ choices here:

“When petty choices occupy the mind, necessity is forgotten, and wanting and 
craving, picking and choosing take over.  The mind is ill at ease and 
dissatisfied for want for the next petty thing.”

Ham continued August 25th:

If as you say, this view is “described by Pirsig as being the closest 
Buddhist text in outlook to the MOQ,” it points out very clearly why I 
cannot subscribe to it.  Since I maintain that choices express our values, 
any restriction of free choice is a diminution of value sensibility, which 
is counter to the principle of a value-directed life.

Ant McWatt comments:

I think that Pirsig would maintain that values direct our choices.  
Furthermore, whether or not a restriction of free choice is a diminution of 
one’s quality of life depends on the type of choices being offered.  For 
instance, if a town has only a Burger King and a McDonald’s is there a food 
choice there worth spending any time wondering about?  However, if a town 
has a Burger King and an organic vegetarian restaurant, then maybe there is.

“Duhkha – suffering, pain – is associated with [petty] choice.  The more we 
fail to understand this, the more we’ll be caught up in duhkha.  And the 
more we’ll not _see_ the subtlety of it.”  (Hagen, 1997, p.38)

Ham continued August 25th:

The primary characteristic of existence is its differentiation.

Ant McWatt comments:

The primary characteristic of existence is the _quality_ of its 
differentiations.

Ham continued August 25th:

In my philosophy, the universe is so designed that subjective awareness is 
individually separated from its undifferentiated source to provide an 
extrinsic perspective of absolute Essence.  Thus, the life-experience is the 
singular journey through finitude in which the individual can participate in 
making Value aware.

Ant McWatt comments:

Ham, I’m not too sure what those two last sentences mean in plain English (I 
thought you didn’t take drugs banned by Reagan?) though if I understand you 
correctly, I think Nagarjuna (the “Second Buddha”) as seen in the above 
quote, has a better hold of how the conditioned relates to the 
unconditioned.  To put it in MOQ terms, the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is 
the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static) rather than the latter 
being some form of “subjective awareness [that] is individually separated 
from its undifferentiated source”.  This is illustrated by David E. Cooper 
(‘Emptiness: Interpretation and metaphor’ in Contemporary Buddhism, Vol.3, 
Issue 1 (May 2002), p.18):

“When enlightened [a person] is once again aware of the mountains as 
genuinely present, but in a quite different register of awareness from his 
original, naïve one.  It is not simply that he appreciates their dependent 
status: rather he has become capable of those ‘double exposures’ through 
which a mountain both ‘dissolves’ into and ‘condenses’ a world, and is both 
a unique, palpable particular, yet an expression of a ‘wondrous’ and 
‘advancing’ whole.”

In the following quote, Pirsig explains this ‘mountains-and-rivers’ analogy’ 
in MOQ terminology:

“This ‘mountains-and-rivers’ analogy is used in Zen to explain the 
contradiction between statements made in the context of the everyday world 
and statements made in the context of ‘the world of the Buddhas.’  From an 
everyday world Dynamic Quality is like an undefined perfume which attaches 
in different ways to the objects of the world.  In the world of the Buddhas 
the perfume is the whole thing and objects are merely transitory patterns of 
the perfume.  In the Buddhas world Dynamic Quality is the dharma, the only 
order there is.”  (Pirsig to McWatt, December 4th 1994)

Ham concluded August 25th:

To escape the vicissitudes of life by denying one’s individuality and 
freedom is to live a meaningless and unfulfilling existence.

Ant McWatt concludes:

To attempt to escape the vicissitudes of life by denying the truth of one’s 
individuality and freedom is to imprison oneself in an existence full of 
dukkha.  This is partly why Pirsig wrote his books with (North) Americans 
and other Westerners particularly in mind.  They need help in shifting their 
understanding of reality towards the Buddha’s more than nearly any other 
world culture.  As such, they don’t need yet another SOM philosophy such as 
your Theory of Essence.  It’s analogous to adding a Wendy’s burger bar to a 
town that already has only a Burger King and a McDonald’s.

Best wishes,

Anthony


.

_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here!  http://www.newhotmail.co.uk