[MD] Formalising the Code of Art (Rekindling with SA)

[Heather Perella]

Hey David H.!!!



      [David H. previously]
>> Sq can't latch DQ? Are you sure?

     [SA previously]
>      This is the creativity that I'm trying to
convey.
>  Yes, I'm sure sq can't latch dq due to a latch must
> be upon something.

     [David H.]
Since when did a latch have to be upon something?
>From the dictionary.
ORIGIN : læccan - Old English 'to seize'.
The definition is not 'to seize something'.  It is
simply 'to seize'.  
Sq is seizing.  What does it seize?

----------
     I'm saying static patterns seize other static
patterns.  Dynamic quality is undefined static
quality.


     [David H.]
Yes that's right.  Any latching made is static
quality.

--------
     ok, we agree.  This is what I'm saying above,
too.

     [David H.]
I have said above and before sq-*latching*-dq is a
latch.

------
     Please elaborate, again.  How does a static
pattern latch onto nothing?

     [David H.]
You think sq 'returns' from somewhere? Where does it
return from?

----------
     This is an analogy.  Examples are vision quest or
meditation, but not limited to either of these two. 
During any one of these the dharmakaya light may
shine, a peek experience of dq, but what is this peek
experience, what is this dq, I can't explain.  I go on
a vision quest, and I return.  I find that an ordinary
rock is something spiritual and awesome, and then I
return from such an awesome experience and realize
that the ordinary rock and the awesome rock are the
same rock.

     [David H.]
Yes, they change, without Dynamic Quality they do not.
But Dynamic  
Quality is not change.

-------
     agree.

     [SA previously]
>      I thought RMP talked about static latching.
> Didn't Mark also mention sq-sq?

     [David H.]
As far as I know Mark and RMP never mentioned this
sq-sq latching you talk of with 'returns' etc.

-----------
      What I meant was NOT sq-sq, but rather sp-sp. 
Static patterns latching static patterns.  Isn't this
something Mark mentioned while explaining coherence?


     [David H.]
Saying nothing *has* no distinctions is describing
something.  Saying  
nothing *has* nothing is still describing something.
Dynamic Quality  
isn't anything.

----------
     This is just semantics.  You know what I mean,
and I know what you mean.  We agree here.


     [David H.]
Yes, but the words we use and the analogies themselves
are static  
quality.

--------
     Yeap.

     [David H.]
I don't think the MOQ should be confused with a
mystical outlook that  
says "it doesn't matter what we say about DQ such as
'DQ is a rock',  
ultimately the words we use are merely descriptions of
reality and  
not reality itself".

------------
     Exactly.  This is why I say 'dq is a rock'.  The
rock has been outlined in a distinct way in this
phrase.  I'm not saying dq is a tree in this phrase,
though, I would also agree 'dq is a tree'.  The rock
is a static pattern, yet, when positioned in this way
as 'dq is a rock' what has happened is this reality of
rock, not the description of rock is revealed.  This
'dq is a rock' is an experience of a rock, a distinct
rock, of the very reality of rock, not a description. 
I'm not labeling this rock.  I've left this rock
alone, untouched.  I'm pointing out this rock, but
never saying anything about this rock.  Even the very
statement of the rock being just this rock comes under
question, for I've stated 'dq is a rock' and thus, dq
is undefinable, can't be this rock, but I've said this
rock is dq.  It is forever this question, "What is
this rock?".  Forever this question with never an
answer.  This is what is meant by 'dq is a rock'.  As
if, in some kind of limbo world, but this limbo world
is this very reality.  What is reality?  Can't answer
this completely, due to reality being quality, which
is dq and sq.  This is the reason dq is included in
the understanding of 'What is quality?'  As you
explain here with the following quote from Lila:

"But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a
ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy...
Purity, identified, ceases to be purity."

     The rock is still pure, left unto its' own
accord, and thus, free.  This is what I'm saying when
I say 'dq is a rock'.  I'm not actually saying
anything about this rock.  I'm saying rock is dq, and
what is dq?  Undefinable.

     Here is another quote you've provided, that I've
shortened, I'm whole-heartedly involved with as
follows:

"The best answer to the question, “What is Dynamic
Quality?” is the  
ancient Vedic one—'Not this, not that.'”

     When I say 'dq is a rock' I'm saying the rock is
"Not this, not that."  Do you see what I'm saying? 
This is, as you well know, also called mu.


     [David H.]
Yes it is.  Defining DQ is wrong because DQ is not
something.  When  
you put DQ into words your are defining the
undefinable.  Purity,  
defined, ceases to be purity. You can deny that you
are being  
degenerate when you put DQ into words. But this is a
degeneracy of  
another sort (as mentioned earlier by RMP).

---------
     Yet, as you've said before, you can't avoid
defining dq as "purity", "undefinable", "not
something", and "no-thing".

     [David H.]
I have never talked about an 'untrue' DQ.  I only
always talk about  
true DQ.  True DQ is no thing. True DQ cannot be
described because  
words do not match it.  True DQ is no thing. This is
what I have said  
all along.

------
     Yes you have said this all along, and I've agreed
with you.  There is never an "untrue DQ".  Yes, dq
can't be described.


     [David H.]
As I have said, with this positive sense you mention,
I think that  
you ignore the importance of static patterns and their
distinctions.   
Especially when you say things like "DQ is a rock". 
DQ is  
nothing.      Not a rock, not your hair, not this
keyboard I am  
typing on, no thing.

------------
    Exactly, dq is not a rock.  So, when I say in the
positive sense dq is a rock, what I'm saying is a rock
is left untouched to the point where I don't even know
what a rock is when I say 'dq is a rock'.  Now, since
I'm flexible and nimble I can also point out this
distinct rock and write poetry, do some science, and
paint this rock, etc...  These are static patterns of
rock.  The 'dq is a rock' is dharma where rock is
distinct and not-distinct.  The rock is a rock, but is
dq so the rock is 'not this, not that'.  The rock is
mu.  Mu is a static pattern pointing at dq.  The rock
is a static pattern pointing at dq.  

     [SA previously]
>      Therefore, I free a rock from not only other
> static patterns, but all static patterns.  How can
> dharma happen?  How can a rock, a static pattern, be
> freed of static patterns.

     [David H.]
The answer to this question is just below the passage
you just quoted  
in the very same paragraph.
"You free yourself from static patterns by putting
them to sleep.   
That is, you master them with such proficiency that
they become an  
unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to
them you  
completely forget them and they are gone."
As you say, you do not free yourself from static
patterns by creating  
contradictory static patterns. IMHO, 'DQ is a rock' is
a  
contradictory pattern to 'DQ is no thing'.  You are
saying DQ is  
something.   DQ is no thing.

-------
    What I'm experiencing is this rock that is free. 
A liberated rock.  This whole experience, this whole
reality is liberating me, freeing me, for this rock,
this tree, me, are dq.  The embodiment of mu, and so
is the rock.  I will feel the texture of this rock.  I
will write about this rock.  I will also know this
rock is mu, too.  This is dharma where static quality
and dynamic quality co-exist.  Dharma is quality.  I
master the rock, and the rock has mastered me.  I'm
just a snowflake.  Who am I?  What does it mean to ask
such a question?  Well, reality is such this way. 
What is 'such this way'?  Mu.


     [David H.]
He is saying that you master these distinctions to  
such a degree that they no longer inhibit.

----------
     Exactly!  The rock is distinct.  I point out rock
in 'dq is a rock'.  I'm also saying rock is mu/dq. 
The rock is not inhibiting.

     [David H.]     
One who is enlightened doesn't see distinctions in
things as fixed  
and forever final.  But one who is enlightened doesn't
ignore these  
distinctions either as you do when you say "DQ is a
rock".  To me  
when you say "DQ is a rock" you are answering the
question "Yes, a  
dog has a Buddha nature." This is ugly and you lose
your own quality  
when you do so. It's a purity defined. And thus
defined, ceases to be  
purity.

------
     Dq is a tree!  Hopefully, with this discussion,
you see that a rock is distinct, I say 'dq is a rock'.
 I'm pointing out a rock.  I'm also saying rock is dq,
which is to say rock is mu, rock is free, rock is
no-thing that you might say the rock is.  This is
dharma experience.  The writing of this rock, and the
rock itself will just crumble into tiny pieces and
disappear.  What is any of this?  Forever a question. 
I would suggest not writing about a rock, but not
inhibiting what the rock is.  I can hold a rock
forever, and notice this distinction will never
bottom-out.

     [David H.]
A rock is not 'free from static patterns', a rock is
static  
patterns.

-------
     Sure this static pattern embodies mu.  Mu is a
static pattern.  Rock is mu.

     [David H.]
There is no need to say 'DQ is moral'.  This is more
purity defined.   
And as I see it, ceases to be purity.

-------
     You don't need to say dq is no-thing, for this is
more purity defined, and as YOU see it, ceases to be
purity.


thanks.


well, babies cryin',
wakin' up from his nap,
gotta go,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?  
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.