[MD] The Intellectual Gauntlet

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <skutvik at online.no>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Gauntlet


> Marsha
>
> On 20 July you wrote:
>
>> No I never meant Prasagika insight is an intellectual pattern.  It is
>> not an intellectual pattern.  (Forgive me, I am not a Buddhist or a
>> scholar.)  I think the Prasagika's offer an intellectual path to such
>> an _insight_. It's hilarious that I, with such a tiny skull (and the
>> help of friends), would be one to pursue this path.  And you, with the
>> big brains, won't venture past static, Western cliches about Buddhist
>> philosophy.
>
> "An intellectual path to such an insight". OK, that's different, as
> said it was the missing foundation under (what was to become)
> SOM or Intellect that was young Phaedrus' path, first to his lateral
> drift and later to the insight that SOM is an Quality off-shoot, what
> he called INTELLECT in the first MOQ.
>
> But you said to Mati
>
> " This is intellect!  See for yourself"

Greetings Bo,

Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, which I believe is at the base of 
Mahayana Buddhism, is 100% intellectual.  It's beautiful.  I would say it is 
not subject/object thinking, but more a 'not this, not that' kind of 
analytical approach.   Reading it took my breath away.

Again, I don't know what YOU can say about RMP's insight (with lateral drift 
or not).  I think you might be caught in your own insights, which can be 
disorienting.



> Marsha ctd.:
>
>> Bo, I believe no one.  I've been an extreme skeptic since I was a
>> little girl.   And you have not presented a convincing argument.   But
>> I am beginning to think that there is a lot of subject/object thinking
>> happening here.
>
> OK, you are a skeptic, but skepticism is usually directed against
> religious dogmas, astrology, healing and such that can't be verified
> scientifically. The scientist may be skeptical in the sense of not
> accepting claims (not even scientific such) but demand that the
> experiment can be repeated endlessly and yield the same result
> (ZAMM page )
>
>    When I think of formal scientific method an image
>    sometimes comes to mind of an enormous juggernaut, a
>    huge bulldozer...slow, tedious lumbering, laborious, but
>    invincible. It takes twice as long, five times as long, maybe
>    a dozen times as long as informal mechanic's techniques,
>    but you know in the end you're going to get it.
>
> Yet, science (particularly physics) is sure that there IS an objective
> reality "out there" that is governed by laws that are independent of
> what we (subjectively) think about it ... AND THIS ATTITUDE IS
> INTELLECT!
>
> Get it?
>
> Bo

You tell me if this is what you believe intellect to be?  Do you think there 
are independently existing laws that govern reality?   I sooo DO NOT.   And 
as Ron has suggested, I do not think that type of thinking is the consensus 
anymore, either.

Marsha