[MD] Tit's

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's


> {Marsha]
> A thing-in-itself (inherently existing object) would be an entity that has
> an existence independent of thoughts and perceptions, an entity that 
> exists
> from its own side.  Both Buddhism and the MOQ deny such an entity.
> Buddhism says that entities are empty of inherent existence.  I surmise 
> that
> the idea of a pattern is opposed to the idea of an inherently existing
> entity.
>
> [Krimel]
> How is it that a pattern is more likely to "exist" the a "thing"? The 
> point
> is not that patterns or thing do or do not exist the point is that all we
> can know is our experience of them. I am "that" because "that" "for me" is
> my experience of "it". My reality, all of it every last bit is subjective.

I'm not sure what you're asking.  Patterns are interrelated and changing 
conceptions.  An inherently existing entity (as opposed to a convention 
entity) is thought to exist from it's own side.

I would imagine a pattern is built from prior experiences and definitions 
delivered by the culture.

There's two truths:  Absolute and Conventional.  Absolute is empty of 
inherent existence.  Conventional is illusion but functional.


>
> [Marsha}
> That things appear to have an independent existence would be illusion. 
> That
> we think they have an independent existence is the source of all 
> suffering.
> That the world appears to function like things independently exist is its
> conventional operating procedure.  Not to understand the two different 
> modes
> of existing is ignorance.
>
> [Krimel]
> So how is the claim that a thing or pattern does not have it own existence
> any less of an illusion? (Is that a double or triple negative? I lost
> count.)

That an entity is empty of inherent existence is the truth.  That a entity 
inherently exists is false.



> [Krimel]
> I think that Buddhism holds is that it is the clinging to the patterns 
> that
> is the source of suffering. Trouble arises from the belief that this or 
> that
> pattern or the lack of patterns is THE pattern.

Buddhism holds clinging to things that are merely conceptions and that have 
no inherent existence is the source of suffering.  Or that a pattern is a 
inherently existing object rather than a conceptual pattern.


>
> [Marsha]
> It is not that I value the notion of no structure, it is that I value
> existing closer to the truth.  As I see it that means the world is built 
> on
> conceptions..  Maybe shared, patterned conceptions, but conceptions
> none-the-less.
>
> [Krimel]
> Isn't getting closer to some kind truth what everyone wants? Well that and 
> a
> cheeseburger and maybe an evening with Selma Hayek or Kate Beckensale or
> _______________ fill in the blank, I guess. Still our perception of truth 
> is
> structured by the tools we bring to bear in our search for it. Those 
> tools,
> our senses and our nervous systems, have evolved over the last 4 billion
> years to successfully interact with the world we are born into. We are
> pattern detectors. We are makers of meaning. The great task of living is 
> to
> reduce uncertainty and to create shared meaning. It is hard for me to see
> how we can accomplish this by denying that there is anything there.

Those tools do not inherently exist.  They are conceptions.  We are makess 
of meaning and isn't it a great story (mythos).   The great task of living 
is___________fill in the blank.  It's your story of the great task of 
living.  Here from MMK:


     "If one reifies phenomena--including such things
      as one's own self, characteristics (prominently
      including one's own), or external objects--and
      if one thinks that things either fail to exist or exist
      absolutely, one will be unable to attain any peace.
      For one will thereby be subject to egoism the
      overvaluing of oneself and one's achievements
      and of material things.  One will not appreciate
      the possibility of change, of the impermanence
      and nonsubstantiality of oneself and one's
      possessions.  These are the seed of grasping and
      craving and, hence, of suffering.  The alternative,
      Nagarjuna suggests, and the path to pacification,
      is to see oneself and other entities as non-substantial,
      impermanent, and subject to change and not
      appropriate object of such passionate craving."


>
> [Marsha}
> The Middle Way, as I understand it, is between thinking objects are 
> exactly
> as they appear (reificationists) and thinking there is no bases for 
> anything
> at all (nihilists).
>
> [Krimel]
> All I have to go on is my Sparknotes so if you say so but how is that
> different from what I said earlier?

I think there is a difference.  No leap of faith - there are no things (and 
that covers a lot) that inherently exist.  Ones participation in the 
conventional world hopefully falls to creating high quality experience for 
one and all, rather than getting the most.


Marsha