[MD] MOQ Recursion

[MarshaV]

Greetings Andre,

I really didn't understand the two sentence you quoted by Rahula.  
Maybe you did because you read the few more sentences before 
and after the quote.  Or maybe a few paragraphs or even pages.  
Maybe you have even read the entire book.  

And writing "Pirsig's definition" without offering the suggested
definition is offering nothing.

But not to worry, I didn't expect more from you.  

Marsha




On Aug 10, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Marsha to Andre:
> 
> Could you explain Rahula's sentences that you quoted, and how these quotes correlate to between with RMP's definitions.
> 
> Andre:
> Marsha, I am following your interaction with Arlo and it reminds me of similar interactions we have had. Problem is that I found out I wasn't 'interacting' with anyone. You simply maintain your soliloquize. I think that Rahula's sentence is very clear and speaks for itself.
> 
> So, at the risk of spending quite some time in explaining (as I have done on other issues with you in the past) I simply suggest you read it again and again, perhaps meditate on it, and then bear Pirsig's definition of the intellectual level and notice for yourself where the two meet.
> 
> 
> 
On Aug 9, 2010, at 5:58 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> dmb said to Arlo:
> 
> Yep. If you introduce some new category to the MOQ, regardless of the reason for doing so, I think you quite literally have to explain what in the world you're talking about. The four levels are suppose to cover all there is so that nothing except DQ is left out. It's pretty hard to imagine that Pirsig forgot to include "labels" or "levels" or "heart" or "meditation" in the world as we know it. Since the four levels are supposed include all things in an exhaustive way, it's hard to imagine what kind of "thing" would require the addition of a fifth level. Some new category of "thing" that does not exist yet? Is there some part of the world that Bo and Marsha have access to even though it doesn't appear in any encyclopedia?
> 
> I think this whole mess has something to do with defining the 4th level as SOM.
> 
> Andre:
> I think this is correct dmb. Consider the Buddha himself suggesting that even the highest attainable spiritual state is a mental,(therefore intellectual)creation. Dr. W. Rahula in 'What the Buddha Taught':
> 'Notice that all the spiritual and mystic states, however pure and high they may be, are mental creations, mind-made, conditioned and compound (samkhata). They are not reality, not Truth'. (p.38).
> 
> This, in response to the Buddha's observation that:
> 'If I focus this purified and cleansed equanimity on the Sphere of Infinite Space and develop a mind conforming thereto, that is a mental creation. If I focus this purified and cleansed equanimity on the Sphere of Infinite Consciousness...on the Sphere of Nothingness...or on the Sphere of Neither-perception nor Non-perception and develop a mind conforming thereto, that is a mental creation' (pp38-9).
> 
> I also think that this reflects beautifully Pirsig's 'definition' of the intellectual level or rather the 'nature' of it's experiencing (ability).
> 
> We all know of Bodvar's responses to this with his SOM level definition...thereby being forced into the ridiculous position of having to create other 'levels' or 'labels'.
> Imho it unnecessarily restricts its 'function'...which is a great shame really and unnecessarily confuses lots of things.
> 



 
___