[MD] The MOQ and Death

[Ham Priday]

On Monday, 3/8/10 at 5:09 AM, Andre wrote:


> Hi Ham, Bodvar,
>
> There are no  'Absolutes'. This is taking a SOM static/fixed
> point of view and not a MoQ, DQ/SQ point of view!!
> Nagarjuna argues from between an Absolute and Nihilist position:
> the Middle Way i.e.conventionally and 'from' an 'emptiness' pov.
> The MoQ subscribes to these two perspectives: a dynamic and a
> static one (see Anthony's PhD). Both do not have an inherent
> existence. They are dependently arisen. The Tao 'argues' in
> similar ways.

I haven't read Buddhistic philosophy in a long time, but among Nagarjuna's 
works is a 'Hymn to the Absolute Reality".  Also, in an analysis at 
Orientalia.org,, Plamen Gradinarov mentions at least one "absolutist" 
interpretation of Nagarjuna's teachings:

"The concept of sunya is pointing to the fact that everything is relative in 
this world, that everything is lacking (sunya) its stable, absolute 
metaphysical basis.  This...
interpretation was namely absolutist, the one proposed by T.R.V. Murti in 
his classical now 1955 book The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.  It has 
influenced many a scholar and "lay" reader.  By negating all types of 
reality of the dharmas (bhava, svabhava, and parabhava), Nagarjuna were 
apophatically pointing to the Absolute Reality of Dharmata, Tathata, 
Dharmakaya, or even Sunyata."

It would seem to me that the much-touted Middle Way is an attempt to 
straddle
differentiated existence and absolute reality, which is a metaphysical 
impossibility.

> Quality does not have inherent existence. It is therefore 'empty'.
> This does not mean that it does not exist or is 'unreal'.

The S/O (existentialist) pov sees the Absolute as "empty" because it is not 
experienced.  The essentialist understands that experience is infused with 
nothing.  Since he knows that nothingness is not real, he views Essence as 
"absolute fullness" rather than as "emptyness".  Pure Value (Quality) 
represents this fullness in existence, but human experience can only make 
value realizable as a relational world of discrete objects and events.  It 
is this pluralistic world of which we have direct knowledge and from which 
we make intellectual conclusions.

[Ham, previously]::
> I see no inconsistency in the reality of existential birth and
> Gautama's phrase "we have all dependently arisen."  However,
> I don't agree with your assertion that "were not born at a certain
> point in time ...and space," or your suggestion that we have not
> even been born!

[Andre]:
> In the MoQ 'we' are static patterns of value capable of responding
> to DQ (inorganic,organic,social and intellectual). This view indeed
> radically challenges our conceptions of 'birth' and 'death'.

Apart from the fact that, as "created beings", we are all dependent on an 
uncreated Source, please tell me how our response to Quality or Value 
changes our conception of birth and death.

[Ham]:
> It's one thing to speculate that birth and death "don't count" in the
> overall scheme of things, but quite another to dismiss the fact that
> in a space/time world these events mark the beginning and end of our
> existence.

[Andre]:
> Space and time receive the same treatment in the Midde Way
> dialectic and resulting perspective.

[Ham to Marsha]:
> Andre's notion that birth and death are not processes of the
> life-experience, for example, is more of an impediment than a
> clarification of the nature of existence.

[Andre]:
> I would suggest the 'impediment' lies within a s/o process thinking.
> And as dmb points out 'intellect is what you use to attack SOM'
> and this type of thinking.

All we can know is what we as subjects experience of an objective reality. 
Human thought and reasoning are necessarily limited to this experience. 
Intellect is indeed our capacity to reason.  However, "attacking 
subject-object" to make it disappear is hardly the most propitious 
application of intellect I can think of.

Essentially speaking,
Ham