[MD] Democritus and MoQ

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

I hope I may be allowed another quote:

"When we want something, normally we know well enough what needs to be done to get it.  But what if the object I desire is something that can never become an object, because it is prior to the subject-object dichotomy?  What if it can never be an effect, because it is always unconditioned?  What if it can never be gained, because it is unattainable?  Then I find myself in a dilemma.  If I make no effort to do anything, it seems that the result will also be nothing and there will be no progress toward the desired goal.  But to the extent that I exert myself to attain it, I don't, for in this case all effort seems to be self-defeating.  This is the paradox of spiritual practice, for as we have seen, atman, Brahman, nirvana, Buddha-nature, [Quality, of course], and so on, are unobjectionable (because nondual), unoriginated (beyond causal and temporal relations), and hence unobtainable.  How can we escape this double bind?"  
      (Loy, David, 'Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy',p.238)

I do love a good book.  And I am also more and more enjoying your posts.  


Cheers,  
Marsha

 
 
 

On Jan 24, 2011, at 10:54 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> A while back I proposed that once Pirsig had written ZMM, he no longer
> had much control over what the character would be.  In fact, by
> writing, he relinquished all control.  Therefore, placing quotes from
> Pirsig concerning Phaedrus, really carry no weight.  Of course, I was
> met with disdain and contempt for this concept.  In fact, when I
> proposed that I could perhaps interpret ZMM and Lila in a way
> different from some, this was also met with incredulity.  Any good
> book has multiple interpretations, and nobody has rights to the
> correct interpretation.  There are some that want to wind MoQ up like
> a watch and watch it tick away.  For me, they are the ones who prevent
> its progress.  But you know all this, and have your own
> interpretation.
> 
> There is no reason why we cannot modernize a quote from Democritus to
> help elaborate on MoQ.  Chance and necessity: Static and Dynamic
> Quality.  Perhaps it is too simple to be true.  Let's throw up some
> smoke screens to make Quality much more complicated why don't we.  We
> all know what Quality is, the problem lies where we try to use the
> intellect to inscribe it.  Pesky intellect, seems to always get in the
> way of awakening and awareness.  Let's tie Quality down like a
> tethered hot air balloon.  Must be possible.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> 



 
___