[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[118]

Do you fully agree with these quotes?
Mark

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:53 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> "The Dynamic Quality viewpoint of the MOQ corresponds to the notion of sunyata or nothingness [50] as understood by Nagarjuna (a Mahayana Buddhist philosopher) while the static quality viewpoint (sammuti-sacca) [52] of the MOQ corresponds to sunyavada (i.e. the conditioned component or world of maya). [53]"
>
> -------------
>
> [50] ‘Empty’ in the sense of lacking inherent existence i.e. the indeterminate or the world of Buddhas; literally, the realm of understanding or wakefulness. ‘The root-word buddh means to wake up, to know, to understand.’ (Nhat Hanh, 1987, p.13) This viewpoint considers that the nature of reality is fundamentally indeterminate and interconnected. Out of the indeterminate arise the determinate aspects that are usually conceptualised in the West as subjects and objects.
>
> [52] The ‘conditioned’ is everything dependent (or caused) by sunyata (which is ‘unconditioned’).
>
> [53] Literally ‘illusion’ but only in the sense that it is illusory to believe that people and the objects of their world are permanent, independent and unchanging.
>
>             (McWatt, Anthony, 'A Critical Analysis of Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality', pp. 42-43
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:33 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
>> Marsha:
>> I think I will add that the "illusion" is our deeply ingrained, innate, tendency to reify objects of perception (not just "abstract beliefs or hypothetical constructs"), and thinking them to be independent of our awareness of them, independent of our cognitive frame-of-reference.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 2:55 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism recently out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen and published by Tuttle Publishing. I recommend you get it because it shows the similarities, between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other I have seen."
>>>
>>>   (Pirsig to McWatt, May 6th 1998.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "We can't comprehend Reality with our intellects.  We can't pull it into a static view of some thing.  All our explanations are necessarily provisional.  They're just rigid frames of what is actually motion and fluidity.  In other words, if you think of how Reality is, you can be sure that's how it isn't.  Reality simply cannot be put into conceptual form --- not even through analogy, for there's nothing like it.  Reality simply doesn't fit into concepts at all.
>>>
>>> (Hagen, Steve, ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, p.71)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>