[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[Carl Thames]

Marsha:
> "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

The problem here is that the illusion, or maya, is NOT empty of meaning, at 
least for us.  It IS an illusion, but it's all we have.  Do you see the 
problem here?  It's the only "reality" available to us.  Granted, if we 
wanted to do the work, use the psychotropics or whatever, we would have 
access to a different reality, but the one we live in and with every day is 
conscensual, isn't it?  We get together with those around us and say, "Yup, 
this is real."  Does knowing it's an illusion change anything?