[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Taking off the glasses?


>
> On Nov 22, 2011, at 5:04 AM, Carl Thames wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>
> Hello Carl,
Marsha:
> I do not understand the "different reality".  But I think it is important 
> to find out for oneself.

Carl:
Why would that be important?  I'm not trying to be a nit here, just 
wondering.  I have been a shamanic practioner for almost 20 years now, and 
have ocassionally accessed what Jung has called the "collective 
consciousness" personally.  I did so for a specific reason, with a pretty 
solid concept of what to do when I got there.  For the average person, 
without this background, it would provide nothing more than a mind-altering 
experience.  Do you understand what I'm asking here?  Why would it be 
important for everyone to access that reality?  To my mind, that would be 
like everyone suddenly being able to completely understand Einstein's Theory 
of Relativity.  Okay, they know what it is, and how it works, but how does 
that change their perception of their personal reality?