[MD] Nagarjuna and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --


[Ham, previously]:
> As for "the existence/non-existence of self" paradox, this can be
> resolved simply by recognizing that, unlike objects and events
> which constitute the phenomena of experience, selfness is the
> conscious locus of what exists. That is why the self is designated
> as the 'subject' of existence rather than an 'existent' per se.
> For the sake of clarity, I use the term "sensibility" to describe the
> conscious self and "phenomena" to define the physical objects
> of its experience.

[Mark]:
> A better way to put this is that Self in the Western Tradition is
> akin to Ego as presented by Freud and others.  A primary
> objective of Buddhist training is to remove the Ego.  Therefore
> the teacher states that the Self does not exist.  This is of course
> a technique and cannot be taken literally.  If it was, then further
> Buddhist training would be impossible.  Once released from Ego,
> the student can once again realize that self exists, and the end
> goal of Buddhism is to become utterly selfless and companionate
> to all "sentient" beings. Of course the concept of sentient was a
> philosophical one at that time. Now that that term has been
> completely blurred, I would state that the end goal is to profess
> humility to all things.  By doing so, one becomes completely free,
> and nothing can touch him/her.  Trust me, it is like feeling weightless
> and transparent.  To be selfless does not mean to abolish the Self,
> just to remove that part which is the Ego.

By "better way", are you referring to the Self concept or the Buddhist 
teaching?  If it's the former, I disagree that you've "put it better".  With 
respect to "Freud and others", Ego is a pejorative term in contemporary 
culture and is more descriptive of emotional behavior than the conscious 
self.  If you advocate removing the ego, you might as well remove the libido 
as well, leaving the individual passive, disinterested and defenseless.  I 
don't know what you are ingesting to feel "weightless and transparent", but 
these symptoms aren't the result of becoming selfless.  Nor is there any 
reason to eliminate or diminish selfness.  On the contrary, since the self 
is the sensible core of one's being in the world, the stronger one's sense 
of self, the more effectively he can deal with existential situations.

[Anthony on Nagarjuna vs. Pirsig]:
> "Though he doesn’t knowingly employ the logic of the tetralemma,
> Pirsig does share numerous ontological beliefs with Buddhist
> philosophy such as Nagarjuna’s (c.300a, p.251) perception that
> the unconditioned (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the
> conditioned (or static) ...

[Mark]:
> I will have to take the Ant's word on this, I am not sure how much he
> understands about Buddhism.  But equating the unconditioned to the
> Dynamic is a useful analogy if one has understanding of one of the terms.

I would expect Ant to have thoroughly researched Buddhism for this Ph.D. 
thesis, so I don't question his knowledge of Nagarjuna's philosophy. 
Besides, his analysis is well supported by the Cooper citation (below):.

> In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and
> contingency belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by also
> saying that all things ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma or
> that within the heart of every conditioned entity (as its core, as its
> true essence, as its very real nature) there is the indeterminate dharma.
> While the one expresses the transcendence of the ultimate reality,
> the other speaks of its immanence. The one says that the ultimate reality
> is not an entity apart and wholly removed from the determinate,
> but is the real nature of the determinate itself.
> (Cooper, 2002)

[Mark]:
> Yes, exactly, in their ultimate nature things exist.  This is similar
> to what Plato wrote.

That is not exactly what Cooper said.  The phrase "in their ultimate nature" 
refers to the source of things which is devoid of conditions and 
contingency.  The "real nature" (essence) of determinate things is 
"indeterminate" or non-conditional.  At least, that's the way I interpret 
this statement.  It is reenforced by his assertion that "ultimate reality is 
not an entity apart ...but the real nature of the determinate itself."

[Mark]:
> Things do not enter the indeterminate Dharma, they exist there.
> Cooper is confusing DQ with sq here, and is still stuck in Western
> Thought.  It can be said that the Self realizes such Dharma, or wakes
> up, as it were.  This is not entering, it is uncovering.  This is a
> big difference since there is nothing to enter, we are already there.
> Of course Cooper then corrects himself with the last sentence which
> gives "entering" an unusual meaning as he uses it.  But lets take that
> last sentence and analyze it.  This ultimate reality is said to exist;
> it also says that such existence is not apart or removed from SQ, but
> that DQ is the contingent nature of sq.  Again, as I have said before,
> sq is an apparition of DQ, or one could say that both DQ and sq are
> expressions of Quality.

Cooper is not talking about DQ or sq -- as far as I know he isn't even 
acquainted with Pirsig's thesis.  He's explaining Buddhist ontology in 
Western terms.  "Existence" is the wrong term for the ultimate source 
(Essence), Mark; and "contingent" (which implies relational or dependent) 
would apply to differentiated 'existents', not to DQ, if I understand the 
MoQ correctly.

[Mark]:
> Yes, Nagarjuna's ontology AS EXPRESSED WITH WESTERN
> CONCEPTS; this implies translation in which much is lost.  I would say
> that the ultimate nature of things is Quality which can be subdivided into
> DQ and sq for rhetorical purposes.

I have never understood why Pirsig settled for Quality over Value as his 
fundamental reality, especially having outlined the nature of Value in his 
SODV paper.  Of course, I maintain that neither term can be fundamental, if 
for no other reason than that a sensible agent is needed to realize an 
aesthetic quality.

> It could well be that your Essence is my Quality, and I have
> said this before.  We do differ on the importance of man and his
> role in all of this, however.  I do not believe the premise you
> point to is missing from Pirsig's exposition, but entirely compatible.
> I will have to get some quotes sometime from Lila and ZMM to
> demonstrate this.

My Essence may be your Quality only in the sense that you regard Quality as 
the ultimate Reality.  But, as I said above, this is epistemologically 
impossible.  Virtue, Beauty, Goodness -- or whatever else represents 
Value -- is realizable only by an agent that is negated (excluded) from 
Essence.  Again, Man is the measure of all things, including the value or 
worth of what he experiences.  Without this sensible appraisal, there can be 
no value or quality.

> Briefly, from my understanding, we are all made up of Quality
> (Essence, or indeterminate Dharma (and Karma for that matter)).
> Quality is like most metaphysics providing an analogy for the nature
> of things.  MoQ can be easily applied to Western understanding as
> shown by ZMM which was a best-seller.  It's underlying form is much
> harder, as shown by the lackluster sales of Lila.  Pirsig needs to
> come out with a third book which contains a synthesis of the
> fundamental theory, and its practice.  To do this a third form of
> Quality needs to be created.  As I have suggested before, this could
> be IQ or Interactive Quality.  This would fit well with the analogy of
> co-dependent arising.  MoQ should be taught through practice, not
> through words, otherwise it will never catch on.

A philosophy is not a "practice" or discipline that is performed; it is a 
conceptual view of reality that merits one's conviction.  Frankly, I'm tired 
of analogies that make metaphysics a plaything of rhetoric while confusing 
everyone in the process.  The world doesn't need "another form of Quality." 
It needs to understand the meaning of existence in terms of man's role as 
its free agent.  Only then can we establish an "authentic society" where 
individuals are responsible for themselves without the dogma, mandates, and 
impositions of external authority.

With that goal in mind, I am . . .

Essentially yours,
Ham