[MD] Nagarjuna and the MOQ

[MarshaV]

Andre,

The post was directed to dmb, so it's his response that might be interesting, or maybe it will be more of his evasion.  


Marsha



On Sep 21, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Marsha to dmb:
> 
> You think it, therefore it's true. What James argues still means nothing to me.I put them in the same category as God.
> 
> What is your argument?  Have you presented any argument at all?  No?  Are you folding?
> 
> Andre:
> Your antics, Lucy, remind me of the following Zen story:
> 
> Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
> 
> Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
> 
> The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
> 
> "Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
> 
> Marsha:
> The interesting question is how do you lessen the attachment to static quality to become more free.
> 
> Andre:
> It's all in the story, Lucy and perhaps you could take lesson from your grandson's observation.
> 
> Alternatively you could follow Pirsig's advice:" You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you master them with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget them and they are gone. There in the center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic Quality is found" (LILA, p 393)
> 
> Your problem Lucy, is that you do not take sq seriously. You continuously argue they are illusions. You fight them so much that you keep them awake. They are monsters to you, nuisances, scary apparitions because, despite what you say, they are very, very real to you.
> 
> You keep on confusing sq with DQ. That is the heart of your difficulty. You reduce sq to illusions because they have no inherent existence. We all know they do not have inherent existence but that does not mean we should treat them as not real or meaningful or helpful. Your attack on sq has confined itself to nihilistic drivel and the story above may teach you that there is a large amount of ego tripping and narcissism in there as well (which you project on others here on the MD and, I presume, the rest of the world).
> 
> If I were you I should be very grateful to my grandson.
> 
> And, anticipating your response: of course THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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


 
___