[MD] Is Quality a monism?

[MarshaV]

Greetings Mark,


On Jul 22, 2012, at 2:43 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> I am not at odds with what you say.  I try to provide a different
> perspective.  "Is the optical illusion a picture showing a vase or
> showing two faces looking at each other?"  Well of course both are
> correct, even if they are entirely different views of the same
> picture.  The point is to not assert that one view point is right and
> the other is wrong.
> 
> I would like to provide some comments to your post below just as an
> opinion and not to detract from what you wrote.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:25 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> In acknowledging that the ultimate nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality, I am suggesting that the basis of all static quality, whether "things" or patterns, is not dualistic, not substantial, not determinate, not anything but the ghostly reflections of mind.  These patterns, including my self, are 'not this, not that'!  Consider, as the Diamond Sutra suggests:
>> 
>>        All conditioned dharmas [static patterns]
>>        Are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows,
>>        Like dew drops and a lightning flash.
>>        Contemplate them thus.
>> 
> Mark pontificates:
> Yes, you can certainly create the construct that "the ultimate nature
> of static quality is Dynamic Quality".  Especially if this brings you
> meaning.  For that is what this is all about.  You project an entity
> called static quality and using the concept of "ultimate nature" you
> project Dynamic Quality as a source.  We can say that the ultimate
> nature of mass is energy, if that brings meaning to one's reflections.
> Such contemplation is useful if it gets one into an appropriate frame
> of mind from which to deal with one's existence.  It is the
> contemplation itself which is of importance, rather than the pointing,
> in my opinion.

I might agree that both contemplation and pointing may have benefits, but so might the experience of direct insight.  That experience can be X or Dynamic Quality or nirvana or whatever.  I am not sure what you mean be "dealing with" one's existence; that sounds like a grim task.  


> This is what is brought forth in your translated passage of the
> Diamond Sutra.  This passage is not saying that static patterns ARE
> dreams, etc.  It is suggesting that one contemplate such a phrase as a
> tool by which to gain further meaning.  By contemplating as such one
> looks beyond the simple analogy to its meaning in other aspects of
> thought.  Such contemplation becomes a prism by which to gain access
> to an alternative mode of awareness.  Such awareness is free of the
> idea that static quality are like dreams, etc.  And the correlation
> shrinks to the point of triviality.  One can then forget about the
> analogy and use one's new awareness in other matters of meditation.

Yes, agree.   But I an imperfect and have the residual of bad habits, so it helps that I am reminded.  I have come to appreciate more and more those simple four lines.


> This manner of teaching a method of promoting a fundamental paradigm
> shift is common in all lasting metaphysics (I wouldn't know of those
> which have not lasted).  One can see this in the writing of
> Kierkegaard entitled "Sickness unto Death" where he speaks of
> fundamental spheres that humans can exist in regarding their
> relationship with reality.  He presents three of these.  Each one of
> these manners of existence are correct, but only one can be held at a
> time.  Just like with an optical illusion, one can only hold one
> manner of viewing a picture, at a time, in one's view.  Each form of
> metaphysical view requires a release of the one which existed before.

Maybe with the new view one does not hold any view too tightly.  Within Buddhism it is stated that ultimately Emptiness is empty.


> The Western metaphysical view must be released in order to gain access
> into a Quality metaphysics.  If not, one is just viewing Quality
> through the same set of glasses which one is used to, and nothing is
> gained.  This is why I try to emphasize "Quality Awareness" as a
> fundamental shift in how one perceives.  This awareness cannot be
> reached by reading about Quality as in MOQ, but is arrived at "out of
> the blue".  It is like switching from a negative view of a situation
> to a positive one.  The situation does not change, just the manner in
> which it is viewed.  Some have analogized this switch to
> "enlightenment" which is a somewhat arrogant word.  

Or at least "enlightenment" can have projected upon it an arrogant understanding.  Your "Quality Awareness" sounds theoretical or like a result (object) rather than an ongoing experience?   But that's probably my projection.  All that is required is to pay attention.  Yes?  


> We are enlightened
> as it is; we can certainly change the view of enlightenment and say
> that it is better, if we feel that it is.  Others use the term
> "awakening" again a word with baggage.  I have heard the use of the
> word "click", as in "it all just clicked".

But I really like the understanding that Value brings.  There is small limited view and big expansive view.  The labels are not so important.


> I do not believe that there is a magical manner in which to view
> reality which is somehow the "right way". (What is good, and what is
> bad...?").  This mode of thinking simply creates sides which do
> righteous battle with each other (as occurs in this forum on
> occasion).

The small limited view is more liable to needlessly cause suffering due to grasping.   I think that the big expansive view is more accepting of suchness.  I also think that the big, expansive view naturally promotes doing your best.  


> I could say: "if Quality is everything, then what is bad?"  

YES, I agree, but sometimes forget.  That, again, is why I so love those four lines from the Diamond Sutra.  The good and the bad that we cling to is like  ...  a flash of lightening.  Everything is changing and so fleeting.  And here you are, and here I am, and here we all are,,, participating.   It is quite extraordinary.   


> It is not
> this kind of statement which is important, it is where it leads one.
> In the end, where one arrives at has nothing to do with these words in
> a litteral sense.  I am sure you have been struck with the sudden
> realization that, after reading a poem or something, that everything
> looks a little bit different.  You cannot say exactly why, but it just
> does.  Sometimes there is a gradual progression to a new way of
> looking at things, and one cannot remember how it used to look.   I
> think it is important not hold on doggedly to static quality as an
> answer, and that is what the Buddhism instructs with all its manners
> of releasing oneself from clinging.  Whether it be contemplating the
> the self does not exist, or in its relegation of ones current reality
> to a dream.  These are concepts which act like a raft until one
> reaches the shore of another awareness.  Once there, none of that
> matters.  It becomes foolish to argue on the "right way" to say
> something.  What is the right way to look at a baby smiling?

I am happy to agree with you.  But you have to admit that the patterns are amazing.  


> Regards,
> Mark
>> 


I don't want anyone to think you do not belong here.


Marsha