[MD] Contradiction and incoherence

Wed Mar 28 09:36:55 PDT 2012

Hi Ant,

So what are you saying?  Does 'radical empiricism' mean only what RMP says on the AHP tapes about the Zen are acceptable and communicable experiences?  I was talking of my own experiences, and I am no Buddha.  Static quality (conventional reality(determinate)) is not other Dynamic quality (Ultimate Reality(indeterminate)).  I assume RMP knows this, so why shouldn't it be discussed?  Zen has a gazillion words written about it, so why muzzle me.  Nagarjuna wrote long before Zen developed.

Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static): 

    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.

"Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types of truth; the ‘static’ conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and the ‘Dynamic’ ultimate truth (paramattha- sacca)."
     (MoQ Textbook)  

The idea is to find out for yourself.  Everyone should find out for themselves, and nobody will if such experiences swept under the rug.  That's what it's going to take: a trusting, quantum leap.  

I have written to you a couple of times if RMP wants me out of this forum, I will go, but meanwhile I think it should be acceptable to speak from my point-of-view.  I take it that RMP will request that I leave if he thinks otherwise.  

Marsha

On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> Marsha,
> 
> You stated March 28th:
> 
>> For me, static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dynamic 
> Quality is not other than static quality.  They are two sides of the 
> same coin: Quality (or Value).  I know of three "types" of experience; 
> there is the conceptual, the perceptual and the unpatterned.  The first 
> is the run-of-the-mill "thinking".  Second is 'direct perception' or 
> mindfulness; it is what is directly perceived without conceptual 
> narration.  The third is no-thing and without any patterns; it's 
> awareness without concepts or percepts.  This third you might say is an 
> interesting place to visit, but I wouldn't want an extended stay, 
> nonetheless it offers an interesting perspective.  It offers a kind of 
> first-hand experience that static quality is not other than Dynamic 
> Quality...
> 
> ==================
> 
> Just to add what you said to Mark, I'm probably going to confuse things further but my understanding of the relationship between Dynamic Quality and static quality is that - from the Zen Buddhist viewpoint of everyday affairs - they are completely distinct.  This is largely (though not exclusively) the understanding that is written in LILA.
> 
> However, it is only from the Dynamic viewpoint of the "World of the Buddhas" (the understanding that is often quoted by Robert Pirsig in the "McWatt-Pirsig Letters PDF") is that the fundamental nature of the static is indeed Dynamic.  
> 
> Pirsig says somewhere (in reference to Zen Enlightenment) that at zero degrees, one sees the world as fundamentally static.  
> 
> At 180 degrees Enlightenment, one sees the world as Dynamic. 
> 
> While, at 360 degrees Enlightenment, you see the Dynamic "shining through" the static patterns.  You've returned full circle to the static patterns but with a Zen Understanding.  And, of course, that's meant to be non-verbal... !
> 
> I try not to get too hung up on all this as Pirsig warns in Part One of the AHP Transcript:
> 
> 
> Now, you’re not supposed to really divide Quality. In fact, as I’ve said in this 
> book that you shouldn’t. But if you’re going to have a metaphysics you go ahead  
> and do it anyway. It’s just a kind of an exercise in life, you only can sin once 
> now I’m going to sin against Quality by dividing into two parts. The Dynamic
> aspect of Quality is that Quality which I associate most closely with Zen
> Buddhism. 
> 
> When I was talking about ZMM I was referring primarily to Dynamic
> Quality, and in LILA, at one point I said ‘I can beat my gums on this forever’,
> in fact many people have and nobody is going to know what I’m talking about so
> why don’t I talk about what it isn’t. Sometimes you can define something in
> terms of what it isn’t rather than in terms of what it is. So, I said, alright,
> and Dynamic Quality isn’t everything inside the encyclopedia …that’s all
> static. Everything that we can name, everything that we can think about,
> everything that we can conceptualise, all our rituals, all our …whatever we are
> as a living person is static.
> 
> Dynamic is this up welling…, well it isn’t anything I can tell you. This is what you’ll
> hear every minute from the ‘Zennies’. But you can discover it if you work on
> it. But you won’t discover it by conceptualisation and this is a huge problem
> that Zen teaching has. You see it over and over again and this is why they
> sound so screwy, in their koans and everything. What they’re trying to do is
> get you to stop conceptualising and start experiencing. But even that’s wrong
> because I’m getting into concepts… 
> 
> Chip: Can I add to that…one way of looking at the differences to my way of 
> understanding is …sort of on the level of the principle…what is the principle of 
> static quality and Dynamic Quality. You could think in terms of the principle of 
> static quality as that which coheres, which holds together, which maintains form, 
> structure. It’s pinned down in that sense. So, it’ll be that…I don’t even know if 
> you can call it a ‘force’ but that quality which does that. Dynamic Quality would 
> be the Quality which expands, which unfolds, which leaves behind form… it
> de-structures…it’s a state of flux…
> 
> (http://robertpirsig.org/AHP Transcript 1.htm)
> 
> 
> 
>> From: valkyr at att.net
>> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:04:26 -0400
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Contradiction and incoherence
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> I believe the RMP statement says that experience and value is the same; and I concede that it would seem correct to state that pure experience is synonymous with Dynamic Quality.  That was my point for presenting the quote.  For me, static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality.  They are two sides of the same coin: Quality (or Value).  I know of three "types" of experience; there is the conceptual, the perceptual and the unpatterned.  The first is the run-of-the-mill "thinking".  Second is 'direct perception' or mindfulness; it is what is directly perceived without conceptual narration.  The third is no-thing and without any patterns; it's awareness without concepts or percepts.  This third you might say is an interesting place to visit, but I wouldn't want an extended stay, nonetheless it offers an interesting perspective.  It offers a kind of first-hand experience that static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dy
>> namic Quality is not other than static quality.  
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha 
>> 
> 
> 
> 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