On 7/22/12, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
>> 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.
It was not meant to sound grim. Perhaps "enjoying" would have been a
better term. As I see it, direct insight is a form of contemplation.
Such contemplation is more than words. Perhaps meditation is a better
term. They both mean the same thing to me.
>> 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.
I am imperfect too, which is why I attend this forum and others. I
like those lines too, they provide a sense of freedom from static
quality, for me. That is one objective of MoQ, just like it is with
>> 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.
Heh, heh. Not holding any view too tightly is also a view.
Contemplating on Emptiness can also be useful, no doubt. One would
ask "empty of what?". I am not sure that emptiness is a good word for
the West. It implies fullness. Perhaps "Free" is a better term,
(which means the same thing to me), for MoQ. If one uses the Buddhist
instructions of contemplating all “inherentness” as conditional, one
can only reach the conclusion that everything is free. That is, that
it has no beginning. Without beginning there is no determinism. Once
one begins clinging to causes, the assembly becomes self restricting,
>> 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?
Yes, that is well put. Any word has its power in how it is
interpreted. Buddha himself was said to be humble. This makes sense
if one follows Buddhism.
What I mean be Quality Awareness, would be similar to saying "movement
awareness". That is, if one is aware of movement, one enters into
such a world. There is nothing theoretical about it, it is a state of
being. Just like being alive is not considered theoretical. From the
sense of existence comes all else, including thought (for us humans).
In Zen they say, "thinking without thinking". I could modify this to
say "paying attention without paying attention". Don't know if this
makes sense to you, but it is meant to prevent clinging. Or, using
Taoism, it can be presented as "consider the Tao as a Way". This Way
would be the same idea as Quality awareness. That is, that which
comes before precepts. That which provides the basis for
contemplation (or meditation). Just my own opinion, of course, which
is not in conflict with yours.
>> 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 agree, me too.
>> 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
> 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.
As I see it, the concept of suffering comes about when one
contemplates one's enjoyment through a Buddhist prism. First one must
be Buddha aware, then the Buddhist concepts can be used. If one is
not a Buddhist then one is not suffering in the Buddhist sense, and
the term is meaningless.
In the West, the concept of suffering means something a bit different
since Christ suffered. As I understand it, "suffering" in Buddhism is
more like "insufficiency". It brings about constant seeking (see the
drawings of the three messengers (Buddha, Confucius, and Lao Tsu)
tasting the vinegar. The word Nirvana, literally means "to breath
out", or to stop holding ones breath. As a useful picture that some
keep in mind when doing the Buddhist "breath awareness" form of
meditation, is to consider a screen door which continually blows in
and out without hindrance. As good indicator to "see" somebodies
state of mind is to pay attention to their breathing. As you know,
breathing is a very useful tool for becoming in tune, or in harmony.
We simply ARE, and there is no need to struggle. See Tao Te Ching's
analogies using water.
>> 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
Yes, although as a scientist, all I do is make patterns. Sometimes I
like to leave those behind. That is just me. Of course such
patterning has brought about a better standard of living and possibly
less fear (in general).
> I don't want anyone to think you do not belong here.
Not to worry Marsha. We all belong where we are, or else we would not
be here. We are all active participants in the act of creation, and
everything would fall apart without each one of us (literally); see
Sartre on Being through Annihilation.
As you well know, there is a strong attempt to control the message
which Pirsig tried to start. There is a sense of ownership in terms
of describing Quality in metaphysical terms. As I said to Ant, these
will all fail due to their very nature. According to MoQ,
presentations progress to betterness, and to consider our current
views as the best and not easily changed is typical of academia.
Knowledge grows in starts and stops. Ther will always be those free
from the current static Quality. This is where Pirsig is. That he
does not interfere indicates to me that he wants us to think for
ourselves and not be told how to think.
Belonging is a social part of our being. I our world it seems to
dominate. One manner to view MoQ is as a rebalance of the various
levels which have become top heavy in the social and intellectual
realms. We no longer listen to our bodies, but wait for a doctor to
tell us. Psychiatry tells us how we are to view reality, and drugs
abound. Our social structure has become so encased in the appropriate
social manner that freedom is left behind. The Victorian manner does
not hold a candle to what we are currently faced with in terms of
I will be providing a more detailed opinion on the "levels" in a
response to "T-Rex" John's question. However, please be aware that
such a post will contain objectionable material, and parental
advisories are appropriate...