From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Feb 27 2005 - 00:25:40 GMT
DMB: Now we have Ant providing us with
a direct and relevant Pirsig quote to correct Scott's misconception. One
that even employs the same terms. Its a beautiful thing. Don't waste it.
ERIN: Thank you for your concern DMB but I am afraid I don't think you two have fully addressed Scott's point. It may be a beautiful point. Try and not miss it.
SCOTT: you just can't get from ZAMM and Lila
the idea that DQ is SQ, SQ is DQ. (I think also that using DQ and SQ rather
than formlessness and form makes this even more difficult -- form can be
seen as the interaction of the dynamic and the static, with formlessness
being identical to their interaction -- two forces of one Power, as
Coleridge has it.) But I think it is more likely that he just hasn't quite
grasped the full import of the doctrine. He says (NOT in Lila or ZAMM, note)
"In Buddhism, form and formlessness, freedom and order, co-exist."
Co-existence is a long way from identity of contradictories.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 27 2005 - 00:52:59 GMT