Hi Scott,
Actually it is a little more complicated.
1) I do not agree with his attitude toward the physical universe. I do not
agree with his notion, appropriate to Hindu and Buddhist beliefs, that the
physical world is unimportant and only a source of pain. I come from the
Jewish belief that the physical world is the crowning Glory of creation and
the source of much beauty and pleasure. But, I don't deny that there is
pain and suffering. Much of it caused by humans, some like being where an
earthquake strikes, is just unfortunate but not a God directed act at 'evil'
people.
2) I don't deny that the universe is consciousness. This also fits in with
Jewish thinking.
3) I have a problem with his attitude in describing that the universe is
consciousness and hence not matter. He comes across to me as saying: matter
bad and the word should be struck from your vocabulary, and that we
shouldn't think about matter.
4) I do believe that mystical experience provides a channel for knowledge.
It is the "a" that is important. I don't believe that mystical experience
is the sole channel for truth. Wolff appears to be saying this, but that
could just be my mis-reading him. Have not finished the book and like any
good book I read it once, but it down come back to it some many months later
and re-read it. [Though you say that Wolff does believe that mystical
experience is the sole channel for truth, so I will take your word on this
one. You have studied Wolff, I have not.]
5)I am not denying he had his experience. I am not denying his beliefs as a
result of his experience. I am saying that his beliefs, like any of us,
doesn't make it the only valid description of Reality/Quality. He could be
wrong. I could be wrong. We both could be only partially right. He said
this was his experience, I would never challenge that. Only he knows what
he felt.
6)Since all we are map makers any map we make is only a map. He can say all
he wants about the mystical mind as transcending and becoming nondual, But
once he comes back into non-mystic state he is in the same, to use your
words, SOM place as me. His belief is a SOM belief as much as mine, to use
your words. What happens in the mystic state is one thing, and I do not
know I have not been there. He does know he has been there and I take his
word for that truth. But I do know that once he is not in that state, he is
back in familiar territory to me. He have to process that experience. In
doing that he is using the tools that I do know about. The conclusions he
make are maps. And as you well know maps are less than the total truth,
less than the territory.
7) Nonduality is a truth in the mystic state. It is a truth of levels
higher than ordinary consciousness. But, I am more interested in what is
going on in ordinary consciousness. Here in ordinary consciousness the
world appears as dual. Which I think he agrees. Above and beyond this
ordinary consciousness we get to the Nondual consciousness. I do agree.
But, my agreement does mean it must be true. I retain doubt. I always
retain doubt. I try to do this in order to give validity to beliefs other
than my own. Certainty is a dangerous feeling. It appears to me that it is
Wolff's feeling of certainty that causes him to describe the physical world
as if it is only a source of pain and suffering. It is his feeling of
certainty that is the source of his language, his attitude toward how he
treats the physical world. If he had a little less certainty he might not
come across the way he does.
8) I do not believe that mystical experience is the only route to truth. I
do disagree with Wolff on this one. I believe we differ because my Judaism
values the physical, his accepted beliefs of the unimportance of the
physical from Buddhism, leads him to undervalue the physical nature of
reality and overvalue the non-physical nature of reality. It is our
respective values that give rise to our conclusions. Jewish mystics come
out of mystical experience believing that truth can be found in both aspects
of reality. Wolff would then seem to be denying the validity of the truth
that they got out of their mystic experience. Which would contradict his
theory that mystic experience yields truth. Hence, I see a flaw in his
beliefs. The flaw is his certainty. He could use some doubt.
People shape, and are shaped by, ideas
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: MD Value and Time
> Gary,
>
> Basically, what you are saying here about Merrell-Wolff is: I (Gary)
> don't believe him, in particular where he says that mystical experience
> provides a channel for knowledge (Knowledge through Identity -- in later
> writings "introception") that is unavailable to those in relative
> (ordinary consciousness). So when you rebut him by saying:
>
> "The mind that process the experiences of the physical and the
> transcendent is the same mind!"
>
> By saying this, you are denying that Merrell-Wolff had the experience
> that he says he had. He is saying that the mind of relative
> (subject/object) consciousness is NOT the mind of mystical consciousness
> (non-dual). Your statement is merely a SOM belief.
>
> Merrell-Wolff says frequently that (a) he Knows that SOM is false, and
> (b) that unless we can match that (mystical) way of Knowing we can only
> take his (or other mystics) word for it (Well, there are non-mystical
> reasons to reject SOM which you apparently do not accept, but these
> reasons do not provide mystical certainty). I choose to accept what he
> says. You choose not to. So obviously we cannot argue about it. It does
> look to me, though, that your choosing not to is a consequence of your
> SOM filters.
>
> By the way, I do not consider Wolff a differential mystic. Check out
> Nagarjuna for an example of the latter. (The difference between
> differential and centric mysticism is mainly about paths -- the centric
> talks more about moving toward a goal (e.g., union with God), while the
> differential talks more about dissolving false beliefs (e.g, belief in
> SOM, or one's person as self-existing.)
>
> You end up with:
> "The point is that faith/ belief does not ever equal TRUTH."
>
> This is news? Merrell-Wolff's point is that Knowing the TRUTH requires
> mystical transcendence, that once one gets it, faith/belief are no
> longer necessary. I agree with him, that is, my faith is that he and
> some other mystics Know what they are talking about. Your faith appears
> to be that they don't.
>
> - Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:29 BST