>§ A Question of Emergence
Dear fellow lovers of international mystic wisdom:
>: 1) How did (does) the level emerge? From what Kevin is saying this
>: level is between Intellect and DQ so it must have emerged from
>: Intellect and be built upon it.
>Yes, mysticism currently forms a branch of intellectual thought.
Poltinus,
>swedenborg, Loyola, Shankaracharya, and others prove this true. But
its
>evident that mysticism rejects intellect to a large degree - as
Pirsig
>notes, "Mystics will tell you that once you're opened the door to
>metaphysics you can say good-bye to any genuine understanding of
reality.
>Thought is not a path to reality. It sets obstacles in that path
because
>when you try to use thought to approach something that is prior to
thought
>. . . [i]t carries you away from it. " (pg 73. pb-Lila.)
>This means mysticism has grown away from intellect in the same way
>intellect grew away from society. And just like intellect and
society,
>mysticism has gone too far away. One should never reject all thought
-
>rather, mysticism should dominate intellect in the same way intellect
>dominates society. Intellect doesn't destroy society; as Pirsig
believes,
>this destruction of society is the main problem of the 20th century.
>Instead intellect and society should work together to move toward
Dynamic
>Quality. This also applies to mysticism and intellect. For mysticism
to
>reject all logic and reason is patently absurd. No mystic would
commit
>him/herself to mysticism without an intellectual decision. No mystic
would
>know how to live to support his mystic ways. In any mystic utopia,
such as
>Aldous Huxley's Island, we don't see an enclave of sitting mystics
totally
>isolated from the world and totally within Dynamic Quality. As
Pirsig says,
>such purity constitutes just another kind of degeneracy. We need
society
>and reason to serve mysticism, and we need mysticism to give meaning
to
>society's and reason's subservance. Though many see mysticism as a
whacy
>corner of the intellectual world, I submit that this fringe needs to
>dominate intellect without destroying it.
I find myself agreeing more and more with Kevin... here are some
snippings of an essay I wrote for a world religions class. I think it
is all relevant to our discussion, and I hope not too long for MOQ
discuss...
(...the essence of Tao is deep and
unfathomable,
yet it may be known by
not trying to know...)
These ideas are quite contrary, or rather alien to the way we
are accustomed to thinking. Surely this is heresy in our elementary
schools? What role should the intellect, the rational and scientific
temperament of occidental man play in the study of the fluid, playful
outlook of oriental wisdom? How does a student schooled in
Aristotelian logic approach that which is both, neither and/or either
movement and stillness, "a" and "not-a", which, when named, ceases to
be itself...yet is like unto the mother of all things named? Logic
makes itself look silly when dealing with an "ultimate concern" which
is concerned with a way of non-concern, such as wu-wei, or "non-
attachment". Yet reason is the most valued tool of our civilization,
aspect of our mind, and can rightly point us in the direction of that
which is "beyond" or transcends rational thought itself. The way it
is used to point is often unto that of a short-circuit, or a snake
biting it's tail. "Logical knowledge is comparable to a finger which
points to the object and disappears when the object is seen", writes
S.Radakrishnan. And it should disappear, once it's purpose has been
served. Yet often we mistake the finger for the moon, as our vision
is incorrectly focused. By constantly looking outward and hoping to
grasp on paper what can only be known within is somewhat like a
proverbial mosquito biting an iron bull. The "Four Maxims" of the
Nichiren Zen sect follow:
"A special transmission outside the Scriptures;
No dependence upon words and letters;
Direct pointing to the soul of man;
Seeing into one's nature and essence, the attainment
of Buddhahood."
The problem with the description of any religion can be seen as one
of where to draw boundarylines. 'It is this or that, here or there,
of greater or lesser magnitude in one or another of it's aspects...
philosophically, morally or aesthetically...' Arguing among
ourselves as to the precise locations in the spacetime continuum, the
strength of influence in the ideological continuum within our
skulls...we reason among ourselves as to "...what we have here...".
Here(?) is the problem of topic selection; our angle of vision, and
what we are focusing on. Contrasting the figure and ground, whole
and part. The ends and means of any inquiry and exposition. One can
process the economic, social, political or historical aspects of a
religion, drawing boundaries and filling in the dots, but surely
we'll gain the most valuable knowledge by studying and practicing a
synthesis of those teachings held in highest esteem by the teachers
themselves.
This teaching may be seen, distorted through language and
reasoning by way of course, as a many-robed, multi-coloured "way of
no boundaries". No boundaries as a Noun - a metaphysic, a Verb - an
ethic, and a Preposition - a theology. One needs but to peel back
the layers of the onion, trying to cry quietly.
"Taking up one blade of grass,
use it as a sixteen-foot golden Buddha."
"The ordinary man seeks to make himself the centre of his universe,
the universe of the sage is at his centre."
"The greatest politeness
Is free of all formality.
Perfect conduct
Is free of concern.
Perfect wisdom
Is unplanned.
Perfect love
Is without demonstrations.
Perfect sincerity offers
No guarantee."
If there is, or can be reasonably or valuably seen to exist,
a common unitive thread between the eastern spiritual traditions,
and, speculatively, subtly woven through the west, what would this
thread, or "way" be like? How does one come to understand that which
is limitless, without boundary? Just what is this state of mind we
read about and put to intellectual scrutiny? Satori, Mukti, Nirvana,
Wu-Wei, Tao, Sambodhi, Sat-Cit-Ananda? Unfortunately, this "state of
being", "way" is of such a nature that the more we try to describe it
by subjecting it to logic, the less it becomes clear. A suitably
analogical paradox is that of our physicists' description of the
properties of light and the subatomic realm, yet we accept the
conclusions of the scientist as not merely vague pipe-dreams.
No boundaries.
There is a difficulty, if not impossibility in accurately
describing and "proving" that their are many roads, but only way to
'truth'. Such also that the source and state of awareness and spring
of action of all enlightened seers of this truth is one and the same,
whether seen through bhakti, jnana or karma yoga, prayer to Christian
Trinity, zazen, or the voices of a southern baptist choir. For the
proof lies not in reasoned analyses but in personal experience. Like
Thomas Young's two-slit experiment demonstrating the dual
wave/particle(yin/yang) nature of light, few at least are capable of
experiencing "that" "higher, blessed" state. Verification seems to
play hide-and-seek in the omnipresent silence, the ripple and that
which is rippled, whistling in harmony, dancing in lila.
The
flowers,

Easy to
paint.

The roots,
difficult.

"Vaisvanara(A)...Taijasa(U)...Prajna(M)...(and)...The fourth
is that which has no elements, which cannot be spoken of, into which
the world is resolved, benign, non-dual. Thus the syllable aum is
the very self. He who knows it thus enters the self with his self."
The natural outcome of all this, of the metaphysical,
epistemological, philosophical and theological lines of thought and
analysis, should be something which any small child has the
capability to grasp. Not a child born lacks the capability to
empathize with the syllable aum. If he is of an intellectual bent,
he may wish to learn it's origin, study the scriptures, etc... If he
possesses artistic flair, the symbol easily lends itself as muse...
With the light of bhakti, it may become a living reality. We reap,
however, what we sow. We must decide whether we want our educational
themes to "divide and conquer" or "unite and pacify". For children
are the future of any tradition, as it is in them that dogma and
ritual, whether benificial or malevolent, is nurtured and
reproduced. This perhaps was expressed most eloquently as "Love God,
and do as ye will", before which we were told to love thy neighbour
as thy self. This most simple and universal principle is capable of
mutual acceptance, and fully teachable to children. Our failure to
execute these simple ideas can be found under "W" in any history
textbook. We are fortunate, however, to live beneath an entity (dare
we say deity?) which continues to rise in the 'morn with a fresh
supply of beautific energy. (or...we're lucky that "natural" laws
are kind enough to allow the earth to continue it's rotation and
revolution about a middle-aged gaseous sphere.)
--Now, I must say, my professor later suggested to me a book which
was most influential in dissolving his former belief that all
religions are saying the same thing, and that mystics all have the
same experiences. It is by R.C.Zaehner, called "Discordant Concord"
(shit... or Concordant Discord) Anyway, I recall he had some very
convincing arguments, however, I've lost the book... if anyone finds
it, you may find it useful as a ground for polemical debate.
--I wrote another essay on how the MOQ would be beneficial to
Liberation Theology, which arose in the turbulent Latin America of
the 60's... Jose Comblin, a couple of years ago, called for a "true
liberation of theology....which will entail a Theology of Freedom" If
that's not pursuing Dynamic Quality, I don't know what is. In it I
tried to show that Quality is the most beautiful term for uniting
"discordant" religious beliefs and practices, because really, they
are "concordant". If anyone wants to read it, let me know. It's
quality leaves something to be desired, but I think I was on the
right track.
rich
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:56 BST