THE BUDDHA WALKED UP TO A HOT DOG STAND AND SAID, "MAKE ME ONE WITH
EVERYTHING".
Rich, Roger, Mary, Glove and Y'all:
I've been away, camping at nine thousand feet where there are no
computers. (THE HOWLING COYOTES ROCKED) Upon my return I read all your
posts with great interest. Wish I could respond to everyone of them, but
none of us has the time. I'll try to let go of the older posts to
preserve the momentum. I think its safe to conclude that this thread has
been aimed at developing a broad picture of the entire MOQ while putting
the various kinds of Quality in perspective. Is that it?
I hope to paint that big picture in a way that is easy to imagine,
although I have no clear vision of how it will turn out. All I have is a
little time and a great desire.
Just for a frame a reference, I should say that Rich's view is closest
to mine. I think Mary and Roger have made some especially good points
and Glove's view is very different than my own. It seems he has his own
world. How lonely is that? But this is not a personality contest and no
offence is intended. I only refer to the views expressed in your posts.
The dictionary defines Lila as "noun. Hinduism. Creation seen as the
playful activity of a god. from the Sanskrit. Play, sport, diversion."
Carmen posted this defination a few weeks ago and said she thought it
was a good metaphor for some aspect of the MOQ. But I think Pirsig chose
the word quite intentionally and the meaning is a metaphor for the
entire MOQ, not just some aspect of it.
The big picture is the entire universe "as the playful activity of a
god". It may be obvious but I'll say it anyway. This ain't no sermon. It
ought not be taken literally. These are just metaphors that help us get
a handle on the concepts.
I think Rich is right to turn to the East for explainations of the MOQ.
Western style thinking is real good for the nuts and bolts stuff, but we
gotta go East for the big picture. The classic approach is good for
repair and maintainence, but the romantic imagination is required for
the actual ride. And the ride is what its all about, no? (The real cycle
is yourself, of course.) Frankly, I think its getting kinda stuffy and
claustrophobic in this garage and it about time we took her out for a
spin.
So, back to the playful god metaphor. This idea is not just reflected in
the book's title or the main character's name. It is reflected in the
overall meaning of Pirsig's view. Its certainly not a new idea, but
Pirsig has put flesh on the bones. It remains a spiritual concept even
in Pirsig's care, but he fills in the details so that the metaphors are
more easily comprehended by a Western mind. He shows how the ancient
Eastern ideas fit in beautifully with contemporary Western physics and
cosmology. No faith is required, only imagination.
The playful god image can also be seen in the dance of Shiva, the god of
creation and destruction. Well, OK, the connotation with Shiva is more
like terror than playfulness, but the underlying idea is the same. In
the case of Lila or Shiva we get a sense of paradox, but not
contradiction. Both describe the idea that god sacrifices itself to
become the phenomenal world. On the other side of the coin, we
phenomenal beings sacrifice ourselves to become divine. The cosmic dance
of creation and destruction can be seen as a kind of playfulness once
the fear of sacrifice is conquered. We sacrifice our egos and our
attachments to phenomenal reality to achieve divinity while god (DQ)
sacrifices itself by dropping down into time, space and materiality to
create the phenomenal world, to become the maya. (SQ)
Alan Watts called this dance "God playing hide and seek with himself".
We can even see this same idea in our own Christian tradition, although
its been distorted by a rather child-like theology. "Jesus died for your
sins" is better seen as God sacrificed himself to become human so that
Humanity might realize it's sacred divinity. As the Christ said, "The
kingdom of heaven is spread out upon the face of the earth but men do
not see it." This makes sense because in the final analysis DQ and SQ
are just two kinds of the same thing. Everything is Quality, and
everything is in engaged in the playful dance. The distinction between
static and dynamic aspects of Quality can be seen as the distinction
between two dancers who both move to the same music and in response to
one another. It takes two to Tango. Yet there is ultimately a unity
between them. As the Christ said, "I and the Father are one".
There has been a question as to how we can originate out of DQ and at
the same time the thrust of all evolution is a return to DQ. But if one
imagines the MOQ as the playful dance between DQ and SQ, I think that
question becomes meaningless. It is not so much about the beginning and
the end so much as a constant back and forth, a dialogue of creation and
sacrifice.
I realize this will all seem rather fuzzy to the classically-minded
philosophers.(Who, by the way, have totally dominated this cyber-forum
for obvious reasons.)
But let me assure you the image I've tried to paint in no way
contradicts the nuts and bolts issues. It only puts them in a broadly
conherent context.
Can you see it?
Hugs and kisses, David B.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST