From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Dec 19 2004 - 02:51:08 GMT
Sam, msh, Chin and all:
Sam said:
I would want to argue (along the lines of MSH's recent post) that
bus-driving can be a mystical experience if it is done in the right way, as
can seeing your hand after a stroke, or seeing your beloved afresh after 20
years. These are all wonderful examples of Quality breaking through our
static patterns.
dmb says:
I read this sort of thing all the time around here and I wouldn't disagree
with it exactly, but I think the notion has to be highly qualified. As I
understand it, when trying to express mystical insights there is an emphasis
on the simplicity of it all. We often hear the idea that what we seek in not
some far away secret but is right in front of you, right here, right now.
There is an emphasis on the no-big-dealness of it all, the perfect
ordinariness of it all. But I think this is not to be construed to mean that
there is no such thing as enlightenment or that there are no illusions to be
overcome. This is not to be construed to mean that we're all Buddhas because
we can notice pretty things or otherwise reduce profound metaphysical truths
to Hallmark cards, you know? Yes, the underlying DQ breaks through and we
get a glimpse of something powerful and amazing. I certainly don't mean to
discount the worthiness of such moments, but I also think it safe to say
that Zen-like bus-driving is certainly something, but its not the same
experience as eating peyote with a bunch of Indians or learning Sanskrit to
penetrate the mysteries of the East. And there is no contradiction at all in
asserting that both are real, but are not to be confused one with the other.
I mean, it just matter of degree, really, but the magnitude is such that one
can't rightly be compared to another. If those brief moments of beauty are a
peek at what's behind the surface, then a full blown mystical experience is
a good long look at it. I mean, people don't drive buses in order to recieve
a vision from the Great Spirit. Further, it seems to me that its too easy to
say that just about anything CAN be mystical, IF its done the right way. I
mean, that's a pretty big "if". And finally, because of Sam's preference for
ONLY devotional mysticism, I think he's giving too much credit to these
devotional kinds of activities or zen-like practices at the expense of
mystical REALIZATIONS. I think the idea behind all the allusions to
simplicity, directness and ordinariness in the context of a larger system
that is very much aimed at enlightenment, is that "it" is right there, but
it isn't. Its right in front of you, but you can't yet see it. Its not some
faraway paradise, but this world is transformed into heaven. As Jesus says
in the Gnostic gospel of Thomas, the kingdom of heaven is spread out upon
the face of the earth, but men do not see it. But, consistent with
mainstream Christianity, it seems that Sam would deny that there is even
such a thing as enlightenment?!?....
Sam continued:
....................What I object to is the metaphysical baggage that gets
tacked on to it all, so that our lives get distorted through its framework.
In other words I see the Jamesian approach as saying you've got to tune
yourself in to get THIS experience (as described by William James etc) and
if you don't have THIS experience then you're a benighted good-for-nothing
stuck in conventional thinking, and you'll never understand the truth about
life - that Quality is THIS particular set of static intellectual patterns.
Whereas if you do tune in to THIS experience then suddenly all will be
clear, you'll be enlightened (aka you'll get to share those static
intellectual patterns) and peace and harmony will rein etc. I see this as a
case of arrested spiritual development, or if I'm feeling rude: 'spiritual
masturbation', as it seems to correlate quite well to the physical sort - in
so far as I understand either ;-)
dmb says:
I detect more than just a whiff of resentment in that, Sam. You seem to take
it as a personal insult that there could be such a thing as a mystical
experience beyond the romanitc surface of things. You seem to deny the very
existence of enlightenment as if it were a personal threat to you. And its
not quite as restrictive and exclusive a thing as you like to portray it.
And while its true that philosophical mysticism is "a particular set of
intellectual static patterns", as are all philosophies, the experience
itself is negatively defined as a vision that goes beyond all such sets. I
mean, sure, we could say that the Buddha was a spiritual athlete and was
some kind of genius for breaking new ground, but he was the oppostite of an
elitist, if that's what you're suggesting. That doesn't mean mystical
visions come to everyone who drives a bus well either, however. Sometimes
that just makes them a good bus-driver and not a mystic, you know? In fact,
these are not very realistic ideas at all and most people can't even drive
well, let alone make a religion out of it.
Sam said:
Mystics are those who know the tradition so well that they are free to
develop or change it; or, to bring out and make explicit those Qualities
within the tradition that had previously been hidden. It's what Pirsig talks
about when he describes the welder, or when he describes the art of
motorcycle maintenance - the motorcycle and the mechanic are one, and there
is a complete fluidity, a complete absence of constraint - but it is
*specifically* built on all that has gone before...
dmb says:
I think we agree on the basic idea that evolutionary movement can't be
achieved without static patterns from which to lauch but, again, I see you
dismissing the non-devotional kind of mysticism as if it didn't exist. You
can disagree and dislike and disrespect it if you like, but denying its
existence is a little absurd. But I wanted to talk about the basic agreement
we share with respect to INTELLECTUAL static patterns. In fact, I've used
the same sort of metaphor to make the same point with respect to
intellectual mechanics instead of the mechanics of "tradition". It seems to
me that mastering the cultural forms well enough that we can begin to get
creative can be done any number of ways. You seem to be suggesting that only
very specific cultural forms can do the trick. That it combination with the
devotional, ritualistic bias leads me to conclude that we have very
different ideas about what constitutes mastery and creativity. It seems that
in our time, as adults, we should be about mastering the intellectual forms
and pushing the envelope there. I mean, do we really need to spend a
lifetime in the church to get socialized, for it to preform it social level
functions upon us and such? How long does that really take? Shouldn't we all
have that down in early adulthood? Don't we then begin to master the forms
of the rational world, the arts, the get a sense of the life of our culture
and learn to play creatively in these too? Not that we leave those earlier
masteries behind, but we start adding to them at a certain point, no? And
this is where philosophical mysticism might become appealing. This is where
the earlier, more naive, beliefs of childhood can start to take on more
depth in the light of other belief systems, other religions, philosophical,
anthropological and historical ideas. If one grew up with christianity, this
process may lead one to exclude dogma, faith and theism, but it still
enriches and deepens the meaning in ways that are more important that those
things. And personally, I don't think this lessens the importance of
christianity at all. I think the idea that it still holds truth, a truth
that is expressed everywhere and is also intellectually respectable is a
vast, vast improvement over a strictly traditional christianity. See, Pirsig
has taken his own advice. He's not being destructive in a degenerate way,
he's offer something better. He's hostile to sectarian views and theism in
general, but unlike most secular humanists he also knows that there was a
baby thrown out with the bathwater. His equation of DQ and religious
mysticism leaves no doubt as to how central it is to his whole view, but he
also makes it very clear that this should be understood within an
intellectual framework, not a traditional one. Its just more playful, open
and dynamic even if its not any more true. And again, this is not to exclude
third level stuff, but to work with it at a certain level. Are we not
philosophers?
Asked what kind of ritual or meditation he liked to use, Campbell answered
simply, "I underline passages in books."
Naturally, I underlined that particular passage in that particular book.
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 Dec 19 2004 - 02:54:00 GMT