RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 02 2005 - 19:10:44 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Re: Is Morality relative?"

    Chin, Sam, msh and all:

    Chin said:
    "But when the mind is quiet and still . . . " you can engage in your child's
    homework without distraction of what happened at work today, or wifey's
    being pissed off at you because you forgot the milk, or whether or not you
    will be able to make that hole in one tomorrow.
    Inversely when you engage in your child and her homework, on wifey and her
    needs, on that hole at the other end of the green, or work, through the
    attitude of a child, where your total focus is on the moment, that thing
    right in front of you, you have quieted your mind; you are open to a
    mystical experience; you may be in it."

    dmb replies:
    I'm all in favor of paying attention to things without distractions and I
    have a wife and child too. But I also have to say that what you have
    described here seems alot more like "concentrating" or "focusing" the mind
    rather than making it quiet. Or more simply put, what you've said here is
    real nice and all that, but its not what I'm talking about. In fact, you're
    talking about conventional behaviour in the static world and this is pretty
    much exactly what I'm NOT talking about. See?

    Also, I have to take issue with your suggestion that being a husband or a
    dad is a mystical experience. This seems to trivialize the matter and it
    tends to undermine what ever clarity might have been produced by my efforts.
    I very much doubt that this is your intention, but I believe this is the
    effect of your Rockwellian Zen.

    Let me explain in a more specific and substantial way. It seems that the
    heart of your point is pretty well summarized by saying we ought to be fully
    engaged, to get to the point "where your total focus is on the moment". So
    let's think about that for a couple of minutes and break it down in terms of
    that blindspot I keep refering to, eh? There is most certainly an emphasis
    on the "Now" in philosophical mysticism in general and particularly in Zen
    Buddhism. And it is more than just related to what I was actually trying to
    say about clearing and quieting the mind. Its at the very heart of it.

    Keep in mind that we are talking about the mystical experience here. In
    Pirsig's terms we are then talking about an experience that comes before
    intellectual divisions, before such things as subjects and objects are
    percieved, before rationality or cultural values are used to shape and
    define that experience. And one of the things that's easy to forget is that
    time and space are among those divisions. Time and space are concepts just
    as much as subjects and objects. These elements are all tied together in the
    web of static concepts that constitute our world view, our common sense
    perceptions, our idea of sanity in the everyday world. Forgetting this, or
    more likely, never examining the assumption in the first place, the Western
    mind hears about the "Now" of Zen and thinks of it in terms of his
    worldview. And this is where the blindspot comes in to do its damage. The
    Westerner can't quite shake the idea of the self in space and time and so
    imagines that being in the "Now" is a matter of maintaining one's focus on
    each successive moment as it passes by, as a matter of paying attention
    through each tick of the clock.

    That is the misconception. If that's what's in your cup, pour it out.

    The actual idea of the "Now" is more like eternity, timelessness, the
    infinite. See, if we are talking about the apprehension of the
    pre-intellectual and undivided reality, there is no such thing as time or
    space. There is no such thing as things. That's why we call it Nothingness,
    not because it is black emtpy space. No, "black", "empty" and "space" are
    concepts that come later and are part of the divided, static world.

    And I should add at this point that this is why I think its such a huge
    mistake on the part of theistic religions to think about God and salvation
    in terms of a historical drama. That confuses eternity with what goes on in
    the field of space and time. Its really quite a catastrophic
    misunderstanding. We metaphors refering to spiritual realities are taken for
    descriptions of historical facts, there is no way they can be properly
    understood.

    In the same way, the word "eternity" does not refer to linear time going on
    and on without end, it refers to an undivided reality where there is no time
    because time divides. There is no space because space divides. In the
    undivided experience, there is no thing. Its not that there are things "out
    there" and we are forever prohibited from knowing their true nature. No.
    There is no in or out, observer or observed, just experience without any
    such divisions. Its hard to imagine because imagination is nothing BUT
    divisons. And that's exactly what we're trying to overcome in the mystical
    experience.

    As Alan Watt's puts it, we have to lose our minds and come to our senses.
    Its like taking off the cultural glasses we normally use to interpret the
    world and looking at it directly for a change.

    But, by all mean, kiss your wife and nuture your daughter's young mind.
    That's a good thing. It just so happens to be off the topic and beside the
    point, that's all.

    dmb

       

     

    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 Jan 02 2005 - 19:27:45 GMT