From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jan 05 2005 - 00:07:27 GMT
Hi Ham (and Marsha)
Ham)You see, when Paul makes a statement like "The primary
'reality-in-itself'
is nothingness", he is preaching nihilism. It should be obvious to a
student of philosophy that whatever is "real" can't be "nothingness". But
Nihilism and Anti-theism are quite fashionable these days, and Pirsig has
played right into it. Belief in a diety is outmoded, unsophisticated,
unworthy of the enlightened intellect. Balderdash!! Mankind has always
searched for a connection with his creator; this desire is innate in human
beings, and some scientists have even speculated that it is built into our
genes. The desire to attain an 'eternal connection', in fact, manifests
man's highest value. Even Marsha, who claims to be an atheist, says:
"Personally, I like what I'm reading of Zen. It's atheistic and finds
everything sacred. I like that in a philosophy/religion." Why do you
suppose.she likes to imagine everything sacred? Because she wants an
all-encompassing Source to believe in. This Source isn't in the Zen 'UM' or
in the MoQ Quality or in the pantheist's Beingness. It is best expressed
for the Western mind, I think, in the concept of an immanent Essence.
Chin)When you speak of sacred in Zen, what you are speaking of is the
Aesthetic Continuum dmb was speaking of earlier. Buddha can be both Deity
and Human. What this Aesthetic Continuum translates to in Zen is Sacred
Reality. What this means is seeing the beauty in the world. It is not a
Being that trancends the world. It is the world, and all the world is
beauty; when you see ugly, you are not within the teachings of Buddha. In
some earlier teachings of Zen, the Buddha was translated as a Diety, as the
Buddha was always there, and always will be there. In this teaching,
Quantama did not become the Buddha, but was from a long line of Buddhas that
taught identical Dharma.
Where Zen is different than western religion, is that it is not a religion,
but more a way of life. It has evolved, and has accepted all teachings,
which include both Diety and atheism. It is not other worldliness, but
wordliness. Enlightenment is not necessary to have a Buddha nature; in fact
everyone has a Buddha nature when they die whether they accept their Buddha
nature in life or not. There is no reason to fear death; death is just a
part of the cycle of life. The Monk and the child molester both are in the
Buddha nature (the child molester still goes to prison). Beauty of the world
is not only in the flower or sunset any more than it is in the swamp, or the
beautiful girl any more than the not so beautiful girl. With the exceptions
of some earlier teachings, you gain no advantage in your rebirth by being a
monk who receives the highest enlightenment over the worker or family member
who never reaches any state of enlightenment. (reaching a state of highest
enlightenment is rare)
Something you said earlier to the nature of "Who will show us what is
right?" -- the answer is we do this ourselves. It is in Western religion
that the idea of an evil flesh comes. In Zen it is something like this;
Right thinking => => right mindfulness => => right action => => right life
Zen is both philosophy and religion, and both seek intellectual awareness,
but Zen does not identify itself as philosophy or religion or intellectual
awareness.
Hope I haven't screwed this up too bad.
In Zen, you 'Can' find the Buddha in motorcycle maintenance.
In fact, you might think of the MOQ as;
Quality thinking => => Quality Mindfulness => => Quality action => =>
Quality life
Chin
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?
> Ian --
>
>
> > Thanks Ham - I didn't respond to Chin, since as you say it went off in
> other
> > directions, before I was sure where we were starting from.
>
> Yes, Chin does tend to 'philosophologize". But his suggestion that theism
> is a dualistic belief system is correct and, I think, pertinent to our
> discussion. In fact, it probably explains why I'm not a theist better
than
> a definition. I don't believe in God (Essence) as an "otherness". The
> concept of an immanent Essence is more like the "subjective idealism" that
> Paul has cited and that others are alluding to when they talk about
> Mysticism.
>
> > On your defintions I'm not actively anti-theist - not yet anyway :-)
> >
> > You inclusion of the word "refusal" in your defintion of athesist is one
> of
> > "intent"
> > I don't believe in a trascendent being, because I see no need to, and so
> far
> > see that anywhere he does get called in to play as just a lazy cop out.
If
> > any evidence led me to the existence of a god as the least far-fetched
> > explanation of anything, I would not refuse to believe though.
> >
> > My doubt concerning the existence of a god is so great that it is
> > not a useful / meaningful / pragmatic starting point (for me) beyond a
> > thought experiment on the subject of god .
>
> I understand exactly where you're coming from. However, I used the word
> "refusal" advisedly because the typical atheist is intransigent in his or
> her unbelief; he is not open to suggestions or arguments to the contrary.
> From what you've said above, I would qualify you as an agnostic, since you
> are at least willing to be convinced. Like Mr.Pirsig, you abhor the
> "religious baggage" of Judeo-Christianity, yet accept the Quality
> metaphysics of MoQ lock, stock and barrel. Indeed, you are an ideal
> candidate for Essentialism, and (unless you consider it proselytizing), I
> think I could convince you that a primary source of existence is not only
> necessary but "useful", "meaningful", and even a "pragmatic starting
point"
> for a workable philosophy.
>
> You see, when Paul makes a statement like "The primary 'reality-in-itself'
> is nothingness", he is preaching nihilism. It should be obvious to a
> student of philosophy that whatever is "real" can't be "nothingness". But
> Nihilism and Anti-theism are quite fashionable these days, and Pirsig has
> played right into it. Belief in a diety is outmoded, unsophisticated,
> unworthy of the enlightened intellect. Balderdash!! Mankind has always
> searched for a connection with his creator; this desire is innate in human
> beings, and some scientists have even speculated that it is built into our
> genes. The desire to attain an 'eternal connection', in fact, manifests
> man's highest value. Even Marsha, who claims to be an atheist, says:
> "Personally, I like what I'm reading of Zen. It's atheistic and finds
> everything sacred. I like that in a philosophy/religion." Why do you
> suppose.she likes to imagine everything sacred? Because she wants an
> all-encompassing Source to believe in. This Source isn't in the Zen 'UM'
or
> in the MoQ Quality or in the pantheist's Beingness. It is best expressed
> for the Western mind, I think, in the concept of an immanent Essence.
>
> Please do me the favor of re-reading my thesis at www.essentialism.net,
Ian,
> this time without the bias of "atheist/theist" labeling. If you don't
find
> what I have to say philosophically meaningful, or at least worth
> questioning, you can return to your atheistic persuasion and I'll desist
in
> my efforts to convince you.
>
> And, thanks for your forthright reply.
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Wed Jan 05 2005 - 00:30:49 GMT