From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 06 2005 - 14:27:09 GMT
Hi Paul,
> Platt said:
> You seem to suggest that the mystic experience is something special, but
> according to Ken Wilber who has made a thorough study what mystics say
> about the mystic "experience," it is nothing more than your "everyday,
> ordinary consciousness." (From "The Spectrum of Consciousness," p.298). I
> assume you disagree.
>
> Paul:
> I haven't read the book or the passage you have taken this from so I
> don't know whether I agree or disagree without knowing the context in
> which he made the statement. 'Ordinary mind' reminds me of Shunryu
> Suzuki. It is used in the sense of not consciously and actively striving
> for this or that understanding, not trying to 'grasp' something complex,
> not getting excited about or carried away by insights or breakthroughs, not
> taking sides, just sitting, that kind of thing.
Here's more "context," taken from Wilber's book, "Eye to Eye," pages 316-
17: In the following, the Ultimate State of Consciousness was previously
defined by Wilber as "absolute reality."
"So what does it mean that you can't enter the Ultimate State of
Consciousness? What does it mean that never, under any circumstances, at
any time, through any effort, can you enter the Ultimate State of
Consciousness? Only that the Ultimate State of Consciousness is already
fully and completely present. And that means the Ultimate State of
Consciousness is in no way different from your ordinary state of
consciousness or from and other state of consciousness that you might have
at this or any moment. 'Your ordinary mind, just that is the Tao,' says
Nansen. Whatever state you have now, regardless of what you think of it
and regardless of its nature is absolutely It. You therefore cannot enter
It because you have always been It from the very beginning.
"That the Ultimate State of Consciousness is not a state apart or in any
way different from the Present State of Consciousness is the point so many
people seem to miss. Hence, they misguidedly seek to engineer for
themselves a 'higher' state of consciousness, radically different from
their present state of awareness, wherein it is imagined that the Supreme
Identity can be realized. Some imagine that this particular and exclusive
'higher' state of consciousness is connected with specific brain-wave
patterns, such as predominant amounts of high amplitude alpha waves.
Others maintain that an individual's neurological system must undergo
several changes evolving as it were to the point where this 'higher' state
of consciousness and finally emerge. Some even believe that physiological
stress has to be removed through meditative techniques and then the
'higher' state will result. But all this chatter totally overlooks the
inescapable fact that any state of consciousness that can be entered, or
that emerges after various practices must have a beginning in time, and
this is not and could never be the times and eternal Ultimate State of
Consciousness."
> Platt said:
> My painting doesn't [feed the baby] because of my lack of ability. But I
> know painters who make a nice living at it, meaning their babies never go
> hungry. I suspect you do, too.
>
> Paul:
> I can only think that you have you deliberately missed the point of my
> statement. I was trying to demonstrate that some things are done for the
> pure quality of them, that we are attracted to some experiences and
> behaviours which have nothing to do with the "necessities of survival."
I appreciate your correcting my misinterpretation. When someone misses the
point of a statement I make, I blame myself, not the reader. But, that's
me.
> Platt said:
> How can I not understand mysticism if it's my ordinary, everyday
> consciousness? Isn't mysticism simply what I know before I know anything
> else? If not, perhaps you can explain how I can go about "understanding
> mysticism." According to Pirsig, I experience it everyday when I decide
> "this is better than that."
>
> Paul:
> The pure value which produces the "this is better than that" judgment is
> there to be experienced every day but this cutting edge of experience is
> usually not perceived because existing static intellectual patterns block
> it. The effort to perceive and understand it creates more patterns.
Now that Pirsig has pointed the nature of the cutting edge of experience
as value decisions, it's not all that hard to perceive it.
> Platt said:
> I look forward to be pointed in the direction of "enlightenment."
>
> Paul:
> Your sarcasm makes it difficult for me to respond in the right spirit.
No sarcasm intended. My fault for not imagining how you would take it.
> Anyway, Pirsig recently had this to say on enlightenment: "In Zen training,
> meditation is used to dissipate static intellectual blockage. Complete
> removal of all static blockage constitutes enlightenment." [Pirsig, Sept
> 16th 2004]
I found it most interesting what Chin and Scott wrote about enlightenment.
Do you agree with any or all of what they said? I don't think their
descriptions jibe with Wilber's, but I could be wrong.
Regards,
Platt
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 : Thu Jan 06 2005 - 14:32:31 GMT