From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 06 2005 - 22:57:08 GMT
Hi Platt,
Thanks for asking. Except for this idea that anything to do with the mind
"must have a beginning in time" it pretty much fits everything I have said
so far. It also fits what Pirsig is saying. Pirsig says you need to strip
yourself of the cultural beliefs, or the static patterns. What most Zen
practices teach is the stripping away of the ego, which is pretty much the
same thing. What I believe is that this mystical experience does come from
the mind, in that it is intuitive. I still cannot rule out the idea that it
is actually spirits, angels, souls, or whatever, as I don't believe we are
all born ignorant as an ape, and learn everything we know from experience
from the time we are born. Some of this intuition is in the mind, or can
enter the mind from an outer source, but it could also be evolutionary.
This does not mean that I am saying this is what happens, it is that I am
saying I cannot know what happens. Other than being the recipient of the
highest level mystical experience or revelation of the mind, I don't feel
anyone else can either.
What I do feel, is as Einstein stated that common sense is no more than
prejudices driven into us by the time we are 18 (not a quote); for
specialists the age is not limited to 18.
What I feel is also more like (George) Bernard Shaw stated - "Common sense
is intuitive; enough of it is genius." (paraphrased?)
I must ask, if it comes from the mind, do feelings not also come from the
mind? - and if feelings come from the mind, is it not possible that these
feelings are right?
Also, is science completely free of the mind? - I don't thinks so, but that
is just me. Scientific excellence is not created without passion of the
mind; or maybe even passion of the heart.
Are mathematics completely free of the mind? - these feelings; feelings
such as intuition?
I can't answer this, but I can ask the questions, and can doubt that anyone
else can answer the questions with a high degree of certainty. It begs the
question, "Is this knowledge built in the hardware (brain) or software
(mind).
The Wheat side says this is all in the brain, but the Sweet side says
everything in the world communicates with everything else in the world.
Either way, it still can come from the untapped regions of the brain/mind.
It has been my experience that neither neurology or psychology can answer
these quesitons. It is my belief neither can philsophy or spirituality,
science or astrology, and quite possibly more either and/or all.
I am quite happy with allowing the question to remain open, and know we are
no more than a microcosm of a universe that can control our actions directly
or indireactly.
This stripping of the static patterns and/or ego still makes sense either
way. What we think we know today will most likely be the myth of tomorrow,
and our understanding of the universe could mushroom to a point that
anything we say today could look absolutely rediculous in a few years.
Maybe the secret to advancing our understanding is to quit trying to force
our opinions on those who may be capable of better understanding; including
the children. By keeping our own minds open, and holding ourselves up more
as an example of what not to be as opposed to what to be might better serve
society and the children to answer these questions for us.
Though the question will never die until answered, it may be better to
realize we don't currently know the answer, and open our minds to the
answers as our needs arise -- not pursue enlightenment, but allow it to
happen if we need it to.
Other than this, we can continue to ask the questions we can find the
answers to, and maybe the answer to enlightenment might come from that
direction.
disclaimer -- I have a distrust of those who claim to know the answers.
Chin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: MD Universal Moral Standards
> Hi Scott, Chin:
>
> I appreciate very much your response to my inquiry regarding the nature of
> mystic enlightenment. On that subject, I wonder what you gentlemen think
> of the passage I quoted in today's post to Paul from Ken Wilber,
> reproduced below:
>
> (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."
>
> Thanks in advance for whatever comments you care to make.
>
> 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
>
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 - 23:13:42 GMT