From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 06 2003 - 23:36:43 BST
Rick, Sam and all:
CAMPBELL
It seems quite incongruous to use the name 'God' to signify THAT which we
experience immediately, before thought has sundered it into a world of
things. This may be what Hindus mean by 'Brahmin' and Buddhists by 'Tathata'
(that-ness), but it is certainly not what the majority of thoughtful
Christians have understood as God the Father.
RICK
'that which we experience immediately' sounds very much how Pirsig describes
DQ.
DMB says:
Yes, exactly. Thank you very much. And the sundered world is the world of
static patterns, of things. I'd say this equation is at the heart of the
MOQ. How does Pirsig put it? When Dynamic Quality is associtated with
religious mysticism, its produces an avalanche of information as to what DQ
is. (That's only a paraphrase from memory, but it is true to the actual
quote in Lila.) I realize that neither Hinduism nor Buddhism is synonymous
with religious mysticism, but all lack an attachment to that 'God the
Father' image and share instead this idea of a direct, unmediated experience
that we find in the MOQ. (The perennial philosophy, which was ancient to the
ancients, expresses this too.) I think immediate and unmediated mean the
same thing, and 'unmediated' is used only to make sure the reader avoids the
misconception that we're merely talking about how quickly something takes
place. Plus it makes a nice, neat duality with 'mediated'.
If I could offer an alternative to Sam's formulation, that DQ is an aspect
of God, I'd say that DQ and God are two metaphors that refer to the same
mystery. As the Campbell quote and my comments, hopefully, make plain, this
is not a problem unless the religion's metaphors have been taken as actual
descriptions of actual things. That's when the incongruities appear. That's
when it becomes difficult to say DQ and God are both reference to Brahmin.
Like the 'affect images" used to described how a living mythological symbol
evokes in us an immediate response, metaphors for God are not concepts to be
understood by the intellect, but are a reference to an ineffable realization
that occurs during an ineffable experience. One of the main features of a
mystical experience is what's called it's "noetic quality", which is to say
one walks away from the experience with the distinct feeling that one now
KNOWS something about reality. There are degrees of realization, but the one
at the top exposes one to the realization that reality is undivided and that
you are that reality. There is no distinction between you and God. Thou art
that. And the idea of striking responsive chords in a living mythological
system, is to point the participant toward this realization, either step by
step, or in the case of mystery religions and peyote ceremonies, a
full-blown mystical experience is evoked all at once.
One more note on this idea....
I don't mean to suggest that Christianity fails to express this same core,
mystical version of the divine, its just tough to see it. Its been obscured
by the literalisms and such that we've been discussing. Its been covered
over and buried, but as is the case with all religions, it too reflects the
DQ that created it. Stripped of any doctrines, statements like "I and the
Father are one" are transformed from meaning two thirds of the trinity, to a
declaration the reality is undivided. "My kingdom is not of this world"
becomes a rejection of the belief that the sundered world of things is
reality. Atonement looses its moralistic overtones and also says the world
is undivided; At-One-ment. The five piercings of the Christ are not just
wounds for us to pity, but symbols of the five senses the keep us attached
to the static, sundered world, which is death.
Campbell tells a story about a time he took a sauna with a Bishop. No, wait.
Maybe it was a cardinal in a hot tub. Or was the Pope in a bubble-bath? In
any case, as you might have predicted, they had an informal conversation
about God. The conversation went something like this. As Campbell put it,
the man "had the sense" to ask about a PERSONAL god, which I think we can
safely take to mean that 'God the Father' image.
Do you believe in a personal God, Dr. Campbell?
No, Father. My intellect will not allow it.
Ah. That is where we need faith, my son.
I don't need faith, Father. I have experience.
The sudsy pontiff said nothing more.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY
FAITH - Noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of
a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or
material evidence. See synonyms at belief. , trust. 3. Loyalty to a person
or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith
Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a
trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the
Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.
HUMORIST MARK TWAIN
FAITH is believing what you know ain't so.
RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY
SECTARIAN adj. 1.) Of or pertaining to sectaries or sects. 2.) narrowly
confined or devoted to a particular sect. 3.) narrowly confined or limited
in interest, purpose, scope, etc. -noun 4.) a member of a sect. 5.) a
bigoted or narow-minded adherent of a sect.
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 Apr 06 2003 - 23:39:13 BST