On 9/21/10 11:04 AM, "John Carl" <[email protected]> wrote: >John > The way I usually use the term transcendant, is normally an intellectual > process. It's where you abstract the patterns present and think about them. > Ultimately, thinking about "think about" is a transcendant experience. > Going beyond "thinking about" is Transcendant in the mystical sense. Going > beyond intellectuality. Going beyond abstraction. I think that's what the > Zennies are all about, not religion.
Zennies maybe all about "going beyond" ordinary experience. However they are also very much about, like every other religion, very specific religious practices organized and managed by "priests" financially supported by their societies. Just like all religions. >>DT before >> Next are you going to claim that Zen Buddhism, or any type of Buddhism for >> that matter, is not a religion? >John > Yes. Alan Watts makes a very good case for that claim in Psychotherapy, > East and West. For instance, religion makes metaphysical claims and Buddha > avoided those. [Dave] Stephen Batchelor in "Buddhism Without Beliefs" make claims similar to Watts. Here is an "Eastern" response to those claims: http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/punnadhammo.htm First Buddha's claim that suffering is primary condition of human beings is a metaphysical claim. Second, all religion to some degree or another is primarily "psychotherapy." (How effective or "good" one is compared to another is an open question.) Third, when push come to shove, all religions are rooted in claims of extraordinary experiences by "brujos." If cultural conditions are right and the "brujos" message and charisma speak to the spiritual needs of the time, religions form around them. Really "good" brujos' (Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed) psychotherapeutic messages and practices were universal, timely, and adaptable (static and dynamic) that they have survived down through the ages. >>DT before >> And that an integral part of their religious >> experiences are not practices specifically design to evoke mystical >> experiences and understanding them? And are you then going to deny that a >> majority of all mystical experiences reports are linked by the people >> experiencing them to either depression (think James, maybe Pirsig) or >> religious practice (think Buddha,Mohamed,Moses, Brigham Young et al)? >> >John > I'd say that philosophical mysticism is of a different kind than that > Brigham experienced ( or faked experiencing, depending on who you talk to) > You seem to be equating mysticism with the supernatural, whereas > philosophical mysticism is more along the lines of the metaphysical > position that reality is beyond knowability. [Dave] Concerning "transcendent" I only am concerned with the often combining of the first and second definition as it relates to mysticism. Although according to Austen in "Zen Brain-Reflections" Buddhism does not seem to subscribe to "philosophical mysticism" while I think Pirsig to some degree does. [Austen in Zen Brain-Reflections] "However, turning to a Buddhist dictionary, on finds that the "selfless" experience of "oneness" is defined as "the experience of true reality." And throughout all his books he suggests that these experiences are all mystical in nature. [Dave] If we start with: > a : exceeding usual limits : surpassing > b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience. And turn b into b1 thusly: > b1 : surpassing the limits of ordinary experience. If 'b1" describes mystic experiences in the "Buddhist" sense of being the best "experience of true reality" beyond all static patterns to some dynamic core, Is that a good thing? Is it a good thing that everyone undergo Buddhist "psychotherapy" to hopefully obtain some "code of art" existence? And more importantly are all of these claims really true? Is achieving and maintaining a Buddha level of existence really a better, a truer experience of reality than ordinary existence? Why does all this matter? Well when we turn to the science of "mystical states" that Austen reviews and relates to Zen experiences, practices, and claims something very troubling to me turns up. "Kill the intellect" turns out to be somewhat of a physiological fact of long term Zen practice. Numerous neurological imaging studies indicate that the logical, rational, linguistic, "self" parts of the brain are suppressed or turned down and the visual, holistic, other, snap judgment parts are amped up. This also corresponds to turning up activities in the older (evolutionary speaking) parts of the brain while turning down activities in the more recently evolved "intellectual" cortex parts. Thus my wondering whether Zen practice, regardless of it's perceived or actual benefits, is actually a regressive or older brain state(s) that we have evolved beyond. Rather than one that surpasses, is better than, all others in providing a "true", "good", "best" account of reality. >[John] > In my view, assigning DQ to mysticism is the wrong way to go. I think > Pirsig ultimately rejects this horn. [Dave] I'm not sure he does. Ultimately I think he straddles the East/West fence. Whether Western red cedar or bamboo pickets both lead to an uncomfortable existence and a damned sore crotch. Don't worry about answering right away, I'm out of here for a few days. Dave Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
