D.T. I'm in a mood. You are warned.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:37 AM, David Thomas < [email protected]> wrote: > 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. > John: Oh--h-h kay. Buddhism as practiced, I'll grant you. Buddhism as preached, I'll argue. Not that I'm learned enough to be a Buddhist fundamentalist (shout out to dan, how to spell the sign?) But I've encountered enough other scholars, who could be construed "fundamentalist" to be convinced that Buddha himself left many questions open. Such as metaphysical views of the world. Smart guy, eh! I like him already. But then what he says furthermore.... well. I'm convinced that he was talking about truths that transcend religious formulations. Even tho religious formulations have evolved in light of his truths! Go figure. That's man for ya. > >>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 Oh kay. Thanks. I'll do it right now. Got a ways, then disengaged. Why? Right here: Mr. Batchelor is enthusiastic about many aspects of the western tradition and words like democratic, secular, agnostic and scientific occur often, with an unexamined positive valuation. but no thanks, not my department, nor cup of tea. If i did, I'd just be agreeing with the author of this polemic against the kind of ideas reacted against. Ewww... I mean, I hate and detest any kind of unexamined valuations. Even positive ones. Is this a sorta straw man type deal or what? D.T. > > First Buddha's claim that suffering is primary condition of human beings is > a metaphysical claim. John: Disagree. I see it as a psychological claim, not a metaphysical one. Something very evident from honest reflection of empirical evidence available. Metaphysics could be construed from such a basis (and have been, obviously) but that ain't the same thing at all. D.T. > Second, all religion to some degree or another is > primarily "psychotherapy." John: Hmmm... well you know Dave, that's a good point. You got me pausing here. A Good thing! Yes. And No. Usually a religion has as its goal some glorification of "higher than self". Psychotherapy is more concerned with the healing of the self - the individual in relation to the whole or God, even. Whereas religion has this underlying motive of self-effacement or abnegation in the face of higher other, or Other. And yeah, I do think the Buddha solves that problem rather than getting stuck in it, thus ultimately transcending what I see as "mere religion". D.T, > (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. > > John: I agree. Especially on the openess of your "open question". I think that's key, actually. > [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. > > John: Well perhaps a better way of saying that is that Buddhism lies outside the classical formulations of Western definition, which Pirsig must, and does, submit to. > [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. > > John: Yeah, I can see how such experience would be mystical experience. But does the example of mystical experience mean a metaphysical mysticism? I think the defintion of "mysticism" has become somewhat mysterious in Austen's writing above. But I take a deep breath before i dive into your following: [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? > > John, letting his breath out in a whoosh: Yes. Any more questions? D.T: > Is it a good thing that everyone undergo Buddhist "psychotherapy" to > hopefully obtain some "code of art" existence? > > John: No. Not everyone. Only those who would benefit. Pearls. Swine. That sorta deal. D.T. > And more importantly are all of these claims really true? > > John: I dunno, Dave. You'll have to ask God. What do you mean? What do you want me to say? The essence of this question begs the answer, "eat and find out". Taste. If you don't like, spit. You wanna know my experience? Yum. Goes down sweet and stays good to the last drop. D.T. > Is achieving and maintaining a Buddha level of existence really a better, a > truer experience of reality than ordinary existence? > > John: Ah, a tricky question. I can only answer for myself of course. And what I've experienced. And yet, what I describe of my delight, elicits gasps of horror, "I couldn't live like that." And yet I do, and love it. So obviously my values are off-kilter. Ask your mom. D.T. > Why does all this matter? > > John: By choice. Because we want it to. D.T: 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: Well then, I'll take your question to be, "as Zen has evolved and is practiced, is it actually any good?" And of course that's a 'good" question. And from my perspective, I'd say 'no". The way its actually worked out in real life, I picture Pol Pot and the Killing fields, China's domination of Tibet and threat to all in the region and I don't see the Buddha in my mind smiling much. But then, the Jesus in my head is pretty pissed off at Christianity too, and I bet Mohammed is frowning over much of what goes on in his name these days. It's all evensies, then. If nothing else. >[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 > Ah, well here we are. And me in a mood. I did warn you tho. I disagree. I don't think Pirsig straddles the fence, i think he transcends the boundaries - a key difference and centered upon contextualization. You view each in the contrast with the other, and you derive an essence common to both. Is how I'd awkwardly say it. Thanks Dave, As Always, a pleasure. John 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
