Hello everyone On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Dan, in reflection of our last conversation i took the effort > > to re-read some of huxley's Perennial, to tune in on some things we > > spoke of, and thing you coined in the following posts > Made a little comment for you, if you like the perennial to have, i > > have the pdf,if you like it for further investigation, it is a > > difficult work, very diffracted summarised, but filled with > > quality.
Hi Adrie Yes, I would like a copy, please. > > > Aldous Huxley quoting Chuang Tzu in the perennial philosophy > > "Do not ask wether the principle is in this or that; it is in all > > beings.It is on this account that we apply to it the epithets of > > supreme, universal , total...It has ordained that all things should > be limited, but is itself unlimited, infinite. > As to what pertains to manifestation, the principle causes the > > succession of its phases, but is not this succession. > It is the author of causes and effects. It is the author of > > condensations and dissipations. > (Birth and death, changes of states), but is not itself > condensations and dissipations. All proceeds from it and is under > > its influence. > It is in all things, but is not identical with beings, > for it is neither differentiated nor limited"-end Chuang Tzu. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > * does this ring a bell , Dan? it should.(adrie) > --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan: Yes it does ring a bell, you're right. > > But it gets better if you take this in consideration, > Mr Pirsig in the copl' annotations. > > quote Pirsig(out of context) > "So It has really been a shock to see how close Bradley is to the > > MOQ. Both he and the MOQ are expressing what Aldous Huxley called > > "The Perennial Philosophy," which is perennial, I believe, because > > it happens to be true. Bradley has given an excellent description > > of what the MOQ calls Dynamic Quality and an excellent rational > > justification for its intellectual acceptance. It and the MOQ can > > be spliced together with no difficulty into a broader explanation > > of the same thing. > > *(It and the moq can be spliced together etc, incredibly > > important.)Adrie > > Chuang Tzu , in his this or that approach, is deviating from the > > negative negation, not this , not that-neti-neti, negative > > theology. > > Tzu is pointing out towards "this, that", "all off it at the same > > time" > dynamic quality, neither differentiated nor limited, > he is saying undefinable and infinite definable at the same time > > Pirsig did the same, deviating away from the negative negation. > Its all pointing out towards the given fact, that there is no need > > for a bridge between the East and West, because there is no gap > between them, not in the moq, in this context. Dan: Right... in the context of the MOQ there is no gap. Thank you, Adrie, for your thoughtful response, Dan > greetz, Adrie > > > > 2010/10/17 Dan Glover <[email protected]> > >> "What is the wisdom contained in the Upanishads? To answer, I must say >> something about the word Upanishad. The Sanskrit roots mean "sit down >> near" - Upanishadic wisdom is the sort that you might get by sitting >> down near your guru or spiritual master and engaging in a dialogue. It >> is quite distinct from the sort of wisdom that you might get by a >> detached pursuit of truth for truth's sake, and it is miles apart from >> the knowledge that you gain when your objective is a course grade or >> some other credential. >> >> "Moreover, the Upanishadic wisdom obtained through intense interaction >> with a guru is not quite the same as that attained simply by a careful >> reading of the Upanishads. An intellectual attempt that is not also a >> spiritual search can get no further than a surface hold on Upanishadic >> truth. Upanishadic wisdom is, in the last analysis, something that >> needs to be recognized nonconceptually. Hence, I cannot pretend to be >> transmitting Upanishadic wisdom to you. What I aim to do is simply >> explain the concepts that might provide the intellectual bearings for >> a spiritual search that eventually does away with the need for >> intellectual bearings." [Guidebook to ZMM] >> >> Dan comments: >> >> When a person's intellectual cup of tea is full to the brim, there is >> no room to form a Dynamic understanding that does away with the need >> for intellectual tea. All they have a taste for is intellectualism. >> They want to talk instead of listen... they want to shout out how much >> they know and how smart they are for knowing it... they tend to >> denigrate those who make any attempt to shock them out of the >> intellectual malaise in which they have unwittingly become ensnared. >> >> "To get an idea of Upanishadic truth, you need to have some >> understanding of two key concepts, "Brahman" and "Atman." The word >> Brahman comes from the Sanskrit root that means "to grow." The >> Upanishadic thinkers used this word to refer to the source of all >> beings, that from which everything in the universe grows. Brahman is >> thus a creator of sorts, but not like our Western God, who creates out >> of nothing a world that is distinct from God. Brahman grows into or >> becomes the many things of the world. At the same time, Brahman is not >> exhausted by the world of things but remains its own reality, which is >> true reality. One must not reduce Brahman to the many things that >> Brahman somehow becomes; rather, the many are to be reduced to >> Brahman. >> >> "The Upanishads are filled with stories in which spiritual masters >> enjoin spiritual seekers to peel away the layers of the universe in >> order to discover the subtle essence of all. This discovery, which is >> to be prized beyond all else, is not attainable through ordinary ways >> of knowing, for ordinary perceptual/conceptual knowledge is geared >> toward marking off qualities from other qualities and objects from >> other objects, while Brahman is neither a particular object nor a >> particular quality but that which underlies all objects and qualities, >> the unqualified ground, the Pure Object. No wonder, then, that it is >> spoken of as "that from which words and thought return without having >> attained it" (Taittiriya Upanishad, Ch. II, sect. 4, 1.1). >> Nonetheless, although concepts cannot get a hold on Brahman, they can >> be used !o point the way toward it. The Upanishads are full of >> analogies that are meant to provide a notion of Brahman (e.g., the >> salt that pervades the water and is in our awareness without itself >> being an object of direct perception). And lest seekers confuse the >> analogy with the reality, they are continually reminded that Brahman >> is neti, neti, "not this, not this." Analogies and negations do not >> attain the goal but they at least mark off a path from which seekers >> will eventually leap into transcendental consciousness." [ibid.] >> >> Dan comments: >> >> Dynamic Quality of the MOQ is not the same as the concept of God. It >> is Pure Quality or the Pure Object Brahman. We can point to it >> intellectually and via analogy but never gain a grasp on it >> conceptually. It is not this, not that. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Dan >> 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 >> > > > > -- > parser > 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 > 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
