Hi Marsha, Buddha was not an atheist, he used the current Gods in his meditations. Just read about all the gods that visited him under the trees that he sat under. When Pirsig says Atheist, he means anti-Christian (or Muslem or Jew), he does not mean anti-Gods.
What Pirsig does not understand is that Metaphysics is mystical. It is a deep awareness that comes from beyond the Intellect and is then put to a song of words. I am not sure how many mystics he spoke with to create his story about them, but I believe he is mistaken. Thought is an expression of Reality, in the same way the certain mystics apprehend reality but do not encompass it. Nobody can. Think of some mystical experiences you have had, and you will see. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:30 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dr. Alvord commenting on Ant's PhD thesis: > > In the same paragraph, you make a good point with the quotation from DiSanto > and Steele that the ‘enlightenment experience doesn’t depend upon words and > concepts for its flowering.’ I tend to be ‘head-centered.’ Quotations like > this help the reader to escape the confinement of intellectual static > patterns. > > From your discussion of how enigmatic Zen appears to Westerners, I am > reminded of Pirsig’s statement in LILA: > > > Of the two kinds of hostility to metaphysics he [Phædrus] considered the > mystics’ hostility the more formidable. Mystics will tell you that once > you’ve opened the door to metaphysics you can say goodbye to any genuine > understanding of reality. Thought is not a path to reality. It sets > obstacles in that path because when you try to use thought to approach > something that is prior to thought your thinking does not carry you toward > that something. It carries you away from it. To define something is to > subordinate it to a tangle of intellectual relationships. And when you do > that you destroy real understanding. (1991, p.66) > > > Page 52, Pirsig’s 2000e e-mail to Anthony: ‘For scientists, the mind of the > Buddha and the Mind of God are usually the same, even though the Buddha was > an atheist. I think it is extremely important to emphasize that the MOQ is > pure empiricism. There is nothing supernatural in it.’ Compare this, later > in the thesis, with Northrop’s ‘concepts by intuition’. > > > > > > ___ > > > 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
