Hi Mark,
On Jul 3, 2011, at 2:44 AM, 118 wrote: > 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. Which translations of the Buddha's words were you reading? Which translation of RMP's words were you reading? > 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. I love all songs. Woodland birdsong is lovely. Would you agree? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6egZr8-8k2k&NR=1 Anything to say about intuition? I would like to hear of yours and other's experience. > Cheers, > Mark Marsha > > 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
