"Phædrus remembered Hegel had been regarded as a bridge between Western and Oriental philosophy. The Vedanta of the Hindus, the Way of the Taoists, even the Buddha had been described as an absolute monism similar to Hegel's philosophy. Phædrus doubted at the time, however, whether mystical Ones and metaphysical monisms were introconvertable since mystical Ones follow no rules and metaphysical monisms do. His Quality was a metaphysical entity, not a mystic one. Or was it? What was the difference? He answered himself that the difference was one of definition. Metaphysical entities are defined. Mystical Ones are not. That made Quality mystical. No. It was really both. Although he'd thought of it purely in philosophical terms up to now as metaphysical, he had all along refused to define it. That made it mystic too. Its indefinability freed it from the rules of metaphysics."
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:19 AM, "Michael R. Brown" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The Buddha who can be missed isn't the Buddha. > > The misser who misses the Buddha, though, probably is the misser. > > There's the rub! > > > MRB > >> On 11/24/2013 9:15 AM, MarshaV wrote: >> Hi Ron, >> >> "To understand what he [Phædrus] was trying to do it's necessary to see that >> part of the landscape, inseparable from it, which must be understood, is a >> figure in the middle of it, sorting sand into piles. To see the landscape >> without seeing this figure is not to see the landscape at all. To reject >> that part of the Buddha that attends to the analysis of motorcycles is to >> miss the Buddha entirely. >> >> "There is a perennial classical question that asks which part of the >> motorcycle, which grain of sand in which pile, is the Buddha. Obviously to >> ask that question is to look in the wrong direction, for the Buddha is >> everywhere. But just as obviously to ask that question is to look in the >> right direction, for the Buddha is everywhere. About the Buddha that exists >> independently of any analytic thought much has been said...some would say >> too much, and would question any attempt to add to it. But about the Buddha >> that exists within analytic thought, and gives that analytic thought its >> direction, virtually nothing has been said, and there are historic reasons >> for this. But history keeps happening, and it seems no harm and maybe some >> positive good to add to our historical heritage with some talk in this area >> of discourse. >> >> "When analytic thought, the knife, is applied to experience, something is >> always killed in the process. That is fairly well understood, at least in >> the arts. Mark Twain's experience comes to mind, in which, after he had >> mastered the analytic knowledge needed to pilot the Mississippi River, he >> discovered the river had lost its beauty. ..." >> >> >> ZAMM was a GREAT BOOK!!! LILA too! >> >> >> Marsha > 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
