Hi Jeff and MOQ Folks
On 2 Mar 99, at 14:01, Jeffrey W. Travis wrote:
> >While living,
> >Be a dead man.
> >Be completely dead,
> >And then do as you please.
> >And all will be well.
>
> Or how about this quote, which would normally be considered highly
> Mystical -- what can you say about it from a Rational point of view?
> Horse? Anyone else?
Gee, thanks Jeff :) Why don't I keep my fingers shut.
This is a tricky one, to be sure.
If we look at the above passage in the context of Nirvana then a rational approach
would
hardly seem to do it justice. However Pirsigs rephrasing of it, seems to give it
additional
context.
While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns
Kill them completely
And then follow Dynamic Quality
And Morality will be served
The essence of which seems to point to the subjugation of the intellect in order to
reach
the state associated with Nirvana.
One of the things that strikes me immediately is that Pirsig appears to equate the
self with
intellectual patterns. This is interesting as I would have thought that there is a
case to be
made that the self is created as by much social and biological value as intellectual.
Is Pirsig
(or the Buddha) suggesting that it is the intellect that needs to be destroyed in
order to
reach or experience Nirvana?
Nirvana, according to Gampopa, has three characteristics:
1) It's Nature is emptiness
2) It's appearance is freedom from illusion
therefore:
3) It's characteristic is liberation from all suffering
So from the above:
The self/intellect is not empty
The self/intellect is a shackling to illusion
The self/intellect is the cause of suffering
I'm not too sure about the first statement, but the second and third seem to make
sense in
an odd sort of way.
'Reality' as a product of the intellect is illusory. This is not to say that reality
is a figment of
the imagination but that what we experience or assume to experience is not what is
'real',
just how it appears to us. We form reality via the filter of the senses and by what we
expect
reality to be. What is 'real' is not something that we can directly know - at least
not through
any intellectual means. We do not directly experience reality.
Suffering is caused by rigid adherence to our belief in what is, in fact, illusory. As
reality
would appear to be a product of what each person experiences there can be no true
concurrence of knowledge. If this is true then we are forever condemned to argue over
the
true nature of reality. Only by agreeing to compromise on what is real can we cease
our
arguments and disgreement, but we do so in the knowledge that what we are agreeing to
is
still not what is real only an agreed upon compromise.
That's my opening thoughts on the above passage. Does anyone have anything to add to
this or any thoughts as to where I may be going wrong.
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
