Rich, Denis, Struan, Diana, MD
Self
In the "Guidebook to Zen" the question is asked, "Is there a convenient label for the
mysterious
self that enjoys a non dualistic relationship with Quality?" (p26) The narrator in
ZZM (p150)
calls for the need to "expand the nature of rationality" After rejecting " rational
self" and
Poincare's " "subliminal self" the guidebook authors settle on " mystical self" with
the following qualifications.
' "mysticism" is always associated with some sort of unitive consciousness, a
consciousness
experientially united with ultimate reality. What is considered ultimate reality may
be variously
named... It may be called Brahman or Tao or Buddha or God or Quality... What matters
with respect to
...mysticism.... is that... the terms be understood to refer to what is ultimate.'
..there are
different ways of speaking of the union... When it is important to obliterate all
notion of twoness,
the word "identity" may hold sway. When it is important NOT to obliterate all notion
of twoness the
word " communion" or " encounter" may be found more acceptable. In either case.. it
may be
appropriate to speak of reunion.'
Later in the book while discussing Atman they say, ' the Atman is never really devoid
of
self-knowledge.. The task of the seeker is somehow to tap into that self-knowledge....
the important
thing ..that is sought: a non dualistic entry into a non dualistic self presence.'
And then the caution. " Certainly, the idea that mystics are dropouts who live in "
another world"
is not unfounded... However... the best of the traditions... emphasize the importance
of extending
the experience of the Ultimate into everyday experience. Mystical experience is the
base from which
one lives in fuller union with everything and everyone."
So to those who would look to the East for the denial of self I would say they are
mis-Guided.
Likewise misguided are those who would assign the "Self" to just the static levels.
It is more reasonable, under the MoQ, to expand the concept of self to include all
those discreet
stable patterns of value that are "You" manifest by a continuous, but discreet, stream
of dynamic
events occurring within a much larger, universal, field of dynamic events; plus the
conjunction of
those patterns or events that are "You" with the patterns or events that are "All"
So that "when
it is important to obliterate all notion of twoness" for example, on the inorganic
level of air or
water, the "Self" knows and understands that it is an integrated part of the whole
inasmuch as it is
dependent on that stability of those larger universal patterns for its stability and
existence.
Likewise ," when it is important NOT to obliterate all notion of twoness" in an
individual moral
choice about whether it is moral, to say for instance authorize the use of biological
weapons, the
answer is blindingly clear, that it is individual, Self-ish, and morally wrong choice.
Freewill
Struan indicates that the crux of the MoQ freewill issue is; 'Can we choose to follow
DQ? I would
like to make the question even harder,: Does the "Self" (if it exists) have the power
to change or
effect DQ or dynamic events in any way?" To those who doubt the possiblity I would
suggest that
they recall the image of that Buddhist monk dousing himself with gasoline and lighting
him-"Self" on
fire to protest the Vietnam War. If this is not graphic, empirical evidence of the
existence of
freewill and its potential to change dynamic events, nothing will convince you. To
the "freewill
illusionsists" remember Churchill's challenge to metaphysicians about there being no
proof that the
Sun is hot as Hell, his answer was, If they truely doubt that I'm perfectly willing to
let them go
there and check it out!
DLT
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
