[MD] dharma, the way, zazen, path, the morning fog, etc...

[kgt83dr at yahoo.com]

Hello dmb.  Thank you for posting a thoughtful and lucid response.
  
It's early here in Southeast Pennsylvania; 4:45am.  And I have my first cup of
coffee in hand.  MTB season is in full swing (off road biking for those of us
with no mountains to call home).  Today it's the trails on the north side of the
Schuylkill River in Valley Forge.  We meet at 3:00pm.  That's a long way of
saying I need to be offline in 30 minutes.
  
It appears you and I have found common ground in our understanding of the
three areas of human experience.  But I see you disagree with my handling
of the relationship between mysticism and DQ and in how I distinquish mind
and heart.  That's fair.
  
Let me elaborate.  I'll start with the two quotes you cited from Lila, page 30.
  
     "The MOQ associates religious mysticism with Dynamic Quality but it
     would certainly be a mistake to think that the MOQ endorses the static
     beliefs of any particular religious sect. Phaedrus thought sectarian religion
     was a static social fallout of DQ and that while some sects had fallen less
     than others, none of them told the whole truth."
  
     "He thought about how once this integration occurs and DQ is identified
     with religious mysticism it produces an avalanche of information as to
     what Dynamic Quality is. A lot of this relgious mysticism is just low-grade
     "yelping about God" of course, but if you search for the sources of it and
     don't take the yelps too literally a lot of interesting things turn up."
  
Yes.  I agree with both of these.  That is, I'd say both support my contention
that mysticism is not DQ, that "Mysticism and mystical experiences,
because they have meaning, are within some SQ framework."  And that "DQ
apart from some SQ framework is meaningless."
  
The following is on page 63 of my edition of Lila.
  
     The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called
     "Quality" in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality
     doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of
     definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to
     intellectual abstractions.
  
Within this context, "the central reality of mysticism," I'd say "You
understand [Quality] without definition, ahead of definition" is inconsistent with
the Metaphysics of Quality in the sense that to understand something is to
assign meaning to it.  If Pirsig were to change this one word, "understand" to
"experience" then I'd have no problem with the statement.
  
I guess what I'm saying is that Budhists experience the "central reality of mysticism" and call it the Buddha or the nothing.  Christian mystics experience the same thing and call it resting in the arms of God or some such
thing.  Each has his or her own context.  To say that one can have a peak
experience of this kind and yet assign no meaning to invalidate the
experience, in my opinion.
  
Interesting that you would share the name of Scott's bong.  I don't indulge
anymore.  But I have read the book, "The Cloud of Unknowing."  I see
someone in my house has pulled it from the shelves.  Certainly not my son.
At 24, he's at the stage where rugged individualism is king.  I was too at that
point in my life.  I should re-read that one.  I will help my preparation of a talk
on prayer I'll be giving next month.
  
Gotta go.
   
  
Kevin Perez
   

		
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.