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

[kgt83dr at yahoo.com]

Hello SA,
  
<snip>
  
>     Kevin said:  "I make a distinction between mind
> and heart.  As I said, I see science and philosophy,
> because of their insistence on logical reasoning, in
> the realm of the mind.  And I see art and religion in
> the realm of the heart.  It's these distinctions that
> are the basis for my saying that the Metaphysics of
> Quality appears to be incomplete."
> 
>     I thought your definition of intellect joins
> heart and mind together as one.  Your definition is
> from Pirsig as follows:
> 
>     "The first step down from Phædrus' statement that
> "Quality is the Buddha" is a statement that such an
> assertion, if true, provides a rational basis for a
> unification of three areas of human experience which
> are now disunified.  These three areas are Religion,
> Art and Science.  If it can be shown that Quality is
> the central term of all three, and that this Quality
> is not of many kinds but of one kind only, then it
> follows that the three disunified areas have a basis
> for introconversion."
> 
>     Why are you saying heart and mind are separate
> when you said earlier they are not separate, and I
> quote you from above, "...if true, provides a rational
> basis for a unification of three areas of human
> experience which are now disunified."
  
Sorry for creating confusion.  I quoted Pirsig to identify the source of the idea that
Relgion, Art and Science are three areas of human experience.  I believe I
referred to them as primary areas of human experience.  When I said, "[...] 
  science and philosophy are the limits of what the human intellect is capable of 
  producing [...] problem is they're not very useful for answering questions about 
  faith, hope, love, forgiveness and mercy.  People have traditionally turned to art 
  and religion for answers to these questions." I was thinking of Pirsig's comment
in ZMM.
  
> From what I
> understand the "if true" leaves the middle way open.
> What I mean by this is it is up to you, me, and
> everybody else to decide if an experience on this
> earth is better if we think heart and mind is separate
> or we could think heart and mind are together.  We
> could think either way and decide for ourselves which
> one has the better quality of life.  I go for the
> oneness of life.  Personally I believe G-d and I are
> one.
  
Same here...but different...maybe.  Let me know what you think.
  
I believe the spirit of God dwells in everyone and that we are separate persons.
I am not God and God is not me in the same way that you and I are not each
other.  But through our communications (these email messages to MD) we can
maintain a relationship.  It's through the relationship that we learn about each
other.  It's through our interactions that we find meaning in one another and in
ourselves.  In this same way I maintain a relationship with the God that is within
me, which is the same God that transcends me; the source of all creation.  And
it takes effort.  Which is to say it takes faith and love and prayer.  And this is a
callenge because anything that takes effort has to deal with the ego.  Fifty-one
years of life has taught me that my ego is only concerned with itself.  It could
care less about you or God or relationships or anything or anyone else.  But it's
a part of me, a big part.  And I have come to love it.  I just don't let it occupy the
driver's seat so often; an effort that is mostly about letting go, the toughest thing
you'll never do.
  
What brought me up short Monday night was a confluence of thoughts and
feelings that helped me see in a very real way that my entire life is prayer.  I've
understood this for some time.  But Monday night it really hit home.  So I needed
to step back and relect on this.
  
It occurs to me that my participation in this forum may be more mere dancing
around the edges that really getting at the heart of what's important.  And that
bothers me because what's important to me is people and life, not what I think
about people and life.
  
> I use G-d as a term that explains for me where
> everything or how everything came to be, because I
> know that I did not put trees here or make my wife.  I
> point at something else, another factor comes into
> play for me that did all of this.  Many names are
> given, and I believe DQ is another name for the
> creative quality of this universe.  Some others call
> this unexplainable aspect of life the Great Spirit.
> For me, it is better to understand the meaning and
> have an understanding to what this unexplainable
> 'DQ'/Great Spirit (Many Amerindians)/Great Mystery
> (Plains Amerindians)/G-d/Jehovah/Allah/the Great Bear
> (I don't know I made this last one up)... to have
> understanding what these I have just mentioned are
> inclined to do as mentioned and comprehended via SQ.
> {I am well aware that some of those Amerindians names
> are English words and therefore to learn more about
> what these cultures believe or how they define their
> DQ would be even more helpful on my part.  I have
> researched quite a bit of these cultures
> understandings and have been a student of their
> religions for some years and the Great Mystery is one
> term that I have heard some of the Amerindians
> themselves use to describe the Creator.]
>     What do I mean in 'inclined to do, mean, and be
> understood as' well, for instance, what does Jehovah
> mean or G-d mean?  When I try to give meaning and
> describe these, they are in much of the same line of
> thinking used to give meaning and describe Quality.
> Descriptive words are possible, but giving a definite
> meaning that is not endless in its' understanding or
> meaning or actions would mimic Quality, especially due
> to the DQ aspect of Quality.  Yet, just as Quality
> could be described and meaning given and even its'
> actions we have the SQ side to these endless
> understandings.
>     Notice how this all jumbles together for me when
> the Buddha reality is used, the Zen reality is used,
> the Christ reality is used, why is this so?  I think
> it is due to their universality of meanings and
> understandings in what they are trying to describe
> just expressed using different words because everybody
> around the world has different languages due to
> geographically distribution, etc...
>     An understanding that goes into the 'oneness' or
> 'universality' will be talking the dharma (universal
> teaching).  If their is enough wisdom in how any one
> people understand this 'oneness' that exists, then
> their knowledge will be in step with their actions.
> Yet, any one people (a society) needs to have enough
> wisdom to see the actions take place in their
> community.  The more any society diverges from the
> 'oneness' the more separate their knowledge and
> actions will be.  Their knowledge and actions will get
> so far from each other that soon they could be doing
> something and not even know what they are doing, or
> they could know about something but not know enough to
> actually put into action what they know - these two
> are separations of knowledge and action, which if they
> (knowledge and action) were together on course with
> the 'oneness' then we would notice wisdom.  This
> 'course' is a path, a way that any one person or
> society could walk upon or experience.
  
Well said.  Very well said.  Thank you again for sharing this.
   
> Thanks Kevin, I am enjoying the quality time we are
> taking in order to discover or rediscover something
> about this life on earth that is both meaningful and
> valuable to me.
  
Thank YOU!
   
> SA
> 
> P.S. I understand that there are some aetheist in the
> MOQ.org, and those that understand me, know that I am
> not trying to tread upon or disrupt your way of life.
> Thanks.
  
Interesting.  On the contrary, you are helping me to see my faith more clearly.
I hope to express, just as well, a respect for other people's faith (a la Fowler).
  
Thanks again.
   
  
Kevin

		
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.