[MD] Some Abominable Beliefs-Part 2

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] Some Abominable Beliefs-Part 2
>Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:03:13 -0400
>
>
>We are once again at this sticking point over mysticism versus theism 
>versus
>materialism. Here is my problem and if you can help me out with it I would
>be grateful. I read ZMM shortly after it was published and have read it at
>least twice since. I have read Lila six or eight times. I just don't think
>it is about mysticism and was very disappointed in joining these forums to
>find out that this is the received view. What incarnation of mysticism are
>we talking about here? Dan seems to espouse a kind of orthodox Hinduism 
>were
>the illusion is all and there is nothing outside it. Mark and gav talk 
>about
>oneness with the infinite which seems a bit more Buddhist. Which brand of
>philosophical mysticism is the MoQ alleged to favor?
>

Hi Case

I feel you have misunderstood both what I am saying (I honestly have no idea 
what orthodox Hinduism is) as well as what the MOQ is saying. From Dr. 
McWatt's PhD thesis:

Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the 
indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or 
static):

"In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and 
contingency belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by also 
saying that all things ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma or that 
within the heart of every conditioned entity (as its core, as its true 
essence, as its very real nature) there is the indeterminate dharma. While 
the one expresses the transcendence of the ultimate reality, the other 
speaks of its immanence. The one says that the ultimate reality is not an 
entity apart and wholly removed from the determinate, but is the real nature 
of the determinate itself."

Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types of truth; 
the ‘static’ conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and the ‘Dynamic’ ultimate 
truth (paramattha-sacca). (page 77)

Dan comments:

So, as I explained in a previous post, the world is real from a conventional 
(static quality) point of view. There is no such distinction from a Dynamic 
point of view. From your point of view, the world is real. From my point of 
view, the world is illusion. The MOQ would say we both are right. That's not 
to say one point of view isn't better than the other, however. It is. 
Dynamic Quality is what's better.

>The idea that theism does not offer up genuine mystical experience seems
>just wrong to me. While there are the Sufis and the Kabbalists out there, I
>am more familiar with garden variety holy rollers. They are grounded in
>having members experience a personal relationship with the infinite.
>Speaking in tongues, faith healing and handling snakes are direct personal
>mystical experiences. Theology aside, what makes this different from
>philosophical mysticism in terms of its experiential Quality? Practitioners
>of these arts will say their beliefs are confirmed by direct experience and
>they will invite you share in these experiences.

I think you'll find that Robert Pirsig discusses this in LILA. Having read 
it 6 or 8 times I shouldn't have to tell you where, right?

>
>While you have expressed one meaning of Lao Tzu's opening words I don't
>think that is the only reading. Taoism holds that the fundamental Quality 
>of
>the world is change. We can not name something because what we have named
>has ceased to exist and is now something else. This is Heraclitus on
>steroids. I see Taoism as metaphysical but not necessarily mystical. I have
>never regarded Pirsig's work as being especially mystical. Everything he
>says has a common sense everyday meaning. Values are Quantities as well as
>Qualities. Static and Dynamic are Yin and Yang, wave and particle, 
>certainty
>and uncertainty... But I ramble. What I am looking for is a clearer
>statement of why you think Pirsig is to be read as mysticism rather than
>metaphysics.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. I find it disheartening to 
spend so much time working up these posts only to be ignored.

>
>
>Case concluded:
>I choose to value materialism and I choose to devalue theism and mysticism.

I know. But, hopefully, you're young and have time yet to cultivate wisdom.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan