[MD] The Oriental intellect(ual) level

[Khoo Hock Aun]

Akshay and Bo,

Excuse me my intervention at this point - but arent we going MOQ-centric
about the whole thing. The whole universe and the whole damn thing is not
just about the MOQ and how the various levels explain its workings !

Bo I dare say you have latched on to the centricity of the MOQ in the
absence of dynamic appreciation and try try as much as you do to explain
everything else in its terms. The Upanishads were a time on to themselves,
so were the Mayans and the aboriginals of Australia.  What irks me is the
attempt to place a classification of intellectualism on a whole philosophy !
Arrogance ?  I dare think so.

As far as causality, who are we to say that Greek philosophy is traced from
Indian Philosophy or vice versa. If your worldview is static and that time
is a straight line then maybe. But picture this - that pockets of
enlightened consciousness emerge across time and space inter-related and
inter -causal all at the same time, neither one instance responsible for the
other - but happening at the same time and not happening at all.

>From the Eastern/Oriental worldview, Western/Greek philosophy is only one
variant of a worldview localised by time and space, not to be pinned down to
a sub-section of a sub-section as Aristotle was wont to do. It could be
called by any other name - and it would not make an iota of a difference.

But you western oriented gentlemen (wogs) all - by these I dont mean race
nor religion - but by philosophical underpinning - the urge to divide and
classify - is just too strong is it not ?

Best Regards
Khoo Hock Aun

On 11/11/07, skutvik at online.no <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
>
> Hi Akshay
>
> On 8 Nov. you wrote in response to (Pirsig's) question
>
> > 1. In relation to whether Upanishadic philosophy can be classified as
> > "intellectual" or not:
>
> > The answer is "to a certain extent". In Hindu tradition, the mind is
> often
> > grouped along with the five senses, and so the (mystic's) goal is to not
> > only still the senses but also the mind, which means the very thought
> > patterns. However, this absolute inhibition of the senses is a
> peculiarly
> > Hindu idea (or so it seems to me) and this lacuna exists in that the
> Vedic
> > tradition considers the senses and the mind more as a tool rather than
> an
> > enemy. So, the important thing to understand here is that *thought is
> only
> > a tool*, just as sight is a tool, because without the faculty of sight,
> my
> > conceptions of the world would be way different. The ultimate goal is to
> > realise Purusha (according to the Samkhya school) or Brahman (according
> to
> > the Vedanta schools).
>
> Since we are here to the discuss Pirsig's Quality Metaphysics the
> question really is whether - in a MOQ context - the Upanishadic can be
> classified as intellectual. If you have noticed my assertion that the
> MIND interpretation of the 4th level is wrong, your will understand that
> your reaction to (questions about intellect) as MIND or THOUGHT
> PATTERNS is irrelevant .. IMO.
>
> > Hence, if I am permitted to make such an addition to the MoQ,
> Upanishadic
> > philosophy seems to transcend the intellectual patterns of SQ into the
> > "spiritual patterns of SQ". In fact, in the Katha Upanishad, five levels
> > are mentioned: objects, senses, mind, intellect, self. (
> > http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15012.htm).
>
> All this may be interesting for one studying Indian philosophy but it
> becomes - as said - irrelevant regarding the MOQ.
>
> > 2. Relation between Upanishadic wisdom and Greek thought:
>
> > To tell you frankly, the entire Greek tradition of philosophy is
> directly
> > derived from the Vedic tradition. Of course, modern historians like to
> say
> > that it was the Proto-Indo-European religion that is the true mother of
> > all religions, however, the more we discover about the Vedic way of
> life,
> > the more we come to agree that it indeed is the true religion (refer to
> > works by Subhash Kak, David Frawley, Vivekananda). The first record of
> the
> > speed of light (Sayanacharya's commentary on the Vedas), the best
> > meditation and medication system (Ayurveda and Yoga), the first book on
> > air transport (Vimana shastra), myriad instances of futuristic thoughts
> > (eg., idea of cloning in the Mahabharata)... and this is not even the
> tip
> > of the iceberg. What's Greek thought's greatness compared to that?
>
> It reminds me of the Soviet system where all inventions had a Russian
> counterpart or were anticipated by one. Regarding the Greeks it's not
> so much "greatness" as the birthplace of the idea of TRUTH, that
> there exists an objective, inert, reality independent of what people
> think about it, and I had hoped that you would see some similarity to it
> in the said Upanishads period, instead of claiming that the previous
> Vedic tradition was the origin of modern science. Make one more try ...
> after having read Pirsig's works
>
> Till then thanks
>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>



-- 


khoohockaun at gmail.com
6016-301 4079