[MD] Chan and qi

[Dwaipayan Lahiri]

Hi Heather,
>
>      I'm sure they will help.
>

Thanks...

>
>      [Dwai]
> I think it's very important to emphasize the point
> that people don't "Realize" anything (at least not in
> the spiritual realm) intellectually. This realization
> has to transcend intellect (at the very least in the
> written form or as is commonly understood these days),
> since intellect is an artificial construct (based on
> syntax that is artificial).
>
>
>     How do you "realize anything" even in the
> "spiritual realm", or maybe you don't accept a
> "spiritual realm"?  What is a spiritual realm anyways?
>

I guess this takes us back to syntax again. By spiritual realm I mean  
that recess of our Consciousness that reinforces the Unity of All  
Reality and reveals the true nature of existence. Have I found it?  
No. But I do know on an experiential basis, and via intuition that  
such a realm exists. I guess, per my definition, the Spiritual realm  
could be corresponded to the Dynamic Quality of Pirsig's framework.  
This is not anything extraneous. I can quote the Advaitin and say  
that ultimately there is no difference between me and Brahman (or the  
Taoist and say we merge with the Tao), but that has not become a  
realization yet...only intuitive glimses exist (for all of us, at  
various levels).

MoQ, imho, stops at the transcendence of SOM. It doesn't address what  
should naturally follow (perhaps due to Mr. Pirsig's own background  
in Western Philosophy?)...addressing what has been an almost  
exclusive topic of "Oriental" philosophy. The Material/Consciousness  
divide is the primary culprit here, I believe.

I have an old essay I had written on this subject --

http://medhajournal.com/content/view/101/80/

For those of you who might have read a few other links I posted,  
Rudra is my "Ghost-name", an obeisance to the namesake.

>      I would agree that the intellect is only one part
> of this world, and that's why I refer to myself as a
> tiny skull.  The universe can't fit in this tiny skull
> of mine.
>

So does that lend itself to the assumption that there is a Big skull  
somewhere? Where does that exist?

>      Yes, a much fuller practice of experience is on
> all levels.

True. The more esoteric the subject, the more experiential it has to be.

Warm Regards,

Dwai