[MD] Step One

[118]

Hi Dan,

Dan (previously):

I think Mr. Pirsig tells Anthony McWatt that LILA was originally
conceived as a case study of what is known as Joshu's koan: A monk
asks: "Does a dog have Buddha nature, or not?" Chao-chou replied: "He
does not." Yet according to Buddhist teachings, everything has Buddha
nature. Over the centuries, many scholars have debated why, if all
insentient and sentient beings have Buddha nature, a dog would not. It
is the same with LILA. When confronted by Rigel on whether Lila
Blewitt has quality, Phaedrus automatically says: Yes! So in a sense,
he is contradicting the given answer to the koan.
 If you say yes, you are damned. If you say no, then the Buddhist
belief that everything has Buddha nature is wrong. So throughout LILA,
Phaedrus argues one way and then another. Yes, Lila has quality. No,
quality has Lila. And this is the great insight that Mr. Pirsig
offers, which basically turns the koan on its head and shocks us into
seeing quality in a different light.

Mark (in humble response):
I think you are mistaken.  Buddhist teachings do not say that everything has
Buddha nature.  The accepted answer to the question above is "woof".  So if
this is what Pirsig is basing his book on, it is misleading.  When Phaedrus
says "yes", he is not contradicting anything, he is ascribing value.  Buddha
himself would not say he has Buddha nature, since such a thing does not
exist in and of itself.  Perhaps Phaedrus is assigning inherent existence,
as Quality, to Lila, but I do not think so.  He is personifying Quality as
it exists within and is displayed without.  This then leads to an
understanding of Quality, as described through narrative, as something
expressive not passive.

I find this superficial attachment of philosophies to ascribe validity to
Quality to be insufficient.  Of course what you state is an opinion;
however, interpreting the opinion of another as fact is not productive.  I
understand the need for historical perspective to provide understanding, but
what you provide is a broken chain.  The connections with Tao or Buddhism
are tenuous and not well thought out.  Zen is an art just like motorcycle
maintenance.  There are many similarities which help understand the basis of
each.  Buddha nature is a Quality.  It is used as an adjective to describe,
not to encompass.  It is quite possible (in my opinion) to express Quality
without containing it.

Cheers,
Mark

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ADRIE KINTZIGER aan moq_discuss
> > details weergeven 10:22 (8 uren geleden)
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this one, Dan, so true,----"Dan:
> >
> > This discussion is centered around the MOQ. I write stories myself and
> > share them from time to time with the group but it is my hope that
> > others may see the value there and how it pertains to the MOQ. I am
> > not an autobiographer. And I realize someone reading my stories may
> > not understand that, just as someone reading Robert Pirsig's writings
> > may take a lot of what he writes as truth. I recall Mary getting upset
> > that he would have an affair with a bar lady while he was still
> > married. And yet he told me himself that he was Lila, and the boat,
> > and the rest of the story as well. That's what I am driving at. You
> > are the story. How does your life pertain the MOQ.  You. Not the
> > people or places in your life. Do you see what I mean? I know I am
> > explaining myself poorly but it is a difficult subject."
> >
> >
> > What a pearl,what a force, "you are the story"
> > Yes! perfect.
> > thanks
> >
> > 2010/10/16 Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>
> > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijke bericht weergeven -
> >
> >
> >
> > Coming back for now, this moment , having some more spare time and needed
> to
> > read back the conversations, i came to
> > think of it as this, ..
> > "LILA" is a mirrorimage of ourselves, if we are reading LILA, we are
> looking
> > into the mirror, asking ourselves, do we have
> > quality,? Do i have quality?, so the question is not ' does lila...etc,
> 'no,
> > the question is , do we have...etc.
> > And in this optic, Pirsig and his LILA are teaching quality, dhyana,
> dynamic
> > quality,...by not teaching it at all, the teaching
> > is the part in the mirror, look at yourself to find the answer on the
> > projected question.
> > The mirror is reflecting every one of us, every proces, every value, to
> be
> > examined by ourselves,about ourselves.
> > So he is teaching quality after all, nothing else,by not teaching
> quality,
> > but Virtue, to examine ourselves,...making this our goal.
>
> Hi Adrie
>
> Yes that is a great way of looking at LILA. It is the more difficult
> of Robert Pirsig's 2 books which is why I think this discussion group
> is still going strong after some 13 years. There are so many levels
> within the story and of course a metaphysics must contain everything
> in order to do what it's meant.
>
> >
> > The mirror is showing all our patterns, the value's, the preferences.So
> we
> > can answer the question, does LILA has quality,...
>
> Dan:
>
> I think Mr. Pirsig tells Anthony McWatt that LILA was originally
> conceived as a case study of what is known as Joshu's koan: A monk
> asks: "Does a dog have Buddha nature, or not?" Chao-chou replied: "He
> does not." Yet according to Buddhist teachings, everything has Buddha
> nature. Over the centuries, many scholars have debated why, if all
> insentient and sentient beings have Buddha nature, a dog would not. It
> is the same with LILA. When confronted by Rigel on whether Lila
> Blewitt has quality, Phaedrus automatically says: Yes! So in a sense,
> he is contradicting the given answer to the koan.
>  If you say yes, you are damned. If you say no, then the Buddhist
> belief that everything has Buddha nature is wrong. So throughout LILA,
> Phaedrus argues one way and then another. Yes, Lila has quality. No,
> quality has Lila. And this is the great insight that Mr. Pirsig
> offers, which basically turns the koan on its head and shocks us into
> seeing quality in a different light.
>
>
> >
> > The answer was always there, "we" have quality, "we" have patterns of
> value,
> > "we" are the patterns, the value's, the rocks
> > the water, the ocean's ,the air, we are Dhyana, virtue and value, zen and
> > science at the same time.
>
> Dan:
> The answer is there, yes. We don't have value. Value has us!
>
> >
> > So , in reflection of the letter you presented , Dan, I think my opinion
> is
> > about this.
> > At least some aspects of quality can be teached, framed, captioned, by
> > teaching people to ask the right questions,writinr> the secrets of the
> words, unrevealing their quality, embedded within the
> > question to project at ourselves.
> > But of course, not all aspects of quality can be halted to study, or to
> > study ourselves, its impossible to hold the ocean
> > in the palm of your hand.....or the moon, or gravity, nor they , (the
> > patterns) can be ignored, no matter how hard you ignore the ocean,
> > gravity, or quality, it will not leave,it cannot leave. It can never
> leave
> > us.
>
> Dan:
> Exactly! The Eastern way is to go inward. The Western way is to go
> outward. By marrying the two, the MOQ expands on both the
> irrationality of the East and the rationality of the West.
>
> >
> >
> > To make some reflections on your considerations about LILA'S CHILD, and
> the
> > work you performed on the material that was avaliable
> > -Have to say this, The work, the importance, the biggest importance for
> me
> > is that you did it without contaminating the material,
> > without trailering along with it to induce a widget of your own, a niche,
> a
> > product or a remark, You left everything in its value's
> > At the same time, you studied the availiable material so intensively,
> that
> > you became one with the value's, the projected and embedded virtue....,
> yes
> > , the light my literary friend, you became aware of the light, the light
> of
> > EL GRECO in the painting, he did not need to paint it after all.
> > He expirienced it.
> > He was one with it, as Pirsig is writing.---stunning beauty, framed
> forever.
> > It was there all the time.
>
> Dan:
> Well, in a sense I couldn't do the work without contaminating it. I am
> not sure that I understood that at the time. The founder of the Lila
> Squad became quite furious with me at the time and refused permission
> to use her work. Over the years, I see better now what she was saying
> at the time, even though I still don't agree with her. I think
> Marsha's objection to LILA'S CHILD has merit as well, though again, I
> am not sure how to overcome such a quandary. It is what it is.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > So yes , the letter you shared is of importance, at least some aspects of
> > quality can be teached , by looking into the mirror.
> > Thank for your appearances , Dan.
>
> Dan:
> You are welcome, Adrie. And thank you too. It is always a pleasure to
> read your posts.
>
> Dan
>
> >
> > greetzz, Adrie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2010/10/16 ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>
> >
> >> Thanks for sharing this one, Dan, so true,----"Dan:
> >>
> >> This discussion is centered around the MOQ. I write stories myself and
> >> share them from time to time with the group but it is my hope that
> >> others may see the value there and how it pertains to the MOQ. I am
> >> not an autobiographer. And I realize someone reading my stories may
> >> not understand that, just as someone reading Robert Pirsig's writings
> >> may take a lot of what he writes as truth. I recall Mary getting upset
> >> that he would have an affair with a bar lady while he was still
> >> married. And yet he told me himself that he was Lila, and the boat,
> >> and the rest of the story as well. That's what I am driving at. You
> >> are the story. How does your life pertain the MOQ.  You. Not the
> >> people or places in your life. Do you see what I mean? I know I am
> >> explaining myself poorly but it is a difficult subject."
> >>
> >>
> >> What a pearl,what a force, "you are the story"
> >> Yes! perfect.
> >> thanks
> >>
> >> 2010/10/16 Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Hello everyone
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:38 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> > Hello Everyone,
> >>> >
> >>> > Dan:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Quite possible. But if your style is being a clown, then we have
> very
> >>> >> little to discuss. I tend to suffer fools poorly... that's my style.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> > Understood.  I've been certainly told many times in my life, "we have
> >>> very
> >>> > little to discuss" and I've believed it every time.  Takes two to
> tango
> >>> and
> >>> > some people aren't comfortable with my steps, rhythm or style.  No
> >>> problem.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> I enjoy humor so don't get me wrong... but there's a difference
> >>> between being humorous and being a clown. I enjoy our discussions very
> >>> much. Yet there are times when we have to peel back the onion (so to
> >>> speak) to get at a deeper meaning to the MOQ. And I tend to get the
> >>> impression that you're not so much interested in doing that as you
> >>> are... how do I put it... falling back to your own insights rather
> >>> than focusing on the discussion at hand. And I know we've been over
> >>> this before and it didn't go so well. I don't mean to say that I don't
> >>> want your insights. But I would prefer that you presented  them in
> >>> terms common to the MOQ. That way the discussion could move forward.
> >>> Sometimes I get the impression that you are looking to one-up Robert
> >>> Pirsig rather than understand what he is saying. And of course he can
> >>> be wrong. But still, it seems better to develop an understanding of
> >>> the MOQ first, which I cannot see that you have done.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> Dan:
> >>> >> No candles needed but a bit of reverence doesn't hurt.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> > I take everything seriously, nothing is sacred; I take nothing
> >>> seriously,
> >>> > everything is sacred.  Trite, but true.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> That's fine. But it's also only so much b.s.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >>   Climbing the mountain is tough enough.
> >>> >> >  Bearing great burdens will not help me climb.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Dan:
> >>> >> I guess that is where we differ. If as you say you're taking a
> serious
> >>> >> risk, then it seems to me it might behoove you to take thngs a bit
> >>> >> more seriously. Write like it's the last thing you will ever do, for
> >>> >> it just might be. Anything less is just cheating yourself, in my
> >>> >> opinion, of course.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > I appreciate your sharing your opinion, Dan.  Always.  Although, if
> as
> >>> you
> >>> > say, "we have little to discuss" because you don't like my style,
> it's
> >>> hard
> >>> > to figure out how any constructive criticism about my style can
> occur.
> >>>  For
> >>> > constructive criticism you need an open mind, right?
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Well, you are the one who clowns around. I don't care for that. So
> >>> yes, the discussion won't go far. I don't mean to criticize you one
> >>> way or the other. I only offer a possible solution to the impasse that
> >>> we seem to come to time and again.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > And I still don't quite get how anything like I've done, written,
> >>> > communicated, expressed - could be construed as anything BUT serious
> >>> when
> >>> > I'm carving out part of my life, from a whole list of obligations and
> >>> > committments, to empty myself of everything but devotion to this one
> >>> task.
> >>> > If that's not serious, then I have no idea what you mean by the term.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> This discussion is centered around the MOQ. I write stories myself and
> >>> share them from time to time with the group but it is my hope that
> >>> others may see the value there and how it pertains to the MOQ. I am
> >>> not an autobiographer. And I realize someone reading my stories may
> >>> not understand that, just as someone reading Robert Pirsig's writings
> >>> may take a lot of what he writes as truth. I recall Mary getting upset
> >>> that he would have an affair with a bar lady while he was still
> >>> married. And yet he told me himself that he was Lila, and the boat,
> >>> and the rest of the story as well. That's what I am driving at. You
> >>> are the story. How does your life pertain the MOQ.  You. Not the
> >>> people or places in your life. Do you see what I mean? I know I am
> >>> explaining myself poorly but it is a difficult subject.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > On the other hand, if you mean by irreverential, and you're talking
> >>> about my
> >>> > attitude toward holy bob, or whatever, then... got an askance glance
> at
> >>> you
> >>> > out of the corner of my eye, a sad shaking of the head and a slow
> >>> saunter
> >>> > away.  I got my standards too, and neither do I suffer fools or
> >>> foolishness
> >>> > without comment.
> >>> >
> >>> > Well, sometimes I do.  When it seems like a good idea.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>>
> >>> I don't believe in hero-worship. Still, I don't believe it is right to
> >>> disrespect people either. But that's just me. It is how my father
> >>> raised me.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >  Dan:
> >>> >> Phaedrus cared enough to take a holy journey but he didn't care
> enough
> >>> >> to realize what it was he was undertaking. That is my point, for
> what
> >>> >> it's worth.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm not so sure I completely agree with you (and him).  I mean, I
> know
> >>> it
> >>> > sounds silly to argue with the guy's own words on paper, but there
> are
> >>> > shortcut intellectualizations of deeper meanings that we can't or
> don't
> >>> have
> >>> > time to express, in all we do.  And giving up on the mountain has
> many,
> >>> many
> >>> > roots in the decision process.  For instance, some people spend their
> >>> whole
> >>> > lives dwelling in the alluvial plains and save up all their rupees
> for
> >>> just
> >>> > once an opportunity to look down on their own existence.  they value
> >>> > climbing the mountain in one way.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure what you mean by 'shortcut intellectualizations of
> >>> deeper meanings.' But let me try and tell you where I am coming from
> >>> and why I quoted that bit from ZMM on holiness. Take my work on LILA'S
> >>> CHILD as an example. Despite Marsha's sarcasm, I don't think anyone
> >>> who has not been through such an experience can appreciate the deeper
> >>> meaning of setting a goal so high that it is impossible to acheive and
> >>> then going ahead and acheiving it. Like Phaedrus and his holy quest...
> >>> he looked at it as an opportunity for personal growth and experience.
> >>> But that's not what it is about. The holy quest is about giving
> >>> oneself up entirely to something you neither understand nor know the
> >>> outcome. It is like Carlos Castenada jumping into the abyss so dark
> >>> and deep, having to gather the totality of himself without even
> >>> knowing what that is, and just letting go.
> >>>
> >>> There are no shortcuts to such an experience and one never knows when
> >>> such an opportunity will arise. Thinking about it only takes one
> >>> further away, not closer. So we seem to disagree on a very fundamental
> >>> level when it comes it holiness, which a person find a bit surprising
> >>> knowing you are the more religious of the two of us. But the holiness
> >>> that I speak of has nothing to do with religion. Perhaps it is like
> >>> reading about zen and practicing zen... something along those lines.
> >>> It seems many contributors here are well-read when it comes to Eastern
> >>> philosophy but few actually put that knowledge into practice. Zen
> >>> isn't something a person can read about. It just isn't. I don't care
> >>> how many books a person reads, they will never know about zen in an
> >>> intellectual way.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > But to an old cowboy from the continental divide?  Maybe not so much.
> >>> > Maybe, been there, done that, know what the view is from the top.  A
> lot
> >>> of
> >>> > small ponderings go into any question of why we value or choose what
> we
> >>> do.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > And for Phaerus in that time, the feeling of dislocation, the
> differing
> >>> > social and cultural supports produce a depressive state - the
> opposite
> >>> of
> >>> > "the home team advantage" and you sudden just don't care about
> climbing
> >>> > anymore.  Heck, happens to all of us.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Now see, you don't get it. It wasn't that he didn't care. He did. He
> >>> just didn't care in the right way. That kind of caring isn't something
> >>> one thinks about. One feels it deep down, as if life itself depended
> >>> on it.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > And some people stop climbing,  because the same value to be found at
> >>> the
> >>> > top of the mountain, can be found in the heart of the moment - no
> effort
> >>> > needed.  So why climb?
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> That I cannot answer for you. You have to answer that for yourself.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > What I'm saying is, there are lots of ways of "caring" that mattered
> >>> more
> >>> > than the many anonymous pilgrimages that have gone on for centuries
> and
> >>> made
> >>> > it back to the bottom, and died, and never wrote anything.  Caring
> >>> enough to
> >>> > take a holy journey, means you don't always know in advance where
> it's
> >>> gonna
> >>> > end, or what detours its gonna take.  That is my point, for what it
> is
> >>> > worth.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Life is a holy journey. That is what the pilgrimages are all about. No
> >>> one has to write about it or think about it or be told about it. And
> >>> of course no one knows what is going to happen in advance. That is our
> >>> Western way. The sun rises every day.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >>  Dan:
> >>> >> Maybe we are speaking past one another. In the quote above, there
> are
> >>> >> 4 'I's' and 2 'me's' so I suspect your hero is ego-climbing too. But
> >>> >> who knows?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> > Hmmm... ego climbing.  There is a sense in which "ego-climbing" could
> be
> >>> > said to be whole enchilada.  The evolution of consciousness from and
> >>> into
> >>> > the cosmos, assimilating patterns infinitely - an expanding self, the
> >>> ego-
> >>> > climbing to allness of being.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> No. Ego-climbing is personal gain. It is me, me, me.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Yeah, I can see how that could be a good thing.  But what comes with
> the
> >>> > connotation is social competition - like I'm higher than you so
> neener,
> >>> > neener, neener.  I'm more selfless than you are.  Sometimes, what is
> >>> there
> >>> > to do but laugh?
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> Exactly. But one doesn't have to tell anyone anything when it comes to
> >>> reverence. That is beyond social and intellectual values into Dynamic
> >>> realms.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > I'd prefer to think of our endeavors as a good thing.  An evolving
> >>> > understanding of ourselves and our world, where our ego-climb is also
> >>> > boosting those around us.  Not stomping on heads or fingers, but just
> >>> like
> >>> > real serious mountain climbing - roping and pitons and belays and
> >>> teamwork.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> As I said, there ain't no school and no one is giving out any grades.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > But hey, that's me, mr. idealist.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> Dan:
> >>> >> No. As he states, he is being logically foolish.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> > I think he's being logically rigorous about the way logic is a
> >>> foolishness
> >>> > that magically produces meaning, like a rabbit from a hat.  But
> >>> admittedly,
> >>> > my background is different, having read a great deal of him.  But it
> >>> comes
> >>> > in handy as a logical defense of foolishness, which I seriously
> thought
> >>> I
> >>> > might need but it's hard to say where this is going.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>> I would have to read more than just a few quotes, of course, and that
> >>> type of reading doesn't interest me at all. I'd never get through it
> >>> though. I am not a philosopher nor do I read it... unless I have
> >>> trouble sleeping, then it helps lull me.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Of course I am not sure... it was merely an observation. No need to
> >>> >> fall on your knife or anything.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> > Well I'm pretty sure its not going there!
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Dan:
> >>> >> Coyote the trickster often ends up tricking only himself, or so I
> >>> >> understand.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> > dude, you nailed it.  so many times and in oh so many different
> ways...
> >>>  but
> >>> > as long as it makes a good story, it's all worth it.  Chuckle and you
> >>> rhyme
> >>> > with the cosmic joke.
> >>>
> >>> Dan:
> >>>
> >>> Well, sure. In a certain context, I agree. But the story has to have
> >>> some value, some meaning. Otherwise it is just so much clowning around
> >>> and the joke is on you... in my opinion, of course,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > John
> >>> > 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/md/archives.html
> >>> >
> >>> 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/md/archives.html
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> parser
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > parser
> > 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/md/archives.html
> >
> 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/md/archives.html
>