[MD] Wisdom

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Dan, in reflection of our last conversation i took the effort
>
> to re-read some of huxley's Perennial, to tune in on some things we
>
> spoke of, and thing you coined in the following posts
> Made a little comment for you, if you like the perennial to have, i
>
> have the pdf,if you like it for further investigation, it is a
>
> difficult work, very diffracted summarised, but filled with
>
> quality.

Hi Adrie

Yes, I would like a copy, please.

>
>
> Aldous Huxley quoting Chuang Tzu in the perennial philosophy
>
> "Do not ask wether the principle is in this or that; it is in all
>
> beings.It is on this account that we apply to it the epithets of
>
> supreme, universal , total...It has ordained that all things should
> be limited, but is itself unlimited, infinite.
> As to what pertains to manifestation, the principle causes the
>
> succession of its phases, but is not this succession.
> It is the author of causes and effects. It is the author of
>
> condensations and dissipations.
> (Birth and death, changes of states), but is not itself
> condensations and dissipations. All proceeds from it and is under
>
> its influence.
> It is in all things, but is not identical with beings,
> for it is neither differentiated nor limited"-end Chuang Tzu.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * does this ring a bell , Dan? it should.(adrie)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------

Dan:

Yes it does ring a bell, you're right.

>
> But it gets better if you take this in consideration,
> Mr Pirsig in the copl' annotations.
>
> quote Pirsig(out of context)
> "So It has really been a shock to see how close Bradley is to the
>
> MOQ. Both he and the MOQ are expressing what Aldous Huxley called
>
> "The Perennial Philosophy," which is perennial, I believe, because
>
> it happens to be true. Bradley has given an excellent description
>
> of what the MOQ calls Dynamic Quality and an excellent rational
>
> justification for its intellectual acceptance.  It and the MOQ can
>
> be spliced together with no difficulty into a broader explanation
>
> of the same thing.
>
> *(It and the moq can be spliced together etc, incredibly
>
> important.)Adrie
>
> Chuang Tzu , in his this or that approach, is deviating from the
>
> negative negation, not this , not that-neti-neti, negative
>
> theology.
>
> Tzu is pointing out towards "this, that", "all off it at the same
>
> time"
> dynamic quality, neither differentiated nor limited,
> he is saying undefinable and infinite definable at the same time
>
> Pirsig did the same, deviating away from the negative negation.
> Its all pointing out towards the given fact, that there is no need
>
> for a bridge between the East and West, because there is no gap
> between them, not in the moq, in this context.

Dan:
Right... in the context of the MOQ there is no gap.

Thank you, Adrie, for your thoughtful response,

Dan


> greetz, Adrie
>
>
>
> 2010/10/17 Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>
>
>> "What is the wisdom contained in the Upanishads? To answer, I must say
>> something about the word Upanishad. The Sanskrit roots mean "sit down
>> near" - Upanishadic wisdom is the sort that you might get by sitting
>> down near your guru or spiritual master and engaging in a dialogue. It
>> is quite distinct from the sort of wisdom that you might get by a
>> detached pursuit of truth for truth's sake, and it is miles apart from
>> the knowledge that you gain when your objective is a course grade or
>> some other credential.
>>
>> "Moreover, the Upanishadic wisdom obtained through intense interaction
>> with a guru is not quite the same as that attained simply by a careful
>> reading of the Upanishads. An intellectual attempt that is not also a
>> spiritual search can get no further than a surface hold on Upanishadic
>> truth. Upanishadic wisdom is, in the last analysis, something that
>> needs to be recognized nonconceptually. Hence, I cannot pretend to be
>> transmitting Upanishadic wisdom to you. What I aim to do is simply
>> explain the concepts that might provide the intellectual bearings for
>> a spiritual search that eventually does away with the need for
>> intellectual bearings." [Guidebook to ZMM]
>>
>> Dan comments:
>>
>> When a person's intellectual cup of tea is full to the brim, there is
>> no room to form a Dynamic understanding that does away with the need
>> for intellectual tea. All they have a taste for is intellectualism.
>> They want to talk instead of listen... they want to shout out how much
>> they know and how smart they are for knowing it... they tend to
>> denigrate those who make any attempt to shock them out of the
>> intellectual malaise in which they have unwittingly become ensnared.
>>
>> "To get an idea of Upanishadic truth, you need to have some
>> understanding of two key concepts, "Brahman" and "Atman." The word
>> Brahman comes from the Sanskrit root that means "to grow." The
>> Upanishadic thinkers used this word to refer to the source of all
>> beings, that from which everything in the universe grows. Brahman is
>> thus a creator of sorts, but not like our Western God, who creates out
>> of nothing a world that is distinct from God. Brahman grows into or
>> becomes the many things of the world. At the same time, Brahman is not
>> exhausted by the world of things but remains its own reality, which is
>> true reality. One must not reduce Brahman to the many things that
>> Brahman somehow becomes; rather, the many are to be reduced to
>> Brahman.
>>
>> "The Upanishads are filled with stories in which spiritual masters
>> enjoin spiritual seekers to peel away the layers of the universe in
>> order to discover the subtle essence of all. This discovery, which is
>> to be prized beyond all else, is not attainable through ordinary ways
>> of knowing, for ordinary perceptual/conceptual knowledge is geared
>> toward marking off qualities from other qualities and objects from
>> other objects, while Brahman is neither a particular object nor a
>> particular quality but that which underlies all objects and qualities,
>> the unqualified ground, the Pure Object. No wonder, then, that it is
>> spoken of as "that from which words and thought return without having
>> attained it" (Taittiriya Upanishad, Ch. II, sect. 4, 1.1).
>> Nonetheless, although concepts cannot get a hold on Brahman, they can
>> be used !o point the way toward it. The Upanishads are full of
>> analogies that are meant to provide a notion of Brahman (e.g., the
>> salt that pervades the water and is in our awareness without itself
>> being an object of direct perception). And lest seekers confuse the
>> analogy with the reality, they are continually reminded that Brahman
>> is neti, neti, "not this, not this." Analogies and negations do not
>> attain the goal but they at least mark off a path from which seekers
>> will eventually leap into transcendental consciousness." [ibid.]
>>
>> Dan comments:
>>
>> Dynamic Quality of the MOQ is not the same as the concept of God. It
>> is Pure Quality or the Pure Object Brahman. We can point to it
>> intellectually and via analogy but never gain a grasp on it
>> conceptually. It is not this, not that.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Dan
>> 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
> 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
>