[MD] Wisdom

[Dan Glover]

Hi Adrie, I received the copy... many thanks, Dan

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:00 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Dan, I will drop a copy in your mailbox.Hope you like it, superb
> material in it.
> sorry for the condensed mail (this previous post , but my time was very
> short)
> greetzz, Adrie
>
> 2010/10/18 Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>
>
>> 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
>> >
>> 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
>